littlefuzzy wrote:2099net, have you read any of the Irene Adler mysteries from Carole Nelson Douglas (she also writes the Midnight Louie mysteries.)
I personally feel that she did a great job with the Irene Adler character, and while the earlier books split from the Holmes stories, she does use Holmes a bit more in the later books...
I've heard that other writers have run with the Irene Adler character, some of them making her out to be one step above a whore patterned after Sarah Bernhardt, others having her marry Holmes (and their kid being Nero Wolfe, or someone like that...)
No I've not read any of them, but that's not my main point. There's nothing wrong with taking Irene Adler (or other characters) and writing more stories, with or without Holmes. I personally wanted Alan Moore to make her part of his League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. As I said, there's no point in getting worked up simply over characters being reinvented for different stories/times. For example, the BBC is doing a modern day Sherlock series starting this week, and I'm certain that the soon to be released
Tom and Jerry Meet Sherlock Holmes will rock!
However, I take offence that all of the publicity for the Richie Sherlock Holmes has basically lied about it's content. There will be people who, not being familiar with the originals, will think the film is an accurate copy of them. Which I think is wrong. This Adler has almost no relation to the Adler in the original canon, who, despite only appearing once has a greater legacy with Holmes than Moriarty (if we are to base a character's impact on mentions in other stories)!
Anyhow...
The Invention of Lying
I understand Gervais is generally a love him or hate him king of guy, and I'm not really going to change anyone's views with a short review on an internet forum; especially if you think Gervais is nothing but a smug bastard which is how he sometimes comes across (although I think this is simply him playing a "character" at awards shows and the like).
I enjoyed this film a lot, but I'm not unaware of its several logical flaws. If you think about the film too much, it all falls apart. For a start people don't just always tell the truth, but feel compelled to blurt out the truth for no reason. Yes, it makes for a few funny moments, but mostly it just doesn't work. The concept of a society where people tell only the truth, while far-fetched, could just about work. The same society where people unrestrained vocalise their thoughts, not so much. It's taking the fiction a little to far in what was always going to be a concept asking for viewers to withhold some of their disbelief.
The same is also true for the final act. If Gervais' character basically invented religion, where does the church come from where the marriage is going to take place? Was it just built? Did they have marriage before? Gervais' character mentions about not having sex before marriage, so its sort of implied they did, and I guess its implied the function was taken from the state to the religion as a result of Gervais' characters jealous attempt to stop Jennifer Garner from sleeping with Rob Low. But when viewing the film, it just seems wrong, as does several other incidents. The world building of a world with no lies just isn't consistent.
But its not really a film about a world with no lies. It's not really a comedy as such, more of a drama-comedy. There's some really quite moving moments in here, as Gervais continues to increasingly mix comedy with drama in his writings. I'm not sure if its an anti-religion or a pro-religion parable to be honest. While I think it clearly saying all organised religion is "made-up", it's not necessarily condemning organised religion. After all, this religion is created specifically to ease the suffering and worry of Gervais' mother, and the commandments he devises are all done so to make society and his world a better place. And yet, the religion he started does get out of hand. Ultimately, any religion is about faith, there are no absolutes. In a world where there is no lying, there can be no faith either.
How to Loose Friends and Alienate People
Now, I have never read any of Toby Young's writings, but he's a reasonably regular face on British TV these days often commenting on political or entertainment issues. And, boy, doesn't Simon Pegg as Sidney Young capture many of Toby's mannerisms?
Sadly, that seems to be all of Toby that the film does capture. Now, like I say, I've not read any of Toby's writings, including the memoirs the film is based on, but I know that in person, today, Toby has more teeth than this film did. And I would expect Toby to somewhat have mellowed with age.
This film just didn't seem to have the conviction of its satire - it never went far enough. It seemed to be content to do the odd poke and prod at the cult of celebrity, but never had the strength to outright attack it. I guess some of that could be down to certification considerations (but IMDB says it was already an R in the states, so I don't really see what they could loose by having a little more conviction).
Its an okay film I suppose, it moves along nicely, but I was constantly expecting more. Harder swipes at its targets, a little darker, blacker comedy, proper rants about how the media creates and kow-tows to celebrities. And I got nothing. Which makes the film a disappointment.
.
I found this to be better than the Scary Movie series. Julie Benz, Majandra Delfino, and Tiffani-Amber Thissen were great, as awlays. I laughed out a loud multiple times, lol.
