Log in

No account? Create an account
18 December 2011 @ 06:17 pm
Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows  
I have never come so close to walking out of a movie in my life. Seriously, if Ted hadn't been with me, I think I'd have been out of there in the first ten minutes. The reason why, full of spoilers, behind the cut. So is a fair bit of swearing.

It opened with Irene Adler. I thought, "Oh! I didn't know she was in this. I hope that doesn't mean they're going to kill her off."

Ten minutes later she was dead.

Let me be perfectly clear. I do not know if Irene Adler died that way in the books. I don't even know if Irene Alder is *in* the books. Even if she is and it's canon, I do not give a shit.

Yes, the threat to the Watsons would have been less credible if Irene had not died. Yes, it's entirely possible, given that this is Sherlock Holmes, that Irene is not actually dead. Let me repeat, in case you missed it: I don't give a shit.

I am *tired* of the smart clever appealing woman dying in the first ten minutes, or halfway through, because it makes for a more credible threat or because it didn't really happen or whatever the hell reason you want. I was *infuriated*. I *am* infuriated. *Fuck* that. Find somebody else to kill. Establish a credible threat by OH I DON'T KNOW BLOWING UP A NUMBER OF POLITICAL TARGETS OH WAIT THEY DID THAT TOO.

Ted said, "At least they got an emotional reaction out of you? ...not that walking out of the theatre is the emotional reaction they want..." Yeah, it's not, and neither is losing me before the introduction of the film is over, and believe me, they had lost me. They lost me *cold*. I found the movie mildly amusing. There were a couple of laugh-out-loud moments. RDJ and Jude Law make a great Holmes/Watson bromance. I love them together. I really do. But I could not get over them killing Irene Adler. I didn't warm up to the movie again until the *last* ten minutes, with the fall.

And that, to be fair, was so beautifully done--the moment between Holmes and Watson, the closing of the eyes, the silence, the stillness--it was perfect. It was perfect. And they won me back there, because it was so beautiful.

But I left the theatre with a bad taste in my mouth and I'm still pissed and what pisses me off even more is knowing I'll see the third one just in case they use it to say "Hah! Not dead after all!" and bring Irene back. *Fuck* this. Fuck them killing Irene and fuck them killing Letty and fuck them killing Ripley and just ARRRRRRRRGH. Fuck them *all*.
Current Mood: infuriatedinfuriated
Current Music: imelda may: johnny got a boom boom
Alix (Tersa): Fanon-Canon (x_jerseygirl)tersa on December 18th, 2011 06:34 pm (UTC)
I haven't watched the movie yet, buuuuuut...the idea that Adler dies? Fills me with happiness. I didn't like her in the original movie, and I did know she was going to be in Game of Shadows, from the commercials, and was groaning, "Oh, no, they brought her back?"

(ETA: IIRC, when the movie first dropped, I had a couple of friends of mine who are huge Holmes fans rolling their eyes that they made her into a love interest, because she's not in the books. And then after seeing the movie, I was pissed off at the filmmakers that they'd shoehorned her in as an LI. 'What, a smart, competent woman can't exist as a rival without a sexual/romantic element to it?' So, yeah. I'm glad they got rid of her because that IRKED ME.)

Mary Watson though? She, I like. I think she's far more interesting and intelligent than Adler. If she had gotten killed off instead of Adler (or is killed off), I will join you in the frothing corner.

(ETA: Also, I realize since you're irritated I did very little to help that. Sorry. :)

Edited at 2011-12-18 07:12 pm (UTC)
Lauratavella on December 18th, 2011 08:36 pm (UTC)
A) She's not particularly a love interest in the first movie; she flirts a bit, but she's a woman on a mission, not a love interest.

B) Mary Watson doesn't actually do anything in the movie; Adler has agency.

C) To the extent that Sherlock ever has anything approaching a love interest, it's Adler; Watson says "She was always *the* woman to him". Not that he does anything about it, what with her not being interested and his obsession with self-control and logic.
kitmizkit on December 18th, 2011 09:10 pm (UTC)
I don't particularly care for Rachel McAdams, and I thought she was remarkably poorly cast against RDJ, particularly as a love interest (people went to some trouble to tell me that she was more accurately portrayed as the appropriate age range WRT the books, and it's in fact RDJ who's too old, which doesn't negate McAdams being too young for RDJ), but it still fucking pissed me off that the only goddamned reason they put her in this movie at all was to kill her. *Fuck* that. It's like putting whoever the hell Katie Holmes's character is in Batman Begins back into The Dark Knight just to kill her off. I'm the only person on earth who liked Holmes better than Gyllenhal in that role, so I wasn't actually sorry to see the character die because I didn't like the portrayal, but it pissed me off that the only reason she was *there* was to die. Fuck. That. Shit.

(sorry. my vitriol is not at you. i've just apparently had it Up To Here all of a sudden. y'know?)
Amberleyamberley on December 18th, 2011 11:53 pm (UTC)
The Woman
If you go to see the third movie, you're only telling them they did the right thing in the second movie. It's OK to Just Say No.

Irene Adler is in the canonical books (in the terrific "A Scandal in Bohemia") and (spoiler!) does not die. She schools Holmes and goes on to a glorious and happy ending. Which is why she will always be "The Woman." It's collected in The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes at the Gutenberg Project, if you want to wash the taste of the film out of your memory with words.
pgwfolcpgwfolc on December 18th, 2011 08:05 pm (UTC)
They killed her off? Right away? That... Yeah. You said it better than I could.

She was great in the first movie. A much more interesting foil for Holmes than Moriarty. Much more fun, too.

It was just... so refreshing to have a well-written competent independent woman who was more than just a love interest or a damsel in distress. So what if the whole thing comes off as a sort of Batman/Catwoman thing? There's a reason Catwoman is the only Bat-villain to have her own monthly title.

As for canon, I know you said you didn't care. In the context of this post, there's no reason you should care. But if you like the character, you can find her in "A Scandal in Bohemia." It's the first story in The Adventures Of Sherlock Holmes. Been a while since I read it, but as I recall, she comes off rather well.
aberwyn on December 18th, 2011 08:25 pm (UTC)
Not only does she come off rather well in "Scandal", but Holmes has a soft spot in his heart for her ever after.
Lauratavella on December 18th, 2011 08:34 pm (UTC)
Yeah, that killed what little desire I had to see the movie. I wasn't that fond of the first one as it was, and I'm really tired of just how androcentric movies have gotten the last few years. So if you "kill of the female character to show how SERIOUS we are", yeah, I'll spend my money somewhere else.
stillsostrange on December 19th, 2011 12:26 am (UTC)
Thank you! I was so furious after that movie (I saved the fury for after the credits, just in case), but everyone else I know who's seen it loved it. I thought I'd stepped into an alternate dimension.
"MJ": SH ('Smirk')londongirl27 on December 19th, 2011 12:32 am (UTC)
I am going to bookmark this entry b/c I agree with you wholeheartedly. You basically mirrored my feelings with this:

I am *tired* of the smart clever appealing woman dying in the first ten minutes, or halfway through, because it makes for a more credible threat or because it didn't really happen or whatever the hell reason you want.

I mean, really...why bring her back for a short cameo role if this is all that you want to do with her, Ritchie? It's pointless. I heard early on that they were bringing her back for a little bit, but I didn't realize that this was the reason.

Like some others, I'm hoping that her death isn't all that it seems - that perhaps she's still alive some way, somehow. (That certainly would put an interesting twist on the next installment.) But in all honesty, I don't think I can bring myself to watch the third one unless I hear strong spoilers indicating that Irene Adler isn't really dead. Sure, it may sound silly to some, but you know what? I don't give a shit. I feel that strongly about Irene Adler, and that's all there is to it. *shrugs*
(Deleted comment)
cate_morgan: curseyoucate_morgan on December 19th, 2011 10:19 pm (UTC)
I haven't seen the movie, but I'm right there with you. I liked the character in the first movie. I thought, love interest or not, she's an excellent foil for Holmes.

But I'm tired, too. Why is it, when a character's only purpose in a movie is to die, it's almost always a woman? In fact, I can't think of a single instance when the character was a guy. I'm sure they exist, but I'm having a difficult time pinpointing one.

The other thing I'm tired of? "Strong" female characters showing their "strength" by being an out-and-out bee-yotch with nothing to temper the attitude. She's demanding, and loud, and obnoxious, and thinks only of herself, so she MUST be strong, right? She must be sympathetic and vulnerable because she's neeeeeeeeedy right? Wrong.

What about the smart, funny, endearing, resourceful women who remain calm in a crisis and put others first because there are bigger, more important things happening? The ones who hardly ever get the guy even when they very rightly should if there's any justice in the world, but continue to do the right thing anyway, even if it means giving up what they really want? (*cough* Heather in Jericho *cough*)

Mary Branscombemarypcb on January 6th, 2012 02:29 am (UTC)
it's even worse when you know Irene Adler the chracter written by Conan Doyle. Because she is smart, powerful and successful. She is in no shape or form a love interest. She is the woman who beats Holmes at his own game on every level - and wins and walks away. She is a real, full character. Oh, she happens to be a woman. To take that and distort her into standard Hollywood lust factor in a corset who can keep up with the mean until it's convenient to kill her off is, to me, more of an insult than killing the character as a way to add the depth the writing couldn't do on its own...