My Very Intelligent Friend really likes this movie. He believes “Mr. Holmes” is a worthy musing on old age and a welcome addition to the Sherlock Holmes stories.
The period detail, the look of the house and gardens and the bee plot all appeal to him.
I am unconvinced.
Heresy first: I don’t like Ian McKellen. He’s the man who ruined Gandalf and Magneto for me.
You probably believe he excretes rainbows. With sound and progressive views, Sir Ian has a great big presence. I just don’t get his (almost universal) appeal. Sorry.
Perhaps I have been comprehensively Cumberbatched.
Laura Linney plays the housekeeper to the Great Old Man and young rising star Milo Parker plays her precocious son, Roger. There is musing on old cases and the music, cinematography and costumes are all superb.
I was annoyed that Linney’s accent veered all over the place and I resented being told I was in Sussex when I was in Kent. When I go all fussbudget about details that annoy me, I’m not very engaged with the movie, am I?
However, my Very Intelligent Friend points out that one place I was certain was Kent is actually Sussex. I looked it up – he’s right – but I am sticking with feeling slightly annoyed. I am looking for reasons I was annoyed by “Mr. Holmes”.
The trains are terrific. The visit to Japan is very moving. The sad case from the past is present and correct.
It’s not “Mr. Holmes”. It’s me. Everyone else at the Stratford East Picturehouse adored it. You will love it.
Perhaps I ought to order one of those little medical bracelets that says “allergic to Sir Ian McKellen”? I may consider therapy.