Sherlock Holmes

[EK]

Has anyone seen the trailer for this?

It looks interesting. As it portrays Sherlock and Watson alot like they shouldve been portrayed in the old TV shows...it looks kind of more true to the books than anything I've seen but...who knows?
http://www.apple.com/trailers/wb/sherlockholmes/

[Chandler]

I had no idea this was coming out!
Interesting trailer, to say the least. I like the fact that Watson looks more like I expected him to and not an old man (no offense, Dr. Watson ). On the other hand, some of the touches make it a clearly modern production. I did notice several references to the stories so it looks like they might've read them before making this. Or maybe they just read a one-page summary.

ROFL @ the hammer!


EDIT: Erm, just watched it all the way to the end... disgusting!

[The Top Crusader]

Yay Robert Downey Jr!

[Ruthie]

Augh, I think it looks horrid! He totally isn't 'Sherlock' enough, and it's vile and disgusting, demeaning and atrocious. *nods*

[Kairi]

Ditto here. Hollywood does feel the need to ruin a good thing, doesn't it. Next up, the Hardy Boys, er, Men (or, at least that's what I've heard. ) I won't be seeing this movie.

Edit: I just saw a poster. He doesn't even look like Holmes! Or at least not how I imagined him.

[Sherlock]

Depressing!

Now I'm going to have to balance that out with a few of my Granada Holmes films to erase the unpleasant images.

The idea of Holmes being portrayed in a big-budget, Robert Downy Jr. film is just so very, very wrong. However, I guess that's what it takes to make a classic book with an intricate plot appeal to a modern audience. The trailer says it all...

Again, depressing.

[LizzieG]

I saw the trailer for this a couple weeks ago. After it had ended, I turned to my dad and whispered disappointedly, "that's not the Sherlock Holmes I remember."

[Felicity Blackgaard]

It looked awesome in the beginning. But man, does Hollywood always need some kind of sexual reference tied into a movie? UGH! Come on.

I'll go see it, either way. But Robert Downey Jr. is NOT how I imagined Sherlock Holmes to look like. Why not Colin Firth or Jason Isaacs as Sherlock Holmes?

And Dr. Watson is just how I imagined him, but I always imagined him a bit more portly.


Edit:

I saw the trailer for this a couple weeks ago. After it had ended, I turned to my dad and whispered disappointedly, "that's not the Sherlock Holmes I remember."

I whole-heartedly agree!

Double post combined ~V-lady

[Ingress Neverwhere]

I saw the trailer for this a couple weeks ago. After it had ended, I turned to my dad and whispered disappointedly, "that's not the Sherlock Holmes I remember."

*nods* Thirded. There is an actor out there somewhere who can portray Holmes for "this" generation, but Robert Downey, Jr. is not that actor.

(Ah, Jeremy, where are you when we need you?)

-Kim

[Sherlock]

Along the same lines, I was holding out hope that Hugh Laurie might accept the role as Holmes, though given the direction this film is taking, it's probably a wise decision on his part that he didn't.


(On an added note, I think Alan Rickman could pull off a very convincing Professor Moriarty, given the opportunity).

[Sherlock]

*merged thread "Sherlock Holmes"*

And yes, I am referring to the movie and not using this as an excuse for a narcissistic topic title.

Has anyone else seen this? I'm pretty sure that I was fairly derogatory with my opinions regarding my expectations about the movie earlier this year, but having seen it twice now, I have to say that I came away from it all with a much better impression than what I was originally expecting.

So, by way of a brief review, it was decent in its own right. A bit far-fetched with the excessive action sequences, especially given the Victorian-era setting but, otherwise, Robert Downey Jr.'s portrayal of Holmes was convincing (if not a tad angsty) and Jude Law despite all my assertions to the contrary, was a pretty believably, edgier Dr. Watson. The only character that seemed to be "off" in terms of casting was Rachel McAdams as Irene Adler, most likely because the writers - as most writers do - spun her character as Holmes's love interest rather than his adversary. So, in that sense, it tried way too hard which kind of irked me.

The plot itself is pretty dark and probably stretches the PG-13 rating in the same way that the Dark Knight did with the themes. There are a lot of dark elements in the movie that are not portrayed in the book and the main villain is cast as more of a demonic character than a true, Moriarty, Col. Moran or any of Holmes's traditionally intellectual adversaries. To that end, Holmes is more of an action hero than a detective and I had to suspend quite a bit of my disbelief to see him in a ring boxing, roundhouse kicking the bad guys and dodging explosions right and left.

In conclusion, I read somewhere that the writers of the new, souped-up Sherlock Holmes movie basically concluded that moviegoers today have too short of an attention span to tolerate watching Sherlock Holmes solve crimes in his traditional manner. For someone like me, that renders the movie basically in a category of its own. I would categorize it as a well-filmed Victorian-era crime/drama/action flick that uses a lot of familiar names, but I wouldn't necessary call it Sherlock Holmes. And I don't think it requires too much imagination to conclude that Arthur Conan Doyle, were he here today, would probably have agreed.

[The Top Crusader]

Actually my understanding without bothering to see it or read books, but simply gleen from random postings online, is that this is the "truest" Holmes has ever been done in film. The boxing and fighting etc is much more in his character than the old movies and such showed. And Watson is a young in shape dude, not just a weird dopey fat guy.

[Laura Ingalls]

Jeremy Brett will always be the best Holmes.

I read the review of the movie - and it doesn't sound like anything I'd ever want to see. It doesn't sound much like the books at all...why call a movie after a book and then totally change it? That's what I always rant about these things.

[The Top Crusader]

I like how he's a drug addict in the books, I hope that finally made it to film!

[Sherlock]

Ironically, while the drug addiction thing made it into the 1970's version with Jeremy Brett, they left it out with the newer ones, apart form a brief reference to "being carried off into the arms of Morpheus" by Holmes which could be interpreted as his having indulged in the 7% solution.

Anyway, Homes is pretty much one of those characters that is so much a creation of the reader's imagination that some people picture him completely different than others. However, by the same token, I can't help feeling the same about this film as if they had made a film with Agatha Christie's Miss Marple as a 25 year old crimefighting spy or something.

As for Watson being somewhat fat, I only perceived him that way because of Holmes' comments to that effect in the books. Again though, he could have been exaggerating and Dr. Watson could have actually been a kicking-doors-down-at-the-slightest-provocation- Jude Law type as well.

[Chandler]

Haven't seen the film yet but probably will some day, being a Holmes fan and all (and I don't just mean the board member, although I'm a fan of hers too! ). Since I tend to be a purist in wanting films to match the book as much as possible (Prince Caspain being the great exception), I could list several complaints just watching the trailer. The one thing I did like from the trailer was Watson (again, not referring to the member although Laura Ingalls ((this time the member here!)) did post a rather nice picture of him). I haven't yet liked the way he was portrayed in any film or radio productions I've seen/heard (haven't seen the Granada ones, though ) and he always seems far too old.

Speaking of Miss Marple, I've been watching old TV shows and movies of both Miss Marple and Hercule Poirot. It's been quite the experience! So far I'm particularly enjoying the ones with Joan Hickson as Miss Marple. David Suchet makes a great Poirot as well. Sometimes those storylines get a bit too "modernized."

Actually my understanding without bothering to see it or read books, but simply gleen from random postings online

You misspelled GLEAN! Get outta the thread, you n00b!!

[Danielle Abigail Maxwell]

I saw the movie... both my sister and I said that the previews basically portrayed it as a funny movie in a sense (I was more intrigued about what it really held... but, that's besides the point), but after seeing the movie, it seemed dark. And just not very funny. Dark, or deadpan humor, sure, but not as funny as first portrayed.

Yeah, to reply to Sherlock on the Rachel McAdams thing, it did seem she didn't really fit the part. I thought the actress didn't fit. The character... you know, every movie from Hollywood has to have something it seems... Irene fit. But the actress portraying her didn't seem to fit... The actress is awesome and all, but for Sherlock Holmes and its setting (Dark, sometimes hard to follow) she just didn't seem to fit.

The movie was enjoyable though. When Sherlock finally spilled all of the secrets, I was pretty amazed. It turned out good. I'd love to see it again, but I might wait.

[Sherlock]

Chandler, we both know this board is FULL of Holmes fans! And maybe also of the literary character, but that's another subject.

David Burke and Edward Hardwicke are the two gentlemen who portrayed Dr. Watson in the Granada series and I thought both did an excellent job (they both look quite similar) though Edward Hardwicke looks a bit older and he even looks older in real life without the wig he wears to play Watson!

The Miss Marple/Poirot films are really great though I agree about not liking the newer Poirot films - that's a recent change too, and I'm not sure why they started deviating from the books. The most blatant example of that was in "Five Little Pigs", I thought. However, consider the awfulness of the newer episodes an excellent opportunity to see the Granda Holmes series, they're one of the best and the whole cast really did a wonderful job of trying to re-create the books as carefully as possible.

Danielle: Yeah, Irene Adler only appears in "A Scandal in Bohemia" in the books and (I think) she is only mentioned in passing one other time in the series. However, as she is the only woman that Holmes seems to make mention of and/or was portrayed as at least an intellectual adversary, writers LOVE to turn her into this secret love interest character.

Edit: As a general note on the movie, I thought that they made a good choice with the casting for the villain Lord Blackwood by using an English actor who did a pretty great job of being a traditional villain, if not a tad on the dark side. There's a hint of a sequel too with the introduction of a character who IS actually in the original series, though I'll keep from mentioning it to preserve some of the surprise for those who care.

[Trent DeWhite]

I'm planning on seeing the film tomorrow... and considering I've never read any of the books or seen of the previous movie adaptations, I'll be interested to watch it from the non-fan perspective.

[Marvin D.]

I've read several books, and from what Sherlock says about Professor Moriarty, it sounds spooky. Since it does'nt show here, can anyone tell me if Sherlock does die?