New sherlock holmes movie

[ScionPI2005]

I'm actually looking forward to this movie. It'll be interesting to see, but I have high hopes for it.

 

[Doctor Strange]

I'm not gonna see it theatrically. I find the trailer downright disturbing. I like everyone in the cast, but treating Sherlock Holmes as a bare-chested fighting, revolver-wielding-at-the-drop-of-a-hat action hero is just too wrong...

I know, I know: Holmes could definitely fight when the occasion required it. (I read all the stories years ago.) But this film appears to completely violate the spirit of Holmes as a rational master of detection and deduction who typically doesn't break a sweat until the final chase.

This is aimed at today's short-attention-span, cult-of-personality, constant-action-craving audience, not me. I'll stick with Basil...

 

[ukali1066]

Jeremy Brett spoiled me....nobody can top him...absolutely perfect...

And this looks like a BIG serving of cheese and ham...

 

[theinterchange]

I've heard many non Sherlock loving friends say it looks great. I on the other hand think it looks/feels too much like a modernish action movie with someone who's supposed to be Holmes thrown in there for good measure.

I'll go see it, if only to sit there fuming at what I see. But I won't go opening day. It'll probably be okay popcorn fare if I leave my judgemental side at the door. [huh]

Randy

 

[Steve]

I plan on seeing it, but only with the mindset of it being a Guy Ritchie film, not as a Sherlock Holmes film. With that in mind, I think it will be enjoyable in a rowdy, hot mess sort of way.

 

[Scott Wood]

Whew!!! Hard acts to follow...

But what strikes me is this seems to be a bit of a feedback effect from House; the emotionally hardened, devastatingly rational, wise-cracking, drug-addicted doctor whose character was inspired by Holmes (he even lives at apartment 221B) now seems to be the prototype for this new Hollywood Holmes -- sharp-edged, sexed-up, and post-modern.

There are so many fine and erudite posts to this thread I would like to take each individually and respond. That being said, and most all angles covered already, I will settle to replying thusly...
All the way through the thread I was thinking, seeing, feeling "House M.D."
:eusa_clap

I'm very interested to see the movie. I'm not expecting a faithful literary take, but I'm looking forward to an entertaining reimagining. It's okay as long as you don't expect it to be THE Sherlock Holmes. Once you've accepted the concept, it's all about the execution.

I would like to point out that when Doyle wrote these it was for a serial in the popular(/yellow) press of that era so, to put it into our contemporary context, if he were doing it today he might well be writing Jerry Springer, The National Enquirer et al. These are extreme examples but it demonstrates that at the time this was NOT high-brow stuff lol.
Going to see this with an open mind and reasonable expectation might lead to a very favourable result... [huh]
After all that I would have to say I am not, personally, impressed with the trailer but I will rent or buy the blu-ray when it comes out,
Woody

 

[Senator Jack]

Did anyone else catch the Stewie Griffin introduction to the trailer on Fox a few weeks ago? To paraphrase:

'So if any of you out there had ever read Sherlock Holmes and thought 'Wouldn't this be great with explosions and knife-fights,' here's something just for you.'

 

[Maguire]

I think if it is a lousy movie, it won't be Downey's fault. The blame can go squarely on ex-Mr. Madonna, Guy Ritchie who's marriage was crumbling as he put this movie together.

Well Lock Stock and Snatch were both good movies. when i saw that Guy Ritchie was directing a Sherlock Holmes movie my first thought was.. Jason Statham as Sherlock Holmes? Or Vinny Jones? Now THAT would be interesting.

then again this is a Guy Ritchie movie so you can't expect it NOT to be over the top.

 

[bobalooba]

merry christmas

The Sherlock Holmes film has come out today to generally positive reviews, however, I haven't seen it yet and was wondering if anyone here had and want to know what they thought of it. I may see it later this week so wish me luck.

 

[Ephraim Tutt]

4 1/2 out of 5

I've just come from seeing Sherlock Holmes and found it to be one of the best films I've seen in a long time. Lavish production, wonderful costumes (and yes, for the purists, Holmes' hat is a crumpled homburg - not a fedora - that he dons for a only a few minutes), excellent dialogue; terrific characters.

Downey's Holmes is brilliant, eccentric, physical, flawed. Law's Watson is a strong, no nonsense equal partner rather than an obsequious sidekick.

Ritchie's London is dark and gothic; Holmes is a flawed genius inhabiting a script with plenty of light and shade, gasps and laughs; shock and awe. This is an intelligent adventure story.

If you are wedded to Rathbone and deerstalkers leave this film alone. If you are looking for a dark, rollicking, Victorian action adventure and are prepared to let this movie stand on its own merits then you should have a ball.

 

[Dixon Cannon]

I too loved Jeremy Brett and he's my quintessential Sherlock, but new film is very good and both Robert and Jude give great performances. But, as you might have guessed, this is not your father's Sherlock Holmes.

-dixon cannon

 

[KeyGrip]

The quick, snappy dialogue between Holmes and Watson was fantastic, and I wish there was more of it. I really enjoyed the film. It is faithful enough to the spirit of the stories; though if I must pick nits, Mr. Downey's Sherlock has a bit too much Jack Sparrow thrown in for my taste. I'll probably see it again with friends. Great movie to see with friends.

 

[Widebrim]

Was it entertaining? Well, yes. Was it suspenseful? At times. How about funny? In a modern, quick, repartee sort of way, if you could understand Downey's mumbling. And as regards action, was it a case of Arthur Conan Doyle meets Jet Li? That would be an affirmative, my dear Watson...At any rate, you all be your own judges regarding the film's merits and flaws. After all, one man's poison is another man's meat.

 

[avedwards]

I saw it today. Half way through the film I thought the plot was becoming a bit shallow, but by the end I saw that the plot was more complex than apparent at first. It was an amazing film and I found it true enough to character as Holmes was very eccentric and made his characteristic incredible deductions. I liked the way it used short flashbacks to show how Holmes came to his conclusions. The plot was fast-paced which I liked, Watson was portrayed very well as trustworthy and intelligent, I liked the costumes and I liked the other characters.

In short, I was extremely pleasantly surprised by the film as I thought it would be some modern rubbish, but I personally think the director didn't take the character too far but kept him both interesting and just book-accurate enough.

 

[avedwards]

I've just come from seeing Sherlock Holmes and found it to be one of the best films I've seen in a long time. Lavish production, wonderful costumes (and yes, for the purists, Holmes' hat is a crumpled homburg - not a fedora - that he dons for a only a few minutes), excellent dialogue; terrific characters.

Downey's Holmes is brilliant, eccentric, physical, flawed. Law's Watson is a strong, no nonsense equal partner rather than an obsequious sidekick.

Ritchie's London is dark and gothic; Holmes is a flawed genius inhabiting a script with plenty of light and shade, gasps and laughs; shock and awe. This is an intelligent adventure story.

If you are wedded to Rathbone and deerstalkers leave this film alone. If you are looking for a dark, rollicking, Victorian action adventure and are prepared to let this movie stand on its own merits then you should have a ball.

I couldn't agree more with all this except that as a Rathbone fan I still enjoyed it. In its own way I think this film is similar in style to Rathbone's as some liberties are taken but you can tell that it is still Holmes.

 

[bobalooba]

good to know everybody

I am glad that the movie seems so well received, I'm planning on seeing it with a friend tomorrow, more to follow

 

[Tiller]

I saw it and enjoyed it. It's not Jeremy Brett (who's Holmes never thought out his fight scenes so much in advance ), but none the less it is a greatly enjoyable to watch. Maybe it's not vintage Holmes, but it is vintage with a modern flare, at times bordering on Noir (especially with the "at times" fast dialog and the femme fatale version or Irene Alder).

 

[Brian Sheridan]

One critic said this movie is for those who read Conan Doyle and thought "You what would make this better? Lots of explosions and knife fights!" lol

 

[Senator Jack]

One critic said this movie is for those who read Conan Doyle and thought "You what would make this better? Lots of explosions and knife fights!" lol

Plagiarized from Family Guy. See post #47

 

[Doctor Strange]

I still have no desire to see the new film, but I had a swell time with TCM's Xmas Day (counter)programming of older Sherlock Holmes films.

It was especially nice to see the first two Rathbone/Bruce films made at Fox, the ones set in the Victorian Era rather than the present (1940s), and made on much higher budgets than the twelve 65-minute Universal B pictures that followed (not that these aren't also fun!) For some reason - probably rights issues - these two (The Hound of the Baskervilles and The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes) are very rarely shown...