New sherlock holmes movie

[442RCT]

Good Nite Irene

However, I thought the primary female roles were miscast. If Irene Adler was meant to be Holmes' intellectual superior, you coulda fooled me. And Watson's gal did not have enough appeal.....what about her would want to take him away from the eccentricities of Holmes? Or maybe that was the point......
Either way...I am looking forward to seeing it again.
Jude Law rocks the 'stache.

Was Rachel McAdams miscast because of her appearance, the way she portrayed Irene, or what the writers gave her to do as Irene ?

Irene would be a tough one to portray, an American born opera diva, according to her bio:

"She was reportedly born in New Jersey in 1858. Though not explicitly stated, her family name gives the impression that she was of German American background. (Adler means eagle in German). She followed a career in opera as a contralto, performing in La Scala, Milan, Italy, and a term as prima donna in the Imperial Opera of Warsaw, Poland, indicating that she was an extraordinary singer. Adler retired in her late twenties and moved to London."

In the BBC series, Irene was played by Gayle Hunnicutt as a genteel, refined opera singing, horse riding, sharpshooting, Lara Croft adventuress.

My pick to play Irene Adler, if she shows up in future Holmes movies would be, Eva Green. The actress who played Vesper Lynd in "Casino Royale". Her banter with Bond on the train was brilliant. She is also drop dead gorgeous.

Who would I pick for Watson's fiance ? Bridget Regan from Legend of the Seeker....no particular reason, I just think she's lovely. [huh]

 

[ScionPI2005]

I saw this one two days ago, and I believe I enjoyed it a little more than I was expecting to. I did have high hopes for it from the beginning, but I wasn't sure what to make of the action scenes.

I must say that I truly love Robert Downey Jr's acting in all movies of his that I have seen, and Sherlock Holmes is no exception. Downey has a way of creating brilliant quirky actions for his characters and I really believed in his Sherlock Holmes being brilliant at deduction, but having those intriguing social character quirks.

Jude Law was awesome as Watson. I knew it was him, but honestly did not really recognize him as he looked so different and portrayed Watson so well that he made him his own.

The plot was intriguing and I loved the soundtrack. It's definitely worth watching, and if I find anyone in my social life who would also like to see it, I may go see it again.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Interesting New York Times article on the Sherlock Holmes character:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/books/06holmes.html?ref=arts

 

[Richard Warren]

Wow. Something from the NYTimes that is not utterly fatuous, concluding with a remark on the self-referential nature of almost all current movies. I'm impressed.

 

[Mysterious Mose]

Wow. Something from the NYTimes that is not utterly fatuous, concluding with a remark on the self-referential nature of almost all current movies. I'm impressed.

If the NY Times is anything like the Dutch press that is impressive.
However, I still have the feeling Mr. McGrath hasn't read a Holmes story in his life.
And looking at his earlier work, never read a Tintin story either.
It's all Wikipedia, nowadays.

 

[Scott Wood]

My what a predicament

I live in a tiny village in the country and I really hate going to the city for almost anything. My parents require me to go frequently but almost exclusively during the day so I am always happy getting out of Dodge by sundown
Now I want to see this movie so I am trying to build up the will-power to go see the movie tomorrow after seeing to the folks.
Guys, is it really worth the effort?[huh]

 

[442RCT]

Wow. Something from the NYTimes that is not utterly fatuous, concluding with a remark on the self-referential nature of almost all current movies. I'm impressed.

Did I detect a touch of sarcasm ? :eusa_booh

 

[MissAmelina]

Was Rachel McAdams miscast because of her appearance, the way she portrayed Irene, or what the writers gave her to do as Irene ?

[huh]

She lacked depth. I have a hunch she is not as strong an actor as RDJ. There was no mystery in her portayal, and very little chemistry between the two of them. To be fair, I have not seen her in very many things so I am unaware of her range.

 

[miserabelle]

I finally saw it and actually really enjoyed it! I really thought I wouldn't.
My boyfriend wants a cane now... x

 

[Zendragon]

I saw it on Sat and really enjoyed it.

 

[SmokeyWw]

I'm a huge fan of Doyle's canon, and was really looking forward to this movie's debut. (Though I'm also looking forward to the Cohen/Ferrell spoof.)

I'm not a big fan of the Rathbone/Bruce movies, as they completely re-write the character of Watson as a bumbling baffoon and transplant Holmes from Victorian England forward 50 or 60 years to have him outwitting Nazi spies.

Most of the negative criticism I've heard about this movie is unfounded. They complain that this is not the "real" Sherlock Holmes when, in fact, this is simply not the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes. In its own way, the new movie is a much more accurate depiction of the characters from the canon than the old Rathbone movies.

I really enjoyed the movie, especially recognizing several instances of direct quotations from Doyle in the script.

I do have my complaints. In the canon, Watson describes Holmes as a sharp dresser, but save that a total slob. In this movie, Holmes dresses as a slob. In the canon Holmes is tall, slim, and whip-like. Downie is none of these things and his physical appearance could never be described as "hawk-like." Also, Downie's Holmes is simply not stoic enough. To put it simply, I thought he smiled too much. And... I'd have liked to have seen more pipe-smoking.

I've never seen the Jeremy Brett Holmes movies, but I've ordered the complete box set based on the numerous reviews that proclaim them to be the most faithful to the original text.

 

[Celia Crowson]

As a piece of entertainment I thought it was great - am looking forward to the next one.

 

[High Pockets]

I'm a huge fan of Doyle's canon, and was really looking forward to this movie's debut. (Though I'm also looking forward to the Cohen/Ferrell spoof.)

I'm not a big fan of the Rathbone/Bruce movies, as they completely re-write the character of Watson as a bumbling baffoon and transplant Holmes from Victorian England forward 50 or 60 years to have him outwitting Nazi spies.

Most of the negative criticism I've heard about this movie is unfounded. They complain that this is not the "real" Sherlock Holmes when, in fact, this is simply not the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes. In its own way, the new movie is a much more accurate depiction of the characters from the canon than the old Rathbone movies.

I really enjoyed the movie, especially recognizing several instances of direct quotations from Doyle in the script.

I'm also a big fan of Doyle, and as for your statement regarding the Rathbone movies; my sentiments exactly.

After weeks of indecision, you've convinced me to not only go see the picture,....but to check out the Jeremy Brett movie reviews as well.

 

[Panache]

My lovely wife and I went to see this last week I knew it wasn't going to be the Holmes from the books and tried to go in with an open mind. We both throughly enjoyed it. The chemistry between Law and RDJ was fantastic, the soundtrack was great, and I found that the use of CG to create Holmes' London was seamless and subtle.

My only complaints were that there were too many fight scenes that went on too long. Also I found that while I was fine with this alternate version of Holmes and Watson I found that I disliked what they did with the character of "The Woman" herself, Irene Adler. She is and always should be the worthy and honorable opponent of the "Scandal in Bohemia".

It isn't the wonderful Granada series with Jeremy Brett, but it is a great romp and fun in the way that the delightful "Young Sherlock Holmes" was.

I also liked how Moriarty took a page out agent Jim West's book!

Cheers

Jamie

 

[Lokar]

In the BBC series, Irene was played by Gayle Hunnicutt as a genteel, refined opera singing, horse riding, sharpshooting, Lara Croft adventuress.[huh]

Just to point out (as I've seen many people, both British and otherwise make this mistake), the Jeremy Brett Holmes TV series was by Granada Television for ITV. The BBC had no part in the creation of the show. It was sold to the BBC about fifteen years after the show was created (and the BBC have re-mastered it for a much higher quality DVD release and broadcast).

I didn't particularly enjoy the film, but I wasn't as disappointed as I thought I would be, either. I'm a huge fan of the books (I'd recommend the New Annotated editions to anyone and everyone, they are fascinating), and the Jeremy Brett series (especially the portrayal of Watson, which I believe was flawless). I expected the film to be Hollywood, and it was, so there wasn't any disappointment as such.

I'm not a big fan of the Rathbone/Bruce movies, as they completely re-write the character of Watson as a bumbling baffoon and transplant Holmes from Victorian England forward 50 or 60 years to have him outwitting Nazi spies.

Most of the negative criticism I've heard about this movie is unfounded. They complain that this is not the "real" Sherlock Holmes when, in fact, this is simply not the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes. In its own way, the new movie is a much more accurate depiction of the characters from the canon than the old Rathbone movies.

I've never seen the Jeremy Brett Holmes movies, but I've ordered the complete box set based on the numerous reviews that proclaim them to be the most faithful to the original text.

You're going to enjoy the Jeremy Brett series. Brett isn't to everyone's liking (although I still feel he's closer to the canon than any other actor), and a few of the stories were tweaked, but everything else is perfect - locations and scenes recreated from Sidney Paget's illustrations, accurate late Victorian attire, and Watson is exactly what I pictured from the canon. Plus, of course, they didn't create new stories - they used the canon itself. I think that, more than anything else, is what made it so successful.

 

[Tomasso]

I really enjoyed the film. A delightful trip to the cinema, definitely worth the price of admission.

I thought it was great - am looking forward to the next one.

Me too. I wonder who will play Professor Moriarty. Brad Pitt is rumored.

My boyfriend wants a cane now... x

Something like this I bet.

 

[DanielJones]

Well, I finally got around to watching it on DVD. I have to say I really enjoyed it, and I hope that they do make a series of films with Professor James Moriarty either in the foreground or in the shadows like this one. I rather enjoyed the Guy Ritchie treatment of the look & story. I always enjoyed the slow-down & eventual speed up that is his signature. Plus the underworld rouges gallery is another Ritchie touch. Half expected to see Vinny Jones in it somewhere. Also there was that grittiness that is the norm for a Ritchie film. No disappointment there. The CGI wasn't really a bother either as it seems like it just was used to paint the backgrounds & keep the look fairly period.
It all moved along at a decent pace, and yes it was a tad predictable in parts but it was good popcorn fun. Again I really hope that Guy Ritchie helms at least two more down the road. Either some new stories or a couple of familiar ones that involve Mycroft Holmes. Anyway, I would give it a good A- or a very strong B+, as I was very entertained.
Oh, and as for his foppish fedora like hat, I have a very soft black Dobbs that can take on just about any shape, and that Holmes' is one of them. Takes it pretty well too.

Cheers!

Dan

 

[MisterCairo]

I really enjoyed the film. A delightful trip to the cinema, definitely worth the price of admission.

Me too. I wonder who will play Professor Moriarty. Brad Pitt is rumored.


Something like this I bet.

WHERE
DO
YOU GET
ONE
OF
THOSE>>>>>>>

 

[JC]

I had very high expectations going in to see this movie with my girlfriend. I've read a good majority of the Holmes stories and was really hoping they did them justice.

I was very easily awed and impressed with the film. We went back to see it a second time in theatres, and I have watched it a few times as well now that it has been released to DVD.

I am really looking forward to seeing a promised sequel.

 

[Doctor Strange]

Meh

I finally saw it on a DVD from the library.

I didn't HATE it, as I feared I would, but it left me totally cold. Nice action, good production design and effects - but then, that's the part that comes easily to today's filmmakers.

But... lousy script, crummy direction, sledgehammer editing and music, zero chemistry between the characters, and way too much noise and spectacle in place of the intelligence that a good Holmes story needs. I generally like Downey's performances - he's undeniably a great actor - but he sleepwalked through this flick. So did Jude Law, and as for Rachel McAdams, she's adorable, but she just doesn't belong in a costume picture. And everybody's dialogue and motivations were FAR too contemporary for a story set in 1891.

I know, I know: this is for TODAY's audience. I get it. But it hurts me to see the bastions of intelligent storytelling of my youth - not just Sherlock Holmes, but Star Trek, the Marvel Comics characters - reduced to computer-gamish action and simplistic, personality-trumps-logic spectacle.

Anyway, I was pretty underwhelmed. I'll stick with Basil Rathbone.