I’ll get this started. Mrs. Turbo and I went to see Sherlock Holmes yesterday and highly enjoyed it. No it’s not Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce — it is a Guy Ritchie film after all, but I liked it a lot. Our friend Kyle Smith had objections to the fast dialogue and the ignorance of London’s city plan, but who cares? Basil and co. cranked out those films in three weeks and the typical Sherlock Holmes is not a tent-pole franchise. This is a tent-pole and it’s gotta be fast-paced. I thought the dialogue was witty and smart — even if fast. Slow and plodding doesn’t = “smart” either.
Not being familiar with Holmes’ back story and giving a rat’s ass about London’s urban plan — I like the character, but I’m no fanboy — we had a great time. Downey is Downey so Holmes is more irreverent and Jude Law is great as Watson — not bumbling and obsequious, but clearly learning from Holmes. Intellectuals in the Victorian age of Empire were often multilingual badasses as opposed to today’s Noam Chomskys so the fighting scenes didn’t bother me either.
Smith also had a problem with the “table setting” for a sequel. It wasn’t any worse than Christopher Nolen’s Joker card at the end of Batman Begins — and I heard no squawking about that. Can’t wait for the sequel.
Looking to catch this – and review it – in the next few days. I’ve read the varying reviews – Nolte loved it, Smith loathed it – I’m wondering which side of the scale I’ll fall.
Jeremy Brett was the best Holmes. Rathbone was awesome, too. I wonder what Smith would say about the Rathbone movies seeing how they abandoned the authenticity of the Victorian era setting for contemporary WWII Britain, after the second movie in the franchise. If he’s a stickler for urban plans, I wonder how he feels about era changing. I like the idea of Holmes being a womanizer because it offsets the movies that played him as a homosexual.
I have to disagree with you Matt—as far as I know, Holmes was never portrayed as an overt homosexual. I know that some actors have chosen to play him as a closeted homosexual, and it seemed to work for Brett, for instance. But Holmes wasn’t a womanizer in the stories—far from it. It seems like it might be a great movie, but not a Sherlock Holmes movie. (I haven’t seen it.)
Mike, it’s been implied that he was a homosexual a couple of times, but never portrayed overtly. But either way, it’s there. I don’t see the difference whether an actor plays him as a closeted homosexual or an overt one. The message has been sent either way. That’s like comparing subliminal messages in ads to blatant ones. In the end, it’s deliberate. I’ve read the Sherlock Holmes stories many times and know that this new movie doesn’t sound anything like them. I didn’t say that he was a womanizer in the stories, I was just saying that his being so in this movie offsets the attempts to portray him as gay on film.
Floyd brought up Batman Begins, and I feel the same way about the Batman franchise. They never attempted to portray Batman faithfully, from Burton to Nolen. That doesn’t mean that some of the movies weren’t good, but they made many audience-friendly choices to sell to people, which it appears that they’re doing with this one. So maybe this movie is good even though it’s far from what Doyle had penned. Ironically, Batman was supposed to be the Sherlock Holmes of his time, and they never did a good job of showing that on film.
The later Rathbone films were set in contemporary times for 2 reasons: 1) they’d moved to a studio with less money to spend, and 2) they were actually reverting to the previous model.
There were many Holmes movies made before the Rathbone series, and one thing they had in common was that *all* of them were set in the time the movie was shot.
It was actually just like the James Bond movies. The Bond books are set in the ’50s and ’60s, when Ian Fleming wrote. But all the Bond movies are filmed in a contemporary setting. We think of Bond as “one of us,” not some hero from a couple generations back.
In the same way, Holmes fans thought of him as a contemporary. Doing a period film, as when Rathbone starred in “The Hound of the Baskervilles” and “The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes,” was an innovation at the time.
I’ve never seen a Holmes movie, just read all the books. At any rate, it’s finally a movie I want to see and the good dr is thrilled. He loves movies, but he loves me more.
Remember folks, nobody ever erects a statue to critics. At least, not to professional critics. Not that anyone here isn’t professional . . .oh, what’s the use? I’m digging my grave deeper with each word.
I saw this and enjoyed it. Quite a bit. And I did not think I would. I have read a few of the Doyle stories, and it’s probably been about three decades since I have, but I think I still remember the character fairly well. Yes, there are a lot more fisticuffs in this version. Ordinarily I don’t like when a screenwriter takes liberties with characters and story that are wonderful in their original form, and the Doyle stories are, but this was a pretty good balance.
I think most folks would enjoy this movie. The pace isn’t so fast that one has trouble following the story. The plot twists fit together fairly well. There is nothing that takes place technologically that couldn’t be possible in the period the story is set…
When I walked out of the film my initial thought (besides knowing I enjoyed it) was, “that’s certainly not your father’s “Sherlock Holmes.” But, as I thought more about the film the next day I realized even the updated stuff fit Holmes’ personality quite well. Sherlock Holmes is a bit of a nutter. The books feature a lot of moodiness and long periods of anti-social, borderline psychotic behavior. Also, the movie reminded me how much “chemistry” there was in the original Holmes’ stories. Most of the detective work in the film involves just the type of chemistry Holmes employs in the books. And, the film also reminded me how much risk Holmes would take using himself as a guinea pig. Even though the books didn’t have as much physicality, as I thought about the type of fighting the movie Holmes does, and the reasons, it actually was in concert with the Holmes of the short stories. Watson’s character is altered quite a bit from the books, but this Watson makes a good sidekick to this Holmes.
This was my first Guy Ritchie film. I’d read about his style before, but I didn’t fully understand it until I saw it in this film. He did a great job. He does a very good job of visually showing Holmes’ deductive reasoning. This movie is directed very well.
There is a scene in a restaurant I particularly enjoyed. As I wrote, even in the books Holmes is a loner, and quite anti-social, borderline agoraphobic. Guy Ritchie does a good job in the restaurant scene of providing insight into what it is like to be in a large, public space when one has the brain of Sherlock Holmes. He has incredible powers of observation and lightning quick deductive reasoning. That can sometimes be annoying when one just wants to relax and eat a meal.
Print
Digg
StumbleUpon
del.icio.us
Facebook
Yahoo! Buzz
Twitter
Google Bookmarks
Google Buzz
LinkedIn
MSN Reporter
MySpace
Orkut
Ping.fm
Reddit
RSS
Slashdot
Technorati
Tumblr
Webnews.de
I’ll get this started. Mrs. Turbo and I went to see Sherlock Holmes yesterday and highly enjoyed it. No it’s not Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce — it is a Guy Ritchie film after all, but I liked it a lot. Our friend Kyle Smith had objections to the fast dialogue and the ignorance of London’s city plan, but who cares? Basil and co. cranked out those films in three weeks and the typical Sherlock Holmes is not a tent-pole franchise. This is a tent-pole and it’s gotta be fast-paced. I thought the dialogue was witty and smart — even if fast. Slow and plodding doesn’t = “smart” either.
Not being familiar with Holmes’ back story and giving a rat’s ass about London’s urban plan — I like the character, but I’m no fanboy — we had a great time. Downey is Downey so Holmes is more irreverent and Jude Law is great as Watson — not bumbling and obsequious, but clearly learning from Holmes. Intellectuals in the Victorian age of Empire were often multilingual badasses as opposed to today’s Noam Chomskys so the fighting scenes didn’t bother me either.
Smith also had a problem with the “table setting” for a sequel. It wasn’t any worse than Christopher Nolen’s Joker card at the end of Batman Begins — and I heard no squawking about that. Can’t wait for the sequel.
I guess that since both you and Nolte have suggested it, I HAVE to see it!
People always mention Basil Rathbone,but my favorite Holmes was the late Jeremy Brett in the Grenada TV series…very hyper and quirky.
Looking to catch this – and review it – in the next few days. I’ve read the varying reviews – Nolte loved it, Smith loathed it – I’m wondering which side of the scale I’ll fall.
Jeremy Brett was the best Holmes. Rathbone was awesome, too. I wonder what Smith would say about the Rathbone movies seeing how they abandoned the authenticity of the Victorian era setting for contemporary WWII Britain, after the second movie in the franchise. If he’s a stickler for urban plans, I wonder how he feels about era changing. I like the idea of Holmes being a womanizer because it offsets the movies that played him as a homosexual.
I have to disagree with you Matt—as far as I know, Holmes was never portrayed as an overt homosexual. I know that some actors have chosen to play him as a closeted homosexual, and it seemed to work for Brett, for instance. But Holmes wasn’t a womanizer in the stories—far from it. It seems like it might be a great movie, but not a Sherlock Holmes movie. (I haven’t seen it.)
Mike, it’s been implied that he was a homosexual a couple of times, but never portrayed overtly. But either way, it’s there. I don’t see the difference whether an actor plays him as a closeted homosexual or an overt one. The message has been sent either way. That’s like comparing subliminal messages in ads to blatant ones. In the end, it’s deliberate. I’ve read the Sherlock Holmes stories many times and know that this new movie doesn’t sound anything like them. I didn’t say that he was a womanizer in the stories, I was just saying that his being so in this movie offsets the attempts to portray him as gay on film.
Floyd brought up Batman Begins, and I feel the same way about the Batman franchise. They never attempted to portray Batman faithfully, from Burton to Nolen. That doesn’t mean that some of the movies weren’t good, but they made many audience-friendly choices to sell to people, which it appears that they’re doing with this one. So maybe this movie is good even though it’s far from what Doyle had penned. Ironically, Batman was supposed to be the Sherlock Holmes of his time, and they never did a good job of showing that on film.
The later Rathbone films were set in contemporary times for 2 reasons: 1) they’d moved to a studio with less money to spend, and 2) they were actually reverting to the previous model.
There were many Holmes movies made before the Rathbone series, and one thing they had in common was that *all* of them were set in the time the movie was shot.
It was actually just like the James Bond movies. The Bond books are set in the ’50s and ’60s, when Ian Fleming wrote. But all the Bond movies are filmed in a contemporary setting. We think of Bond as “one of us,” not some hero from a couple generations back.
In the same way, Holmes fans thought of him as a contemporary. Doing a period film, as when Rathbone starred in “The Hound of the Baskervilles” and “The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes,” was an innovation at the time.
And when they do the new Matt Helm movies, they will be contemporary as well. I’m doubting the Soviet enemy will be replaced by Islamic terrorists.
I’ve never seen a Holmes movie, just read all the books. At any rate, it’s finally a movie I want to see and the good dr is thrilled. He loves movies, but he loves me more.
I am reading KILLING PABLO by Mark Bowden.
Great book.
Third jet of the day…….
Remember folks, nobody ever erects a statue to critics. At least, not to professional critics. Not that anyone here isn’t professional . . .oh, what’s the use? I’m digging my grave deeper with each word.
I hope folks are still monitoring this thread…
I saw this and enjoyed it. Quite a bit. And I did not think I would. I have read a few of the Doyle stories, and it’s probably been about three decades since I have, but I think I still remember the character fairly well. Yes, there are a lot more fisticuffs in this version. Ordinarily I don’t like when a screenwriter takes liberties with characters and story that are wonderful in their original form, and the Doyle stories are, but this was a pretty good balance.
I think most folks would enjoy this movie. The pace isn’t so fast that one has trouble following the story. The plot twists fit together fairly well. There is nothing that takes place technologically that couldn’t be possible in the period the story is set…
When I walked out of the film my initial thought (besides knowing I enjoyed it) was, “that’s certainly not your father’s “Sherlock Holmes.” But, as I thought more about the film the next day I realized even the updated stuff fit Holmes’ personality quite well. Sherlock Holmes is a bit of a nutter. The books feature a lot of moodiness and long periods of anti-social, borderline psychotic behavior. Also, the movie reminded me how much “chemistry” there was in the original Holmes’ stories. Most of the detective work in the film involves just the type of chemistry Holmes employs in the books. And, the film also reminded me how much risk Holmes would take using himself as a guinea pig. Even though the books didn’t have as much physicality, as I thought about the type of fighting the movie Holmes does, and the reasons, it actually was in concert with the Holmes of the short stories. Watson’s character is altered quite a bit from the books, but this Watson makes a good sidekick to this Holmes.
This was my first Guy Ritchie film. I’d read about his style before, but I didn’t fully understand it until I saw it in this film. He did a great job. He does a very good job of visually showing Holmes’ deductive reasoning. This movie is directed very well.
One more thing:
There is a scene in a restaurant I particularly enjoyed. As I wrote, even in the books Holmes is a loner, and quite anti-social, borderline agoraphobic. Guy Ritchie does a good job in the restaurant scene of providing insight into what it is like to be in a large, public space when one has the brain of Sherlock Holmes. He has incredible powers of observation and lightning quick deductive reasoning. That can sometimes be annoying when one just wants to relax and eat a meal.