or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Sherlock Holmes?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Sherlock Holmes? - Page 5

post #61 of 95
Somewhat fun. I was increasingly disappointed as the film went on. The plot is just glue for the fights and some great scenes b/w Law and Downey. Wait for the Blu-Ray on Netflix or whatever. Especially shocked at how much fun Jude Law looked like he was having--it's the first time I've seen him in an upbeat role, and he's great beside Downey.
post #62 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by JLibourel View Post
Just a few more thoughts on this thread:

As far as Holmes' knowledge of martial arts goes, Holmes told Watson that he had used the Japanese art of baritsu to hurl Professor Moriarty into the chasm of the Reichenbach Falls. I just asked my colleague Dave Cater, editor of Inside Kung-Fu, if he had ever heard of a martial art called baritsu. He said he had not. In the movie, Dave informed me, Holmes states that he had been studying Wing Chun (a real martial art) for four years.

I suspect "baritsu" may have been a figment of Doyle's creative imagination. Doyle was very free and easy about making up stuff like that. For example, the "swamp adder, the deadliest snake in India" in "The Speckled Band" is otherwise unknown although people have tried to identify it with the Russell's viper or the banded krait. Doyle obviously didn't know squat about snakes: You can't train a snake with a whistle, they're deaf, and they don't drink milk. The term "Penang lawyer" for a cane weighted with lead seems to have been made up by Doyle. In one of the stories, Dr. Watson mentions using a gun called a "tiger cub." Neither I nor yet my pal Garry James, who knows a great deal more than I do about British firearms of the Victorian era and is quite a Holmesian into the bargain, had ever heard of such a gun.

For all the reverence paid to the Basil Rathbone/Nigel Bruce Holmes movies, bear in mind that in some ways they do more violence to the stories than the current movie. They yank Holmes and Watson out of the late Victorian era and plunk them down in the 1930s and '40s. In at least one of the movies, Holmes is fighting the cruel Nazis, with whom Professor Moriarty has allied himself. I can recall Holmes expressing his amazement to the evil professor that even he could stoop that low! Mind you, it has probably been about 57 years since I was watching those movies on TV!

I believe that Baristu was a british victorian martial art, made up to exploit the skills and stories that came back from the colonies. probrably taught at one or two schools and died out quickly. I think taht I have seen articles written about it.

+1 about the changes to the origional stories - I think that most of us ae being nostalgic for movies and stories that have been "interpreted" quite a bit. I seem to remember that Holmes wasn't supposed to be very elegant or socially adept - I remember the boxing and wrestling, the shooting and fencing, the chemestry and other studies. also, I seem to remember that they were much younger in the begning of the stories than we usually like to think of them

havne't seen the movie, will probrably end up seeing it on a plane.
post #63 of 95
Oh no....I actually liked it.... no really, not the greatest movie, but entertaining. Worth $10.50? Not really....
post #64 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by globetrotter View Post
I believe that Baristu was a british victorian martial art, made up to exploit the skills and stories that came back from the colonies. probrably taught at one or two schools and died out quickly. I think taht I have seen articles written about it.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, it's likely baritsu is a misspelling of bartitsu. According to the official history of the art, the founder Edward William Barton-Wright trained in Shinden-Fudo and Kodokan jiujitsu.
post #65 of 95
sigh.... in all honesty i always thought the books were not anything great or creative to begin with so i like what they did with the movie

i thought it was fun, quirky, and the acting was well done overall and i will with out a doubt purchase the movie on dvd as soon as it comes out

however i am amused at some of the critics responses

ive heard alof of them say guy ritchie sold out and made a different film from his usual style and then a times magazine review i read today said he justmade his typical low brow thug movie

i think alot of people( not just critics) like to bitch about something just for the sake of bitching
post #66 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by RyJ Maduro View Post
Would everyone be this up in arms if the tale being butchered was, say, the Epic of Gilgamesh? The story of the Battle of Thermopylae?

Well, I'm pretty damn up in arms over the Clash of the Titans remake. And don't even get me started on the travesty known as 300.
post #67 of 95
300 was the worst movie I have ever seen.
post #68 of 95
Not to regress by 30 years or so lol but....how was BBC's I, Claudius? I think I'm going to give that one a shot....but would it make Graves roll in his grave?
post #69 of 95
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by javyn View Post
Not to regress by 30 years or so lol but....how was BBC's I, Claudius? I think I'm going to give that one a shot....but would it make Graves roll in his grave?

Since the book I, Claudius was a lurid, trashy piece of work itself, what the BBC did to it (I only saw one or two episodes) would be immaterial to me. I suppose that my attitude is not much different from those who vindicate the new Sherlock Holmes movie on the grounds that they didn't like the original Conan Doyle Sherlock Holmes stories anyway.
post #70 of 95
But of course the Julio-Claudian emperors were a trashy bunch of people! There is nothing in Graves that he didn't get from Tacitus ...

I rather liked the BBC series.
post #71 of 95
I thought the two Claudius novels were phenomenal.
post #72 of 95
Definitely watch I, Claudius. "Rome" or the forthcoming "Spartacus: Blood & Sand" can't touch it. I saw the Holmes movie against my better judgement. Top of the list of things i didn't like was the setting up of the sequel almost from the beginning. Leon
post #73 of 95
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeonM View Post
Definitely watch I, Claudius. "Rome" or the forthcoming "Spartacus: Blood & Sand" can't touch it.

I saw the Holmes movie against my better judgement. Top of the list of things i didn't like was the setting up of the sequel almost from the beginning.

Leon

I really enjoyed 'Rome', so I am definitely getting Claudius. Thanks.
post #74 of 95
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manton View Post
But of course the Julio-Claudian emperors were a trashy bunch of people! There is nothing in Graves that he didn't get from Tacitus.

More Suetonius, actually, who liked to incorporate every vicious bit of slander he could come up with. There is a good deal in Graves that comes from his own foetid imagination, although it has been about 52 years since I read the novel.

Surely you wouldn't characterize a statesman of Augustus' caliber as "trashy"?

Most historian feel Tiberius was really a pretty good, conscientious emperor who got a very bad rap from Suetonius because the Senate didn't like him. Of course he was horribly manipulated by the evil Sejanus.
post #75 of 95
thought movie was ok, I actually would have preferred it if it were *more* Guy Ritchie. Other than his usual slow-mo camera scenes and some witty bits of banter, it didnt have much of his signature on it.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Entertainment and Culture
Styleforum › Forums › Culture › Entertainment and Culture › Sherlock Holmes?