Sherlock Holmes?

Doyle was the Michael Crichton of his day. It's only been much later that we've assigned any kind of artistic credibility to him. Dreary Masterpiece Theater Victorianism is less true to the spirit of Holmes than this is likely to be.

This movie is an absolute insult to a great literary figure. Total ****.

On another note, we've been reading the complete works to our nine year old boy and he is entranced. We started with some short stories and are working on A Study In Scarlet. Exposing your child to such things is one of the little joys of parenting.

JLib...if you're looking for Sherlock Holmes in the Basil Rathbone mold, this is not the film for you. Portrayed as a marginally functioning addict, there is none of the sophisticated, intellectual polish that Rathbone gave the character (although I must admit it is years since I've seen one of his portrayals). Downey does an admirable job (I am a fan), but you're not going to appreciate the interpretation.

I saw the film last night. It was entertaining, but that's about as far as I'm willing to go. I had expected it to be a "WOW" movie and was a bit let down by most all of it, except the acting.

I don't want to be offensive, but do you dimwits still think that movies like this can possible be good? Didn't you see from the previews that it was a dime-a-dozen action flick tailor-made for brainless tools?

Seriously, if you expect a good film, stop watching anything created by Hollywood. Sure, there is the 1 in 50 gem, but your odds are lot better going foreign.

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

Click to expand...

...your odds are lot better going foreign.

But...but...that means reading.

You guys don't realize that the Holmes of Doyle is quite the bada$$. In the first book, "Study in Scarlett", Holmes is described to be an expert boxer and swordsman.

Sherlock Holmes -- his limits 1. Knowledge of Literature. -- Nil. 2. "" Philosophy. -- Nil. 3. "" Astronomy. -- Nil. 4. "" Politics. -- Feeble. 5. "" Botany. -- Variable. Well up in belladonna, opium, and poisons generally. Knows nothing of practical gardening. 6. Knowledge of Geology. -- Practical, but limited. Tells at a glance different soils from each other. After walks has shown me splashes upon his trousers, and told me by their colour and consistence in what part of London he had received them. 7. Knowledge of Chemistry. -- Profound. 8. "" Anatomy. -- Accurate, but unsystematic 9. "" Sensational Literature. -- Immense. He appears to know every detail of every horror perpetrated in the century. 10. Plays the violin well. 11. Is an expert singlestick player, boxer, and swordsman. 12. Has a good practical knowledge of British law.

Click to expand...

In a later short story, Holmes meets an expert boxer who recognizes Holmes b/c Holmes was the only amateur who ever lasted 4 rounds. The modern interpretations of Holmes have missed this part of his character.

Saw the preview and immediately thought that it looked like Van Helsing meets Wild Wild West...dear lord, a perfect storm of terribleness...

Originally Posted by gdc_2008

Click to expand...

Saw the preview and immediately thought that it looked like Van Helsing meets Wild Wild West...dear lord, a perfect storm of terribleness...

+1 Nicely said.

Originally Posted by NorCal

Click to expand...

This movie is an absolute insult to a great literary figure. Total ****.

On another note, we've been reading the complete works to our nine year old boy and he is entranced. We started with some short stories and are working on A Study In Scarlet. Exposing your child to such things is one of the little joys of parenting.

I wish you lived in my neighborhood so you could read it to my kids. I just finished the complete two-volume, 1200+ pages (or damn near seemed like it). It only took me a year in off-and-on reading.

Boring.
As.
****.

Perhaps because I don't have the low level skepticism of a nine-year old, though.

Originally Posted by gdc_2008

Click to expand...

Saw the preview and immediately thought that it looked like Van Helsing meets Wild Wild West...dear lord, a perfect storm of terribleness...

Indeed. And I loved Guy Ritchie's first two films. I don't even mind Jude Law - he played a bit part in one of the Jeremy Brett adaptations in the early 90s.

It's quite well known that some of the original stories are tripe, written only at the behest of those holding the purse strings for The Stand Magazine. By all accounts, Doyle himself grew tired of the character early on, seeing Holmes as a hindrance to recognition for his more serious literary works.

The Valley of Fear is a really good SH story, well worth a read.

Originally Posted by poorsod

Click to expand...

You guys don't realize that the Holmes of Doyle is quite the bada$$.

In the first book, "Study in Scarlett", Holmes is described to be an expert boxer and swordsman.



In a later short story, Holmes meets an expert boxer who recognizes Holmes b/c Holmes was the only amateur who ever lasted 4 rounds.

The modern interpretations of Holmes have missed this part of his character.

How often did he leap from an exploding building and land in a tuck-and-roll while shooting three villains with one bullet just as he kicks out his foot and slays a fourth man with his boot knife (or whatever the hell happened in that noisy trailer)?

Originally Posted by Teacher

Click to expand...

How often did he leap from an exploding building and land in a tuck-and-roll while shooting three villains with one bullet just as he kicks out his foot and slays a fourth man with his boot knife (or whatever the hell happened in that noisy trailer)?
How often did he defeat the head of a world wide criminal organization using his mastery of Asian martial arts and survive a fall off a 100m waterfall?

The drug issue can be overemphasized. Yes, it is true that early portrayals of Holmes on stage and in film scrubbed it out altogether, in a non-canonical way, but later portrayals or "sequels" written by other authors (esp. Nick Meyer) played it up too much.

Drugs are mentioned only a handful of times in the very earliest stories. Watson mentions his disaproval and discusses his efforts to get Holmes off the stuff, which evidently succeeded because we hear no more of them. There is a story (IIRC, "Man with the Twisted Lip") which begins in an opium den, and Watson is troubled to find Holmes there and worries that the detective has "relapsed" or whatever. But it turns out that his fears are groundless.

I've seen the film and can say it is not quite the stinking pile of dung that VAN HELSING or WILD WILD WEST were, but it does have the big H'wood studio blockbuster treatment. Holmes' trademark deductive reasoning is on display generally only when they need to jump ahead with a plot leap. Oh, and when he's boxing and trying to figure out where to punch his opponent. (He also uses it to insult Watson's fiancee).

While it is Ritchie's most energetic return to form since SNATCH, it is no LOCK STOCK. None of the fresh characters, dialogue, music or camer angles: this could have been directed by Antoine Fuqua. Computer compositing of Victorian Englan looks fake--more like LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN than even FROM HELL. Sadly, Rachel McAdams is not nearly charismatic enough or even proficient enough to carry off her role. She should stick with light romantic comedies where charm and a nice smile can carry you through.

While there are a few nods to Doyle, this was clearly made for modern audiences who have no familiarity with the character or the book. If you want to see Holmes reduced to the level and the generic action hero status of, say Nick Cage in NATIONAL TREASURE, then this is your film! Ritchie makes the action sequences look slick, Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law are talented actors and big things go boom. Not a dog but a solid B- if you like studio fare.

Jeremy Brett FTW