Escape to the Movies: Sherlock Holmes

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

YoUnG205:
This vid will not play past 2:15 ever on my PC. wtf!

Same here.

If I skip ahead a bit, it only plays for a few seconds and then freezes up again.

Bah, the movie freezes at about 2:15 for me, and refreshing won't work... and trying to skip ahead doesn't work, because it plays for maybe 2 seconds before freezing again...

Lol hardly any spoilers.

OT: Good review, watching it tonight.

Now this made me angry. Intelligence, pacing and subtly replaced by action, violence and slapstick - that my friend is commonly referred to as dumming down. Guy Ritchy had no business murdering classics like this. I have read the books, I am a Sherlock Holmes fan - I am not a 'Sherlockian' and I am open to other interpretations but this is taking the piss.
Why do these people think every story out there needs to be diluted and mashed into a paste that can be spoon-fed to the masses in the form of a block-buster. This is not Sherlock Holmes and if movie bob was a fan he would know that! If you can't make a faithful and respectful version then why bother! there are other stories that will welcome expensive special affects and popular American actors.

So far the greatest and most faithful interpretation was the TV serialisation with Jeremy Brett as Holmes, why? it was subtle and deeply intelligent - the very essence of Sherlock Homles:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzdUZ2PpcMY&feature=related

After seeing a trailer for the movie I thought for a long time afterwards that is was a comic version and even then I thought it was bad.

If you like this interpretation you are damaging future films or worse, literature. You are supporting the Bill Murray Character in Scrooged as he likewise defiles A Christmas Carol. I have seen this film, I think it's important to know what I am talking about, Robert Downey Junior's performance is typical of him, I'm not saying he's bad I'm saying he's the completely wrong actor for the part, likewise the Watson Fellow - these are Not Arthur Conan Doyle's Characters. I think everyone who worked on the Movie, or praised it in a review, should be ashamed.

Movie Bob please read this, I would be interested to hear your response.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/dec/15/sherlock-holmes-film-review

angryantlion:
Movie Bob please read this, I would be interested to hear your response.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/dec/15/sherlock-holmes-film-review

Ugh, I can't believe the terrible reviews this film is getting. I've been a Sherlockian since I read Hound at age seven, and with the exception of (as Bob says) a Dan-Brown-ish main plot, this film is both incredibly faithful and incredibly imaginative, a near-perfect modern adaptation of Vic lit (which is really hard to sell without making some modernizations).

Some of these reviewers on their high horses ought to consider going back and reading some of the stories. Downey is the true soul of Holmes, and I didn't see him do a single thing I thought was particularly out of character for Holmes. He was chagrined and ashamed of his weakness where Irene Adler was concerned (just like in the books), a talented pugilist and cane-fighter and not afraid to resort to violence if the situation required it (just like in the books), and a classic Victorian gentleman with little use for Victorian niceties but a gentleman all the same (also just like in the books).

Or maybe it's just fun and profitable to be a reviewer who trashes Downey, Law, and Ritchie.

angryantlion:
Now this made me angry. Intelligence, pacing and subtly replaced by action, violence and slapstick - that my friend is commonly referred to as dumming down. Guy Ritchy had no business murdering classics like this. I have read the books, I am a Sherlock Holmes fan - I am not a 'Sherlockian' and I am open to other interpretations but this is taking the piss.
Why do these people think every story out there needs to be diluted and mashed into a paste that can be spoon-fed to the masses in the form of a block-buster. This is not Sherlock Holmes and if movie bob was a fan he would know that! If you can't make a faithful and respectful version then why bother! there are other stories that will welcome expensive special affects and popular American actors.

So far the greatest and most faithful interpretation was the TV serialisation with Jeremy Brett as Holmes, why? it was subtle and deeply intelligent - the very essence of Sherlock Homles:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzdUZ2PpcMY&feature=related

After seeing a trailer for the movie I thought for a long time afterwards that is was a comic version and even then I thought it was bad.

If you like this interpretation you are damaging future films or worse, literature. You are supporting the Bill Murray Character in Scrooged as he likewise defiles A Christmas Carol. I have seen this film, I think it's important to know what I am talking about, Robert Downey Junior's performance is typical of him, I'm not saying he's bad I'm saying he's the completely wrong actor for the part, likewise the Watson Fellow - these are Not Arthur Conan Doyle's Characters. I think everyone who worked on the Movie, or praised it in a review, should be ashamed.

Wow that's some serious bile right there! I have been reading Conan Doyle since I was about 12, Holmes has been my friend throughout my life. Now having said that I found this film very very entertaining! Holmes like all other literary characters changes according to the time in which the stories are adapted. Basil Rathbone's Holmes was a wartime propaganda machine, Brett was a introverted substance abuser who perfectly fitted with the Eighties ethos. This period in time unfortunately means we get a Holmes we deserve and we have.

He is a mannered eccentric character, the "action" seems not to be bolted on but is perfectly in keeping with the character. Holmes is a martial artist master of baritsu, just from memory he bends a fire poker with his bare hands in the sign of Four. Will need to fact check that!

He has lost none of his detective abilities he even uses his skills in combat, not to spoil the film of course. The plot seems strong with the regular Doyle style McGuffin's well in place!

The love interest was slightly annoying as Holmes to my knowledge loved one person himself, however she is more than a mere annoyance, she has a role to play in the proceedings.

I will not go further into the plot for fear of spoiling it! But I should go and see it if I were you. Its easy to dismiss it but it really is great!

In closing the only thing I would actually change is Downey junior uses some of Charlie Chaplin's mannerisms in his role which is a tad distracting.

10/10!

video is still stopping at 2:53, kind of a pain

I actually saw this today, not half bad although the connection with the actual Sherlock Holmes ends with character names and occupations.

After seing the movie, I think I agree 100% with this review. It's fun to watch, and the characters and lead performances are great, but the story... ugh.

JaredXE:
Video stops at 3:24

Kinda a shame too.

same problem.

kementari:

Ugh, I can't believe the terrible reviews this film is getting. I've been a Sherlockian since I read Hound at age seven, and with the exception of (as Bob says) a Dan-Brown-ish main plot, this film is both incredibly faithful and incredibly imaginative, a near-perfect modern adaptation of Vic lit (which is really hard to sell without making some modernizations).

Some of these reviewers on their high horses ought to consider going back and reading some of the stories. Downey is the true soul of Holmes, and I didn't see him do a single thing I thought was particularly out of character for Holmes. He was chagrined and ashamed of his weakness where Irene Adler was concerned (just like in the books), a talented pugilist and cane-fighter and not afraid to resort to violence if the situation required it (just like in the books), and a classic Victorian gentleman with little use for Victorian niceties but a gentleman all the same (also just like in the books).

Or maybe it's just fun and profitable to be a reviewer who trashes Downey, Law, and Ritchie.

Other than QFT'ing this one, there are two things I want to address here:

One, the Dan Brown-ish plot. I haven't seen the movie yet (continental Europe release dates and all that, I don't have a District 9 BluRay yet, either), but this seems to be a concern with many adaptations. It rears its ugly head in the otherwise amazing "The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes" as well, not to mention that terrible, terrible thing about pyramids and scooby doo-like drug induced walking CG stained glass. For some reason, the whole Mycroft angle, the political side of Holmes seems more interesting to people than the crimefighting Holmes. Perhaps because it feels more relevant and epic than just murder? The same goes for all the "vs" stories out there, from Cthulhu to Jack the Ripper.

Two, the "accuracy" crap. I agree with Bob on this one. Holmes is game for a lot of stuff, even though the kinds of plots I mention above are missing the mark thematically. But if we're going to be fanboys about it, I've always hated the middle aged men approach to Holmes and Watson typically shown in most adaptations. There is a reason Watson gets married so much in the novels: they are kind of young.

Holmes is literally a student in A Study in Scarlet. Watson meets him in a university lab, with a blood-stained lab coat rambling on about how he's almost nailed a luminol-like chemichal to find blood traces or something to that effect. And they meet because they're both broke and need a roommate. Sure, that might have happened slightly later in life back then than it does now, but the ungroomed, erratic young genius and the gruff war veteran best friend mechanic works far better if you imagine them to be younger than well in their fourties.

As for the action-based stuff, what is cool in book form is how Holmes is often used as a Deus ex Machina in his own stories. This is a guy who refuses to leave his house to investigate stuff because he's lazy. In many short stories he literally sits in his sofa through the whole thing. So when he shows up in disguise to hang out with criminals or punches somebody in the face or just shows up unannounced somewhere to take a look for himself, it seems special.

But that doesn't work in a movie. You can't have your lead sitting down and listening to what people say for an hour and a half and then make him just appear to save the day at the end. So you don't, you make him move more. Whether that is on a series of action sequences or just doing CSI stuff is, honestly, kind of irrelevant and up to whoever is doing the movie.

A third point, however.

Am I the only one who is incredibly annoyed by people who spurt common knowledge about Sherlock Holmes like it's some sort of obscure literary trivia? No offense to Bob, but if we need to remind people about Doyle allegedly hating the character, or killing him off, or about the fact that House is an adaptation of Holmes, either we're assuming the audience is too stupid or we're assuming we are too clever. It's kind of like talking about a Superman movie and pointing out that Superman originally couldn't fly or that he has a secret identity.

It's not a big deal, but I've seen everybody from college professors to journalists do that kind of thing when it comes to Holmes, perhaps because it's a pop culture hero from literature rather than movies or comic books, so people are more receptive to the idea that it's a hidden gem they've discovered by themselves and need to expose people to it, even if it isn't true.

Viewers made the House-is-Holmes connection when it first appeared on TV, this isn't anything new.

And I just saw the film - bloody brilliant! It was witty, stylish and terribly amusing.

snide_cake:

The Great JT:
I'm still on the fense about Downey Jr. playing Holmes. All the actors in Britan and they got an American to play him?

Yes but Robert Downey Jnr is amazing with his accents.

See: Tropic Thunder, where he is an american portraying a negro portraying an Aussie. His Australian accent was very good.

A little backwards there. He plays an Aussie (probably a Russel Crowe rip) portaying an African American.

My computer stopped the video as soon as he said Boba Fett was unimportant.

sethzard:
talk about dedecation, for me it stopped at 4:46

Mmm, Seems I;m not the only one then. 2:24 for me and then every 7 seconds after I managed to refresh from 2:25 for example.

Hey mods, seems too much of a co-incidence that quite a few of us are having trouble with this one video on the whole site. Any chance of fixing it as I really want to know what MovieBob thinks?... Dare I say it, but I actually value his opinion.

angryantlion:
Now this made me angry. Intelligence, pacing and subtly replaced by action, violence and slapstick - that my friend is commonly referred to as dumming down. Guy Ritchy had no business murdering classics like this. I have read the books, I am a Sherlock Holmes fan - I am not a 'Sherlockian' and I am open to other interpretations but this is taking the piss.
Why do these people think every story out there needs to be diluted and mashed into a paste that can be spoon-fed to the masses in the form of a block-buster. This is not Sherlock Holmes and if movie bob was a fan he would know that! If you can't make a faithful and respectful version then why bother! there are other stories that will welcome expensive special affects and popular American actors.

So far the greatest and most faithful interpretation was the TV serialisation with Jeremy Brett as Holmes, why? it was subtle and deeply intelligent - the very essence of Sherlock Homles:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzdUZ2PpcMY&feature=related

After seeing a trailer for the movie I thought for a long time afterwards that is was a comic version and even then I thought it was bad.

If you like this interpretation you are damaging future films or worse, literature. You are supporting the Bill Murray Character in Scrooged as he likewise defiles A Christmas Carol. I have seen this film, I think it's important to know what I am talking about, Robert Downey Junior's performance is typical of him, I'm not saying he's bad I'm saying he's the completely wrong actor for the part, likewise the Watson Fellow - these are Not Arthur Conan Doyle's Characters. I think everyone who worked on the Movie, or praised it in a review, should be ashamed.

An interesting and well penned appraisal and everyone is welcome to their opinion, but 1: Jude Law is English and 2: Don't be dissing the Murray in Scrooged. It (Scrooged) was a film that was meant to be a little oddball and not meant to be taken seriously. Do you really think that they would have cast Bill Murray if they wanted a true take on a modernised Dickensian New York? No, me neither.

Murray is great, the film (Scrooged) is infinitely watchable (every poxy Christmas) and although I haven't see the full review of Holmes due to some IT issue that a few Escapists seem to be having, I can get the gist via the responses. As to making you angry, a little strong don't you think? You know that you don't have to watch these features if they envoke that kind of emotion?

Noelveiga:
It rears its ugly head in the otherwise amazing "The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes" as well, not to mention that terrible, terrible thing about pyramids and scooby doo-like drug induced walking CG stained glass.

I haven't seen Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, but a quick glance at IMDb says is has something to do with the Loch Ness monster. The pyramids and stained glass hallucinations was in Young Sherlock Holmes. I also thought of this film when bob explained the Dan Brown plot. So, this kind of thing is not new to Holmes

the antithesis:

Noelveiga:
It rears its ugly head in the otherwise amazing "The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes" as well, not to mention that terrible, terrible thing about pyramids and scooby doo-like drug induced walking CG stained glass.

I haven't seen Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, but a quick glance at IMDb says is has something to do with the Loch Ness monster. The pyramids and stained glass hallucinations was in Young Sherlock Holmes. I also thought of this film when bob explained the Dan Brown plot. So, this kind of thing is not new to Holmes

Well, thematically Private Life is about

Despite being destroyed in the editing room it's still an enjoyable movie. There was never a chance to see a director's cut of Private Life, but the end result is definitely not terrible. If this one is more like that and less than Young Sherlock I'll be happy. Any movie where you need an actual disclaimer about destroying the mythos of a pop culture icon is not on the right track.

First of all I would like to make clear that I love Bill Murray and I think Scrooged is a fantastic version of A Christmas Carol and is one of my favourite Christmas films of all time. What I meant was the version of A Christmas Carol his Character was producing within the film, the one he was going to have air live on Christmas day. However A Christmas Carol is a simple and familiar moral tale that can survive radically different interpretations whilst maintaining the essence of the story, however, I believe this film takes a beloved series full of detail, structure and subtle story-telling and warps it into a hideous action comedy that losses all sight of what made it great in the first place. I agree with the man who said "the connection with the actual Sherlock Holmes ends with character names and occupations".

I would also say that all emotion (anger especially) is important when responding to films, books or indeed other critical responses. People do not have to agree with me but having all these varied ideas is vital when evaluating any media. I know other people share my outrage so it is important that we too give our opinions, even if we are dismissed as bile spewing snobs.

I can't seem to get it to play past 2:53...i mean, i can click somethin' farther down t'skip ahead, then it'll play for about 8 secconds and freeze again...what gives?

I would agree with you to a degree but I'd say there is far more to each interpretation than just saying 'It is a product of its time' I'd even question the importance of that fact. In my opinion The real brilliance of "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" was in Brett's outstanding performance and faithfulness to the book, regardless of the context of production it is the truest on screen adaptation of Sherlock Holmes, it is timeless.

I hate this idea that we must surrender to the trend of action-packed trash dominating the cinema and sit back as flagging directors begin to plunder classic literature for more ideas. As I have said, some things can take different interpretations for instance that modern day version of "Romeo and Juliet" and that up coming "Alice in Wonderland" which I am sure I will enjoy (possibly in 3D) when it comes out.

But these stories are so crafted, so fully formed that big changes can only detract. Just because Guy Ritchie isn't up to the task of making a Sherlock Holmes that would work in the cinema whilst being loyal to the original isn't an excuse for him to make one that isn't. Sometimes directors need know what's fair game and what should be left alone.

well this will make me see this movie. but i have to agree with the Dr. House statement at the end.

Trilby:

Littaly:

And what does VR mean? Apart from Virtual Reality?

VR stands for victoria regina, and was the royal cypher of Queen Victoria (the monarch at the time of Holmes). In one of the short stories, I forget which, Holmes is bored, and so decorates the wall opposite him with a "patriotic VR" in bullet holes, despite Watson protesting that pistol practice should be a "strictly outdoors pastime".

Thank you :D

now that it's monday can we get a re-upload of this video pleeeease?

image

I am still having trouble, at 2:15. Tried both Opera and IE, and it stops at the same place in both browsers, which is somewhat peculiar to me, and very frustrating.

Phase_9:
The video pauses for me as well, around 3:24. And before any smug jerks ask if I "refreshed the page", I'm going to bring them through my own little exercise in deductive reasoning.

Fact 1: I am not an idiot.
Fact 2: My job involves working with computers.
Therefore, we can deduce Fact 3: YES I KNOW HOW TO WORK A COMPUTER, PLEASE DON'T POST UNHELPFUL, CONDESCENDING, PATRONIZING BS IN RESPONSE.

Have you tried refresing the page? :D

Sorry, my first post in a good number of days, so I had to make it something I found enjoyable! That, and there was no way I was going to miss that opportunity!

I thought Holmes fanboys were called Holmesians... whatever.

i had a feeling this would go the way of pirates of the Caribbean sadly i think i was right.

the antithesis:

IronChuck:

kementari:

IronChuck:
House... as Holmes?! Nope, not seeing it.

Well, maybe you ought to look harder, because the House=Holmes/Wilson=Watson similarities were explicitly intended by the show's creators. And they're there. (Yes, House's team helps him solve the mysteries - but most of his "aha" moments come when he's talking to Wilson.) This was an intentional adaptation.

Which would require me making it through an entire episode... which I have yet to actually accomplish.

Well, thank you for your uninformed opinion, then.

Just because House fails to engage me, and thus, eludes me of the Holmes/House connection doesn't mean I'm uninformed, at all. It just means I found something more entertaining with a character - or characters - I can connect with better; and stories I'm more into.

In fact, the point that House fails to engage me is, for me, the basis of the opinion that House isn't quite the kind of show I want to watch. And so I don't.

I tried it, I didn't like it, I formed an opinion about it. A properly informed opinion of House through trial and error that relates to my enjoyment of it.

Now, if I were to state something like; "House is a poorly contrived show, lacking in any redeemable quality, and a pure waste of any viewers time", that would be an uniformed opinion. But I didn't; despite your clumsy editing. I merely said that the show fails to engage *ME*, and so I didn't catch the whole Holmes/House thing; though I have attempted to watch the show, on more than one occasion.

JelloKZ:
I thought Holmes fanboys were called Holmesians... whatever.

I thought they were called Baker Street Irregulars. But what the hell do I know?

IronChuck:
Just because House fails to engage me, and thus, eludes me of the Holmes/House connection doesn't mean I'm uninformed, at all. It just means I found something more entertaining with a character - or characters - I can connect with better; and stories I'm more into.

In fact, the point that House fails to engage me is, for me, the basis of the opinion that House isn't quite the kind of show I want to watch. And so I don't.

I tried it, I didn't like it, I formed an opinion about it. A properly informed opinion of House through trial and error that relates to my enjoyment of it.

Now, if I were to state something like; "House is a poorly contrived show, lacking in any redeemable quality, and a pure waste of any viewers time", that would be an uniformed opinion. But I didn't; despite your clumsy editing. I merely said that the show fails to engage *ME*, and so I didn't catch the whole Holmes/House thing; though I have attempted to watch the show, on more than one occasion.

So, because you do not like the show is why you do not think House is based on Holmes?

the antithesis:

IronChuck:
Just because House fails to engage me, and thus, eludes me of the Holmes/House connection doesn't mean I'm uninformed, at all. It just means I found something more entertaining with a character - or characters - I can connect with better; and stories I'm more into.

In fact, the point that House fails to engage me is, for me, the basis of the opinion that House isn't quite the kind of show I want to watch. And so I don't.

I tried it, I didn't like it, I formed an opinion about it. A properly informed opinion of House through trial and error that relates to my enjoyment of it.

Now, if I were to state something like; "House is a poorly contrived show, lacking in any redeemable quality, and a pure waste of any viewers time", that would be an uniformed opinion. But I didn't; despite your clumsy editing. I merely said that the show fails to engage *ME*, and so I didn't catch the whole Holmes/House thing; though I have attempted to watch the show, on more than one occasion.

So, because you do not like the show is why you do not think House is based on Holmes?

<facepalm>

Really? After twice saying I didn't see the connection because I've never been able to get into the show enough to notice it...? Here, let me help you:

IronChuck watch show. IronChuck no like show. Ironchuck stop watching show. IronChuck not see Holmes/House connection because IronChuck not watch show he not like.

Kemantari's astute point to me, that the show was intended as a derivative of Holmes, as well as Movie Bob's drawing the connection to House, does make me worry if this movie is going to be worth my $11 plus to go see in the theatre, now.

However, as previously pointed out, Downey's - as well as Law's - acting is, and has been, usually top notch. And I am generally curious and excited to see other levels - oft only inferred in the text - brought to life on the screen.

Hmmm... maybe a matinee, then.

kawaiiamethist:

snide_cake:

The Great JT:
I'm still on the fense about Downey Jr. playing Holmes. All the actors in Britan and they got an American to play him?

Yes but Robert Downey Jnr is amazing with his accents.

See: Tropic Thunder, where he is an american portraying a negro portraying an Aussie. His Australian accent was very good.

A little backwards there. He plays an Aussie (probably a Russel Crowe rip) portaying an African American.

Ah cheers, it's been a while since I've seen the movie :)

IronChuck:
<facepalm>

Really? After twice saying I didn't see the connection because I've never been able to get into the show enough to notice it...? Here, let me help you:

IronChuck watch show. IronChuck no like show. Ironchuck stop watching show. IronChuck not see Holmes/House connection because IronChuck not watch show he not like.

Kemantari's astute point to me, that the show was intended as a derivative of Holmes, as well as Movie Bob's drawing the connection to House, does make me worry if this movie is going to be worth my $11 plus to go see in the theatre, now

So you're just boring us with your dislike for House all this time for no real reason. Well, thanks.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here