Escape to the Movies: Sherlock Holmes

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5
 

the antithesis:

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.

[Sigh...]

Someday I will remember not to feed the trolls...

I finally got the whole video to work. I would like to extend my thanks to the Escapist technical staff for this. After five pages of complaints, I wish to offer gratitude that the issue (for me at least) appears to be resolved and that I understand the holiday weekend no doubt played a roll in this issue remaining for as long as it did. In any case, it's nice to finally get to see the last half of the review.

speaking of house...

It is a great movie, one of the very few that have come out in the last few mouths that I would want to go see again

Speaking of that V.R, what did it mean

-M

Nazulu:

Spitfire175:
It's a horrible adaptation of Holmes. It's an American action flick pretending to be something the director had no idea about. Usually I agree with Moviebob, but definitely not now.

I have to agree with this even though I haven't seen ANY of the originals but it wasn't bad, it just isn't anything great or special, just like everything else these days.

Just to be sure, you know that Guy Ritchie directed it, right? Perhaps you should instead say "American funded" movie or one "targeted at American audiences", but I certainly don't think you can call it an "American action flick" just because the lead actor happens to be from the USA.

midnightalone:

Speaking of that V.R, what did it mean

-M

read the last couple of pages of this thread and you shall be enlightened.

CosmicCommander:
I liked the review...

...But by the trailers I think Sherlock Holmes has been Americanised! If there is anything worse that can happen to good literature or film, it's Americanisation!

Worse than what? Your phrasing confuses me.

I saw the film tonight and thought it was great. It was entertaining, and in my opinion, the plot was just fine. Average for a detective film, but then again, those aren't that common anymore, now are they?

And yes, I am sorry for my utter overuse of the comma in that sentence.

solidstatemind:

Nazulu:

Spitfire175:
It's a horrible adaptation of Holmes. It's an American action flick pretending to be something the director had no idea about. Usually I agree with Moviebob, but definitely not now.

I have to agree with this even though I haven't seen ANY of the originals but it wasn't bad, it just isn't anything great or special, just like everything else these days.

Just to be sure, you know that Guy Ritchie directed it, right? Perhaps you should instead say "American funded" movie or one "targeted at American audiences", but I certainly don't think you can call it an "American action flick" just because the lead actor happens to be from the USA.

Well it has got as much action as it does investigation so it is an action flick, also I know the originals don't have as much action or any fighting like that so you could say it is amercanised. Thats how I see it anyway.

That House bit at the end made me laugh, it's true though.

I am an occasional watcher of House. I'm no fan, but I've seen several episodes and enjoyed them and I know how the basic plot of any given episode will work.

I am an occasional reader of Sherlock Holmes. Again, no fan, but I've read some long stories, some short ones, seen a few adaptations and things inspired by Holmes, and I know some associated trivia, so I am somewhat informed.

I consider myself an intelligent person.

Before today, I had NEVER made the connection between Holmes and House.

THERE IS NO END TO MY SHAME.

Well, having finally seen the film, I can say that, with utmost certainty, that it had to be one of the best films of the past few years; let alone 2009.

As a detective film, it was par average, I suppose. The formula was classic Holmes, down to the end. And there was a level of intelligence to the plot that I really enjoyed. I'm also glad they didn't cave into typical, and cliche, plot devices. The story and the action worked together in tandem quite well; neither drawing attention from the other. For me it was a seamless blend.

I really enjoyed how each character was fleshed out; coming to life in a way that previous renditions seemed to miss. The play between Holmes and Watson, I found, to be enjoyable and lively. You could get the sense from the interplay of all the characters that there was real history among them.

Cinemagraphically this movie was solid. Shots were framed out to a tee. And, though there were a lot of CG effects, they were used with a good eye; they complimented and filled out the scene, rather than beefing up, distracting, or just as flash.

In short, this was worth the money. And, in today's hit or miss market, that is saying a lot. Heck, I'm gonna go see it again.

Of course, that's just my opinion; your mileage may vary.

I enjoyed it, I had fun, and yes the first Pirates film is apt comparison. I get a great character that goes along adventure with supporting cast (Watson is better than anything Sparrow had to play off of).

Is it thought provoking stuff, not really, but this to me is fun cinema, like Indiana Jones. I may not feel challenged, but I'm never insulted either and got some laughs (Downey's facial expressions are genius) from banter between characters and enjoyable action sequences.

So, overall, I'd suggest this to most people, especially with bunch of friends for a fun evening out.

pretty much just got home from watching it, and i must say im surprised bob dont mention watsons soon to be wife mary(may be wrong) played by kelly riley, she only has about 6 lines in the movie ans she MURDERS each of them, going from playing waaaay over the top to only reading, every scene with her in it dies because of her, i had a heck of a fun time watching this with a friend of mine, but i really hope that the sequel will feature her death.

i cant stress enough how horrible she was, honestly i was better as Mick Jagger in my schools 4th grade musical about the evolution of music (apparently i looked like him, thanks allot), and i was an insanely shy kid.

I really enjoyed this film, and it is my new favorite movie.
*hides behind flame shield*

Yes Yes Yes. Dude this review is win, the characters were fantastic, but the plot and "mystery" was lacking. Robert Downey Jr. was spectacular as the introverted aloof elitist that Homes is, and while I thought Jude Law's Watson seemed like a more over the top character than I would have like, it worked spectacularly well with the way this new re-imagining feels, big, robust, larger than life action with more steam punk goodness than bioshock will ever be able to match. Honestly this movie was a great first step down what I fully expect will be an excellent series of movies.

eels05:
You know what your getting with Guy Richie directed films,so I'll be sure to get around to this one eventually.
News to me that Doyle wrote Holmes as a substance abuser,always assumed Holmes was straight laced all the way.Which is why I've never really read a Holmes novel.
Guess I'll have to check a few out to see if the character has any more appeal now after that revelation.

Not so much a substance abuser. Snuff was pretty common (and legal, I think) back then. NOTE: SNUFF IS NOT FUCKING COCAINE, K?

I agree that House is by far the best show on TV in a long time.. I absolutely love it his asshole attitude towards everything combined with his pure genius WOW that show gives me chills when i watch it! One of the very few shows i actually watch on TV anymore.. I mean when most of my options are reality shows.. About teenagers fighting about who can get drunk better... Or teenagers that need a good whiping and need to stop saying "LIKE" every 2 fucking words!

I'm sure that it's been said twenty times on this thread already (I've not read all the posts) but I agree with Movie Bob that House is an excellent Holmes. Heck, that was the whole idea, create a modern Holmes in a new setting, it's all there right down to the drug addiction and his charecter foil called Wilson (Wilson, Watson, close enough really). I also agree with all those who have said that House is one of the best shows currently on TV. It's everything you could ask from a programme and with Hugh Lorrie as the lead, you can't go wrong.

Back to the review of Sherlock Holmes, it was a good review of the film, I have been to see it and found it excellent (as long as you don't look to close, you have to suspend disbelief to appreciate it I think). If anything, I hope it has left many people with the urge to read some of the original stories.

Once again it's nice to see the film and TV industry create/reintroduce charecters and stories to the public that have depth (in the case of House) but also present to us witty and inteligent leads that people could aspire to be (minus the drug addition, that's not good).

(P.S. I found that video that Nurb posted seriously strange).

Noelveiga:
[quote="kementari" post="6.163403.4272920"]
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.

I'm sorry, I'm sorry, but I have to say something about this comment, mainly the objection to the leads being portrayed as middle aged men in most adaptations.
I have recently read (and by that I mean yesterday, after seeing the film I've desided to read some of the stories) a Sherlock Holmes story containing the following phrase:

(this is Holmes speaking with Watson while on a train): "... Lestrade, being rather puzzled, has refered the case to me, and hence it is that two middle-aged gentlemen are flying westward at fifty miles an hour instead of quietly digesting their breakfasts at home."
(it's from 'The Boscombe Valley Mystery' if anyone's interested).

If that's not some evidence as to why the pair are portrayed as middle-aged men I don't know what is.
(Unless middle-aged for Victorians was earlier on in people's life than we'd consider it these days, I don't know).
That's not to say I don't think that he can't be portrayed as younger (Holmes is a timeless/ageless charecter) it's just it's comments like that from the original manuscripts influence casting for TV shows and films.
There, that's my rant over with.

edit: yes, I'm aware that I've got two posts back to back, I didn't realise no one else had posted since I'd posted my first comment.

LostTimeLady:

I'm sorry, I'm sorry, but I have to say something about this comment, mainly the objection to the leads being portrayed as middle aged men in most adaptations.
I have recently read (and by that I mean yesterday, after seeing the film I've desided to read some of the stories) a Sherlock Holmes story containing the following phrase:

(this is Holmes speaking with Watson while on a train): "... Lestrade, being rather puzzled, has refered the case to me, and hence it is that two middle-aged gentlemen are flying westward at fifty miles an hour instead of quietly digesting their breakfasts at home."
(it's from 'The Boscombe Valley Mystery' if anyone's interested).

If that's not some evidence as to why the pair are portrayed as middle-aged men I don't know what is.
(Unless middle-aged for Victorians was earlier on in people's life than we'd consider it these days, I don't know).
That's not to say I don't think that he can't be portrayed as younger (Holmes is a timeless/ageless charecter) it's just it's comments like that from the original manuscripts influence casting for TV shows and films.
There, that's my rant over with.

Yeah, but the stories span a rather large period, don't they? I was thinking of the A Study in Scarlett timeline. When Watson meets Holmes he's in an university laboratory (not as a teacher, although it's not explicitly said that he's a student. Maybe whatever the equivalent of a post-grad was at the time) and Watson just got discharged of the military early. They are both bachelors with not too much money and decide to share an apartment. Holmes, at the time, is covered in blood as he tries to research a luminol-like substance to detect traces of blood (or maybe to determine their blood type, I don't remember the exact quote).

I just love how absolutely contemporary that is, and it's far more approachable than the idea of two fourty-something guys sharing a place for no particularly good reason.

As for what "middle aged" refered to back then, even if the novel hadn't depicted a later time period, I'm pretty sure that anybody over or around 30 would qualify, wouldn't he? We are talking about a time when people started working in their teens and life expectancy was a good 20 years lower...

This movie ROCKED!!!!!!!! RDJ at his best yet again.

Noelveiga:

LostTimeLady:

I'm sorry, I'm sorry, but I have to say something about this comment, mainly the objection to the leads being portrayed as middle aged men in most adaptations.
I have recently read (and by that I mean yesterday, after seeing the film I've desided to read some of the stories) a Sherlock Holmes story containing the following phrase:

(this is Holmes speaking with Watson while on a train): "... Lestrade, being rather puzzled, has refered the case to me, and hence it is that two middle-aged gentlemen are flying westward at fifty miles an hour instead of quietly digesting their breakfasts at home."
(it's from 'The Boscombe Valley Mystery' if anyone's interested).

If that's not some evidence as to why the pair are portrayed as middle-aged men I don't know what is.
(Unless middle-aged for Victorians was earlier on in people's life than we'd consider it these days, I don't know).
That's not to say I don't think that he can't be portrayed as younger (Holmes is a timeless/ageless charecter) it's just it's comments like that from the original manuscripts influence casting for TV shows and films.
There, that's my rant over with.

Yeah, but the stories span a rather large period, don't they? I was thinking of the A Study in Scarlett timeline. When Watson meets Holmes he's in an university laboratory (not as a teacher, although it's not explicitly said that he's a student. Maybe whatever the equivalent of a post-grad was at the time) and Watson just got discharged of the military early. They are both bachelors with not too much money and decide to share an apartment. Holmes, at the time, is covered in blood as he tries to research a luminol-like substance to detect traces of blood (or maybe to determine their blood type, I don't remember the exact quote).

I just love how absolutely contemporary that is, and it's far more approachable than the idea of two fourty-something guys sharing a place for no particularly good reason.

As for what "middle aged" refered to back then, even if the novel hadn't depicted a later time period, I'm pretty sure that anybody over or around 30 would qualify, wouldn't he? We are talking about a time when people started working in their teens and life expectancy was a good 20 years lower...

I'm pleased to continue a discussion on this matter. I certainly agree that having Holmes and Watson as contemporary gentlemen in or around their 30's is actually a far more consistant image with the stories than two stuffy men in their 40's that is often how they are portayed. Hence why I do like R.D.J's portrayal of Holmes, I can far more easily invision a young Holmes like R.D.J's while reading the stories than an older gentleman in the apparently nessisary dear stalker (at least perhaps this generation of young people won't have THAT image in mind anymore when they hear the name 'Sherlock Holmes'). Definately your reasoning as to why they'd share rooms makes sense as by 40 I supect most men would be married at that time or would have amassed a great enough income to live alone.
(Insidently, I do like the image of Holmes as a bit of an excentric scientist. I must track down a copy of 'A study in Scarlett', I'm very curious to read that story now.)

I definately see logic in your reasoning about what would count as 'middle aged'. In fact the story from which I quoted was an earlier one and so I suspect would have depicted the protagonists as younger.

I do appologise for playing devils advocate before, although I too am frustrated by the bizzare false-image of Holmes that has been created by nearly a centery of films and TV programmes. It's a good thing too that this film has opened up a debate about the charecter and the books.

the plot is totally mental, same as from hell

MovieBob:
FWIW, i.e. the House thing - next time you're watching, check out the number on House's apartment, the various Doyle books that turn up in the background and how frequently (at least twice, I think) the name Irene Adler turns up.

Dammit, Bob! Now cannot unsee!
But seriously, I like Holmes, I like House, and I'm astounded that I never got around to that connection! Thanks for turning the light on that lovely little tidbit! :)

ben---neb:

paul anderson:
1st

Saying this in a proud manner on Christmas day of all days is as pitiful as this sentence is ironic.

You use that word [ironic] I do not think it means what you think it means...

I'm with Bob on one point.
Boba Fett fanboys.
WHAT THE FUCK? Why is he so popular? He's a random bounty hunter introduced during the terrible Holiday Special and who was eaten by an IMMOBILE CREATURE.
Is it the jet pack? Oh fuck-a-doodle-doo. You think anyone from Mass Effect or Half-Life would need a jet pack to kill Fett? Shepard could just accuse Fett of making disingenuous assertions and Fett's head would explode inside his helmet, and Gordon Freeman has a weapon that can distort gravity. Fett was useless by old sci-fi standards, now he's not even qualified to be called cannon fodder. I should also mention he's genetically identicle to the Storm Troopers according to the prequel series. You know, the useless guys in plastic who can't shoot straight and who can be killed if you cough in their direction?

Quick question to MovieBob; did he catch Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss' modern re-imagining Sherlock when it was on and if so, what did he think of it?

Actually, the sherlock holmes series are now the best Sherlock holmes thing I have ever seen. I find it brilliant.
Anyone agrees?

If anyone agrees with him than you need to watch BBC's 'Sherlock' series, awesome.

Its funny that the bbc's modern adaptation actually seems to do a better job of being true to the original stories than this movie does. Honestly it feels as if the "Sherlock" name was just slapped on more than anything else.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5

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
Register for a free account here