I'll be honest right off by saying I really do not know much about Sherlock holmes and his cases/stories. I've never played any of the games, which I would like to at some point. I have, though, seen a handful of episodes on TV with my Grandmother years ago.
From what I'm getting out of the trailers, it's seems to me they've turned him into some sort of martial arts wielding action hero.
Any thoughts from Sherlock Holmes fans?
Meh, sherlock holmes is about intellect and i think they have stripped that away from it.
Sherlock holmes was never about action.. Its like having a kung fu Doctor Who.. it just doesnt fit.
I'd stay away from the games, at least the Case of the Pearl Earring. Really dreadful puzzles, gameplay and storytelling.
The film looks even worse, based upon the posters and the director.
The only book I've read is the Sign of Four, which I very much enjoyed and would make excellent christmas reading.
Wasn't Sherlock Holmes (in the books) a master of pugilism, some sort of weird cane-fighting and a good shot to boot?
This is the first I've heard of a Sherlock Holmes movie, but hey, I'll probably watch it eventually.
Good, so far I'm with all of you. I hate how they take something good and think they have to change it all up to be excepted.
Never really read the novels/stories, but I watched a bunch of tv series and movies. I don't like the previous work of some of the screenplay writers on this project, but it has Guy Ritchie directing it and Downey acting as Sherlock and I'm sold. It's probably not going to be very "brainy" or original (though if it suprises me, great) but it's visually cool, characters look cool and I'm sure my expectations will be met and if they're surpassed all the better.
Definetly set up at not expecting a detective story but an action comedy - it doesn't take itself so seriuosly and it puts it's own little twist on SH mythos. Think of it as an alternative summer blockbuster and I think you won't be disappointed.
Actually, it wasn't rare in the novels that Sherlock fought his enemies with his fists. I remember distinctly that he was described as a formidable boxer on one occasion
I'm just hoping that the trailer was cut together to grab the attention of those audience segments who wouldn't normally go see a Sherlock Holmes movie. It sure seems like they picked every action-packed scene of the movie and stuffed it all into the trailer, but If the majority of the film is like that, I have absolutely no desire to see it.
I don't believe action and Sherlock Holmes is necessarily incongruous - I still think Young Sherlock Holmes is a terrific adventure movie, and it manages to retain plenty of Holmesian spirit. And I understand why it's necessary to widen the scope and add something more cinematic that Holmes discovering clues and interrogating suspects - otherwise it would be like watching CSI or House on the big screen, kind of pointless. It's perfectly alright to try to update a character and make him more appealing to the times - compare the development of the James Bond character - and the filmmakers don't try to conceal that this is a re-envisioning.
To be honest, I couldn't care less if they get the characters wrong. Unlike something like Alan Moore's League of Extraordinary Gentlemen or From Hell, which once bollocksed up will never get a second shot at a movie version, there are hundreds of Holmes films and there will be more. If the film is successful, lots of kids will discover Holmes through it and then read the books and watch other - possibly better - film and TV versions. What would piss me off however, is if the film fails even as an action movie - and judging by the trailer, it's not a that great one. The legacy of Conan Doyle deserves better than being remembered as a piece of crap copy of Shanghai Knights (which, looking at the trailer, had much better fights than this movie).
Quote from: Ali on Fri 18/12/2009 16:09:46
I'd stay away from the games, at least the Case of the Pearl Earring.
Try Sherlock Holmes Vs Jack the Ripper... fair enough I've only played the Demo.. but krikey, what a demo! I do intend on buyign the full game at some point.
As for the movie, I'm not too fussed that they've put some action into it... I'm just fussed that Robert Downy Jr, rather than playing this uniquely recognisable icon of fiction, he seems to be playing the same character he always plays.
Still, I wouldn't mind watching it.
Quote from: Stupot on Fri 18/12/2009 21:39:29Try Sherlock Holmes Vs Jack the Ripper... fair enough I've only played the Demo.. but krikey, what a demo! I do intend on buyign the full game at some point.
Yeah, that was a pretty decent game. Despite too many fetch quests and a few favors you had to do the NPCs that seemed below Holmes' dignity, the first person Holmes games are generally quite true to the books and pretty innovative in gameplay terms. I especially enjoyed the scenes where you had to re-enact the murders or place events on a timeline. Sure, below the surface they are pretty standard logic puzzles, but the way they were staged really made me feel like I was solving a crime. One puzzle that springs to mind, despite the implementation being far from perfect, is the scene where Holmes identifies the murder weapon by trying different types of knives out on pig's heads. A lot of other commercial adventures could learn a lot from this (I'm amazed how many games fail to take advantage of cool and original gameplay elements that are suggested by the story or characters, e.g. criminal profiling in Still Life, and instead favor old school inventory puzzles and fetch quests).
The one thing I didn't like about Holmes vs. The Ripper was that the main Whitechapel area seemed awfully generic (most of the character models are also reused from the two previous Holmes games). Everything else seems so carefully researched and those who have studied the Ripper murders will find that most of the facts are more or less accurate. I'm really curious how they recreate most of the murder sites in perfect detail but fail to use obvious landmarks like Christ Church Spitalsfield and the Ten Bell's pub. Their solution to the murders was also pretty good, less spectacular than Alan Moore's version, but nevertheless felt plausible without being mundane.
Sorry to ramble on, I just realized that the game made more of an impression on me than I realized at the time of playing it :)
I'm curious about the movie. I'm not a Guy Ritchie fan (I enjoyed Snatch and Lock, Stock,.. but I'm not too crazy about them either) and the trailer looks huh... It just doesn't look like Sherlock Holmes at all. BUT, why not ?
It raises that question : Do adaptations have to be 100% accurate ?
(side note : A lot of people complain about the lack of fidelity to the original matter, but most of the time, those same people do not even know that Sherlock was a drug addict for example)
Sometimes, some elements just do not work in a movie. Holmes solves a lot of cases only by sitting on his bed, smoking or doing drugs.
I'm not saying adaptations should be totally different, but still, I think that a movie should be independant from the original source (Sorry about my terrible english :-\ )
(After that, it raises another question : Why do they have to name it after the original source then ? They could have created a new character in the same context, with lots of references, etc. That's another debate, I guess)
(Sorry again, I hope you'll understand what I wrote ??? )
I love Sherlock Holmes. I've read all four of the books and all fifty or whatever of the stories. And I really dig the new look they have going here. One grows a bit tired of seeing the same tall skinny guy in the deerstalker!
If it turns out to be entirely action I'll be pretty disappointed, but I'm hoping there's enough original Holmesian canon in there to get my mystery loving blood pumping.
Sherlock Holmes is a good boxer and cane fighter. Also, carries a revolver.
Kicks and window diving aside, that's all I saw in the trailer, so it's true to the story.
What I think is that they will still probably stray too far from intellect and deduction stuff, but there's a good part - that other side is Indiana Jones' side, which isn't worse really. Explosions WITH brains. Just not true to Sherlock Holmes stories, but as entertaining.
And yeah, I wouldn't want to see my hero injecting heroin (which he really did in books at some period) so adaptions should be selective at some amount.
Well, for games and novels - books rock and games not so much. Usually, I feel opposite, but not with Sherlock Holmes. I've played three new games (and two old) and every one of them gets boring at some point. "Case of serrated scalpel" is best game in series IMO. Also, novels are shorter and more action packed than games and you don't have to pixel hunt anything nor play every damn classic puzzle minigame...
See movie, read books, but play games only if you want more.
Also, it's hard to pick up and imagine characters as English, but Soviet-time (80s) russian TV movies (http://www.bakerstreetdozen.com/russianholmes.html) of SH are actually quite watchable. Since russians avoid courts and bullshit - as with all russian movies/series, it's on youtube.
I hate Mr. Holmes with a passion.
He's a stuck-up jerk who spends more time getting high and playing the violin than using that stupidly good intellect of his.
I've read four of the books, and except that he solves various cases, I really don't see why people like him so much.
He's an arse!
Quote from: Andy R. on Fri 18/12/2009 22:21:09
(After that, it raises another question : Why do they have to name it after the original source then ? They could have created a new character in the same context, with lots of references, etc. That's another debate, I guess)
Because same people complaining in this topic how this movie is not original to the source would be the same people talking about how they ripped off SH with the cane fighting, heroin addiction, boxing, London in the 19th century etc.
I think it might be better this way, although the best way would be to come up with an inspiried by but original character and make an effort in writing, for example the first Indiana Jones movie - not quite an original character but they made it cool and original enough to be great on it's own.
Quote from: InCreator on Fri 18/12/2009 22:35:55
And yeah, I wouldn't want to see my hero injecting heroin (which he really did in books at some period) so adaptions should be selective at some amount.
Minor slip, it was cocaine (even though Holmes on heroine should be fun too. Heroine doesn't go with... well, with doing pretty much everything else, though).
I enjoyed Conan Doyle very much in my youth and I'm quite interested in the movie adaption. I'll give this one a try.
Amusingly enough, I was discussing Holmes with a friend who is relatively new to the character the other week and accidentally accused him of being a heroin user as opposed to cocaine myself (which I corrected later).
I'm quite the fan, enjoyed Arthur Conan Doyle's work very much, and I wouldn't mind seeing this.
QuoteI hate Mr. Holmes with a passion.
He's a stuck-up jerk who spends more time getting high and playing the violin than using that stupidly good intellect of his.
I've read four of the books, and except that he solves various cases, I really don't see why people like him so much.
He's an arse!
Possibly because he's one of the few heroes whose strengths and weaknesses are well matched? He's a rather bipolar character at times, and I like the way this is used in the stories.
Quote from: Ben304 on Sat 19/12/2009 11:55:34Amusingly enough, I was discussing Holmes with a friend who is relatively new to the character the other week and accidentally accused him of being a heroin user as opposed to cocaine myself (which I corrected later).
Don't beat yourself up about it, even Conan Doyle forgot which drug Holmes was taking. In one of the stories he refers to Holmes using morphine (which is an opiate like heroin) instead of cocaine :). (Arguably he could have been using both, but as bicilotti pointed out, opiates don't really sharpen the detection skills - would be fun to see a weed-smoking Holmesian detective though, a stoner version of Detective Monk).
As I recall, Holmes took drugs between cases because he was bored, not in order to sharpen his wits.
Yes, I'm among those who argue that this film portrayal doesn't appear to be as far from Conan Doyle's character as many people presume, and that it looks fun besides. I'm definitely looking forward to this.
I hope everybody can see the obvius connection with taking drugs, brilliant mind, plays guitar etc. to dr. House and his companion dr. Watson Wilson ;D
Quote from: anian on Sat 19/12/2009 15:17:03
I hope everybody can see the obvius connection with taking drugs, brilliant mind, plays guitar etc. to dr. House and his companion dr. Watson Wilson ;D
Yep, we discussed this in that aforementioned conversation as well.
Ha, I just remembered one thing : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkaAg7OkaGk
It's totally possible to use the Sherlock character in order to tell a totally different story :=
(I'm no Miyazaki fan, but, damn, it was a really nice cartoon !)
We have Sherlock Holmes series filmed back in soviet times and I heard a rumor that actor who played SH was considered one of the best Sherlock Holmes by the Brits ;D
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0515106/
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079902/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DoojJpnsOU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwR-sW2sN5w&NR=1
(sorry, couldn't resist ;))
As for new movie... well, I am amazed by how modern movie makers can turn any story into the funfair. Take 2012, for instance. Millions of people dying, but half of the movie we see how main characters ride the roller-coaster (figurally speaking).
People mix his heroin use with his few cases of smoking opium and his use of morphine.
Surprisingly I found this new incarnation of Sherlock Holmes to be much closer to the AC Doyle texts than many earlier versions. The trailer was misleading in a positive way.
In particular I liked how SH is presented as a 3-dimensional human being, not an automaton. The mystery was adequate, but had room for improvement. This is a case were I look forward to the inevitable sequel.
Ah! Scotland yard!
I enjoyed the movie quite a bit. For me, the best scenes were in some of the chases (for those who've seen the movie, you know what I'm talking about) and of course the slow motion deduction fights. That was vintage Sherlock Holmes intellect from what I recall. I've only read 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' ages ago and have been a fan of SH for a long time. I also own three cases on a single CD-ROM for which I used to frequently play on my 486 back in the day. Fun stuff methinks.
I wouldn't have paid to see this film, but I went to a free screening prepared to find it enjoyable.
It's not good as a Sherlock Holmes adaptation, and it's not good as a film. The film has the tone of Shanghai Noon, but it isn't nearly as funny. Most of the jokes in the film are in the trailer.
Atmospheric cinematography and some very good matte paintings are wasted on a film that isn't interested in a sense of time and place. The love interest gives a really poor performance, and the villain, Lord Blackwood, keeps slipping into an un-aristocratic cockney accent. I half expected him to call Watson a muppet and whip out a shotgun. Rachel McAdam's performance is really dreadful and her character is totally flat. The action sequences are eye catching and fun to begin with, but by the climactic end sequence, I was genuinely dropping asleep.
The plot was so concerned with ticking all the boxes for a hollywood blockbuster that it was like a Mel Brooks film without the irony. Adaptations should take liberties with the source material, but they should draw upon what makes the source material special. This film draws a great deal more from Lethal Weapon than it does from Sherlock Holmes.
But I'm glad you guys liked it!
I disagree. It was very faithful to the character of Holmes. I'd rather sit through a film like this than a 2-hour borefest straight adaption from one of the stories. (though hounds would be the only one they could, with the others being short stories.
I'm a crazy Sherlock Holmes fan, and I have the tourist pictures of the 221B Baker Street museum to prove it! But I did enjoy the movie and the in-jokes. Downey Jr's looks aren't exactly what I had in mind for Sherlock Holmes, but character-wise it really is quite refreshing to see this side of Holmes portrayed for a change. It's what I privately call the Pirates of the Caribbean version of Holmes. And yes, Holmes himself was not that different from the Doyle version. Holmes is quite a fighter, being an expert in the art of boxing, single-stick fighting, and having some knowledge of the Japanese wrestling system of "baritsu" ;) Quotes from the books were taken entirely out of context, but it was funny to see what situations they were used in.
Rachel McAdams and Jude Law were probably thrown in just for eye-candy, so I wasn't surprised that their performances weren't remarkable. What DID surprise me was finding that an 18-year-old Jude Law once appeared in the Granada television series starring Jeremy Brett. Speaking of Brett - now THAT is the definitive Sherlock Holmes for me. I highly recommend anyone with even the slightest bit of interest in Doyle's Sherlock Holmes to watch that series. Very true to the books, yet the portrayal of Holmes and Watson were fascinating enough to keep me hooked even though I know all the stories by heart.
I do agree though that the end of the Hollywood movie was less than interesting. Not that it had no intellectual value - I could probably name a few Doyle stories that were all action and not much deduction. It was just that by the end of it, you just couldn't bring yourself to care much anymore because you know it'll all end on a good note, in true Hollywood fashion. Even the hint about Moriarty brought on more of a "yeah, yeah, and we all know how THAT turned out" sort of reaction.
The film was enjoyable but it was a bit too violent if you ask me. I imagian Sherlock Holmes as a perfect gentle man. Not someone who beats people into the hospital. He seemed very raw and insensitive. But the sets and effects were pretty nice.
Hmm... not really Buckethead. He's always been more about his own intelligence and doesn't really see people as people, just a puzzle to figure out. Except his live-in man-friend Watson.
Canonically, Holmes could often be an arrogant ass (like people have pointed out ad nauseam, Dr. House is based on Holmes), and he had no compunction against beating up on low-lifes. But he was also capable of social graces when necessary, and he understood human psychology well enough to be an expert manipulator. If he insulted someone, it was on purpose. (Except Watson, whom he took somewhat for granted.)
I can't believe how many didn't like it. I actually liked it a lot. I had always imagined Holmes as somewhat of a quirky genius, and even as in the books, his abilities do stretch beyond just being a clever detective, I don't see why the action sequences do any harm to the character.
I felt the plot was actually very good. Not as good as some of the written adventures, but it had the basic Sherlock Holmes formula, making me wonder throughout almost the entire movie when something was going to be revealed, how something was done, etc.
It wasn't the most amazing movie ever, but I'd certainly go as far as saying it was 'good'.
I agree with Ali, basically.
I don't understand why Downey Jr got a Golden Globe for this. In my opinion it was his weakest of recent performances, and usually I quite like him.
I won't be seeing the inevitable sequel.
Has anyone seen "Lock stock and two smoking barrels" or "Snatch"? Did you like them? How do they compare to Sherlock Holmes?
Answers to those three question will allow me to decide wheter to see the movie or not.
Quote from: bicilotti on Mon 25/01/2010 20:56:43
Has anyone seen "Lock stock and two smoking barrels" or "Snatch"? Did you like them? How do they compare to Sherlock Holmes?
Answers to those three question will allow me to decide wheter to see the movie or not.
Since you ask in that manner. I'm assuming you're not a hardcore "they better not mess with Doyle's Sherlock Holmes", so I won't concentrate on that.
Well Lock and Snatch are pretty original (as far as I'm aware of) but still simillar movies, because I can't remember Lock that well and I watched Snatch twice in the last two days (don't ask) - I'm gonna take Snatch for comparison.
Snatch has a bit more "freshness" and a little darker humor and much more plot...they're kind of not in the same category, Snatch is more of a alternative and indie (not that I don't think it's brilliant, it just avoids more Hollywood rules and cliches) compared to Sherlock. Not everybody would "get" Snatch but they would get Sherlock. My parents went to see it (and they watch a movie if it's fun and relatively easy to get into) and my friend (who usually yawns at every movie) and they all liked it.
It's not a perfect movie or the most original movie, but it's entertaining. Expect Snatch and be dissapointed, expect an average Hollywood action-comedy and get something a bit better and enjoy.
The movie? I'm sure it's been said: it's a decent movie but really not a Sherlock Holmes movie.
Quote from: Radiant on Tue 26/01/2010 01:23:24
The movie? I'm sure it's been said: it's a decent movie but really not a Sherlock Holmes movie.
There are very few decent Sherlock Holmes movies though.
Went to see it yesterday.
I wa glad they had used Robert Downey Jr. He's half the reason I got interested in this one. But then I realised Jude Law would be playing dr. Watson, who's to me a really important character. And let's face it, Jude Law is 75% shit. 75% only, because last night he really topped himself. I was really surprised how well he played his part, and it made the movie a lto more enjoyable.
Sure it was a fast going movie, they never really took a pause or anything, and the ending was clear way before the "deduction part", which in this case was innecessary. I don't know how good a detective-roman writer the script-writer is, but he left a lot of pieces too obvious and made Sherlocks work a lot easier...
I think R.D.Jr has developed a lot from what he was when he perfomed in Ally McBeal :P and as I said, I did enjoy the movie, but art-wise it was a bit hollow and probably not worth a second look in the near future. In conclusion, some of the characters were really good, the directing and script probably being the weakest parts of this filmation. This is my opinion. Still, easily worth the 5,50€ I paid to see it.
Saw this last night, it was good, just....a bit slow. Only a few good action "moments" because they are really just moments and not sequences. But the cast was good. I've only come to like Downey Jr after Iron Man cos usually think he's a pretentious git - but Iron Man rocked which put me in a willing mood for Sherlock, and he certainly is good in it.
The camera-work is somewhat "dull" IMO and CGI in some places is near awful - that bit with the giant cog thing was no good, better efforts could've been made to do it for real, even if it had less visual appeal than the CGI. And when the bridge scene came up I was like; "Oh god, finally, it's the bridge scene. It took its time!" and then not a lot happens there and it's over in a few minutes.
But all in all, quite good entertainment. And I guess that it was "slow" ish because it's the 1st of a trilogy, so number 2 will hopefully be a bit more up-beat. Guy Ritchie did well to direct, but there did seem to be some "a director who's never done a blockbuster before" traits in there where angles seemed a bit messed up & the editing wasn't great, and as I said before the camera was just a "camera" and not really a character. That was mainly the dock scene with big guy & cog bit -- a very mishmashed sequence I thought.
Still, if they get Jan De Bont to do the cinematogprahy next time, everything will be fine ;) I'd give it 6/10, just missing a 7. It is a very good movie and quite Sherlocky indeed, but it misses a lot of mystery & intrigue, traps & gizmos in place for long, often not very funny dialogue. All in all good. But taking of Pelham 123 was better. :P
Ah just sat through the whole thing.
Starting with good part - I liked the power in the movie, Holmes itsself and well... when movie ended, credits graphics/stuff was more awesome than anything else during last 2,5 hours.
Bad parts... First, I hated the broad. Rachel McWhatever is horrible character to see just anywhere IMO. She falls faaaar from my definition of "eye candy" aswell. Other girl was very nice though.
Second, character of Watson... was NOTHING like one from novels. At times, he felt more arrogant sh*thead that Holmes himself. I wonder WHY did director replace chubby-friendly-always-amazed doctor with something so... opposite.
Movie being so dark (in terms of overall atmosphere) was yes and no for me. I'm not quite sure. But dumbing it down heavily, mystifying with voodoo and/of plotholes, speaking in riddles cutting out vital chunks of data is not how you tell an interesting story. At times, I had no clue what's going on. But it wasn't "it all gets explained at the end"-kind of unknown, but simply leaving viewer short of story data. That was worst thing aside from Rachel. Dumbing story down is stupid too. Okay, clever chemistry and tricks behind everything but if the motive of main villain is so purely idiotic, what's the point?
I'm not sure if late 19th century London really looked like an endless ghetto but I doubt that industrial advances killed WHOLE sense of beauty in people. It was disgusting to look at. Novels created me a mental image of simple time with comfortable little apartments with fancy furnishings and pretty horses on streets. This movie reduces everything into endless smoke stacks and a live dirt tunnel a.k.a "street". Also, I wish steampunk comebacks would end already. It wasn't cool in movies in 80's, it's not now. We saw Dune, we played Bioshock, enough.
So, I'm glad I didn't pay â,¬7 and froze my ass off in what appears to be -27°C weather to see this ::)
Got a bit long, but if -
* Watson's character were returned to proper one
* Rachel would not play any part ever again
* Holmes would be cold-blooded, clear-minded genius instead of tragedic-comedy star (atleast MAJORITY of time)
* Scenery would be a living thing instead of simply a backdrop to the story (I mean, city & people)
* Story weren't so dumbed down and fogged with missing data & voodoo for cover
I would watch sequel. It's coming anyway
P.S. Also, I was wrong earlier about the trailer. The real movie indeed *did* mistell Sherlock Holmes story but *did not* move towards Indiana Jones (which would have been good way to fail) with this
On the question of 'voodoo', I heard that Warner Brothers asked for a supernatural element to the story because of the popularity of Harry Potter. Is that the way films should be made?
Quote from: Layabout on Sun 24/01/2010 12:57:17
I disagree. It was very faithful to the character of Holmes. I'd rather sit through a film like this than a 2-hour borefest straight adaption from one of the stories. (though hounds would be the only one they could, with the others being short stories.
Just to be clear, I don't want a straight adaptation. I think there are several Holmes novels in addition to Baskervilles, but I've no objection to a new story. I just found this particular story to be unimaginative and lacking in charm.
But I'm obviously in the minority, here!
Quote from: InCreator on Wed 27/01/2010 20:47:27
Bad parts... First, I hated the broad. Rachel McWhatever is horrible character to see just anywhere IMO. She falls faaaar from my definition of "eye candy" aswell.
You need to get your head examined, mate! Sure, it was a pretty weak part, but McAdams is both quite talented and ever so slightly gorgeous. As evidence, I submit Exhibit A, Red Eye, and for Exhibit B, Slings & Arrows S1.
QuoteSecond, character of Watson... was NOTHING like one from novels. At times, he felt more arrogant sh*thead that Holmes himself. I wonder WHY did director replace chubby-friendly-always-amazed doctor with something so... opposite.
Watson is usually quite jovial (at least in his own telling), yes, and less brilliant than Holmes. At the same time, he's definitely
supposed to be fairly intelligent in his own right, even though Ronald Knox famously said his intelligence was "slightly, but very slightly, below that of the average reader." The chubbiness has no basis in the books; in his first appearance he's just back from Afghanistan and recovering from fever, which has left him positively skinny (he describes himself as "emaciated"). His "thick neck" is sometimes remarked upon, but that's more of an indication that he's fairly muscular.
Law's interpretation departs a bit from Conan-Doyle's stories, but no more than most film versions (who usually portray him as a clown, like you seem to have expected).
Quote from: Snarky on Wed 27/01/2010 22:37:41
You need to get your head examined, mate! Sure, it was a pretty weak part, but McAdams is both quite talented and ever so slightly gorgeous.
Beauty is in viewer's eyes, right. Maybe a matter of taste... I find her... average maybe? I wouldn't date her.
Acting I do not rate, ever: I'm not an actor and don't know technicalities of acting. I always wonder how film critics think they know anything about camera work or acting... What I can rate is how I feel towards character played -- and I didn't like a moment she was on screen.
QuoteLaw's interpretation departs a bit from Conan-Doyle's stories, but no more than most film versions (who usually portray him as a clown, like you seem to have expected).
No. The impression I got from novels was that Watson acts like a
disciple and friend, yet is manly enough by himself also. Fascinated and cooperative is not what film showed - an arrogant cyborg buddy from the future (he really goes T-800 at places).
Quote from: InCreator on Thu 28/01/2010 00:53:28
Quote from: Snarky on Wed 27/01/2010 22:37:41
You need to get your head examined, mate! Sure, it was a pretty weak part, but McAdams is both quite talented and ever so slightly gorgeous.
Beauty is in viewer's eyes, right. Maybe a matter of taste... I find her... average maybe? I wouldn't date her.
And that is exactly one of the reasons why this topic was opened: http://www.adventuregamestudio.co.uk/yabb/index.php?topic=39640.0 :P
(I apologize, please do not retaliate)
Ouch.
For few Rachel Mcsomething's I don't like, there's ton of female actors I do :D
Plus, scandinavian girls are maybe simply too pretty thus global-scale beautiful is rather average here... my dream brunette looks like this (http://images.google.com/images?hl=et&source=hp&q=monica%20bellucci&lr=&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=Nab=wi). Rachel looks like she stopped at early teen age where girls get tall and skinny but don't have curves yet
But enough offtopic
Not enough off topic :D I must say I like Rachel McWhatever, would date her: she makes more money than me, but I don't like yours that much. Funny, the world, isn't it :)
I'm surprised how the majority seems to be against this. It's not Casablanca, and never will be, but it's a nice flick for the time, and with a sequel it will surely live on. I bet if it were the 80's, people would have had the same conversation about Romancing the Stone and Jewel of the Nile. Yet everyone's seen then, and no-one utterly hates them even though they're crap. There's good movies and there's entertaining movies. I don't watch Pirates of the Caribbean twice because I think they're groundbreaking or artsy but because they're entertaining, and I found this entertaining too. I wonder if A.C.Doyle wanted to make Sherlock Holmes a serious figure, one of fine art or one that's entertaining. I'm not making a point here, I know that, but I still think this movie is well worth the chance.
P.S. I just saw casablanca a while ago, and it wasn't all that good :P Better than Gremlins though.
Doyle wasn't above some silly humour of his own. See Toby the sniffer dog in The Sign of Four. Holmes also had a rather warped sense of humour - see ending of The Naval Treaty.
Quote from: Tuomas on Thu 28/01/2010 08:47:07P.S. I just saw casablanca a while ago, and it wasn't all that good :P Better than Gremlins though.
Go wash you mouth young man! - Nothing beats Gremlins...except maybe Gremlins 2 (and of course the Killer Tomato franchise). :P
Quote from: Misj' on Thu 28/01/2010 10:22:11
Quote from: Tuomas on Thu 28/01/2010 08:47:07P.S. I just saw casablanca a while ago, and it wasn't all that good :P Better than Gremlins though.
Go wash you mouth young man! - Nothing beats Gremlins...except maybe Gremlins 2 (and of course the Killer Tomato franchise). :P
lol!
Speaking of Gremlins, my wife and I got Gremlins on DVD last year for Christmas from her aunt (along with Wii sweatpants and t-shirts for Bowling tourneys, heh) and she couldn't wait to see it. I myself hadn't seen that movie in years either, but aparently, neither of us remembered it being that... gruesome and /or horrible. I loved seeing it again, and I still like the movie, but my wife... heh, all she kept saying was, "Oh my God, that's, horrible!". Apparently all she remembered about the movie was cute little Gizmo ;)
I got a feeling from it that it didn't know what it wanted to be.
I haven't seen Gremlins 2 in years either...
\\--EDIT--\\
Anian, digging up that thread was a little below the belt and unecessary, no?
Quote from: Tuomas on Thu 28/01/2010 08:47:07
Not enough off topic :D I must say I like Rachel McWhatever, would date her: she makes more money than me, but I don't like yours that much. Funny, the world, isn't it :)
Wiki:
Interpersonal antipathy is often irrationally ascribed to mannerisms or certain physical characteristics, which are perceived as signs for character traits (e.g. close together, deep set eyes as a sign for dullness or cruelty). Furthermore, the negative feeling sometimes takes place fast and without reasoning, functioning below the level of attention, thus resembling an automatic process.Guess it's that what's between me and Rachel.
As for movie, I guess discussion would be easier when stated as simple points of personal opinion: Sherlock Holmes was cool. Setting was so-so. Watson was cool, but WRONG. Villain was stupid. Action was good. Detective stuff was average... movie was watchable but average, character/universe treatment was a bit below average (Watson, Rachel) etc
Sherlock Holmes - the movie was what happens when
Jack the Ripper and
Shoot'em'Up meet but director has no clue which way to go. It was dark and serious mostly, but incredibly stupid at times, especially final battle. Since Irene Adler character did major stupid stuff (like shooting randomly for comedic effect, ignoring threat, etc), I hated Rachel - even though she did what was written in the script.
I've just seen it, and think it's a very fun film to watch. The books have been adapted into films so many times, and the series has been chewed, and chewed. Yes, it is just another Sherlock Holmes film, but I think it will stand out amongst the rest.
Guy Ritchie has to keep up with the times - the hard, unreadable, un-eccentric character (which previous films have had) has been done away with, and replaced by a Jack-Sparrow-esque character, which is able to drag an element of humour into it.
The time warps were excellent and made the film; and in true Sherlock fashion everything was unravelled at the end.
8/10
I've finally watched this and it was really good.
Well, it is an action-packed, steampunk version of Sherlock Holmes, but what's wrong with that? The most important thing in Holmes stories - the mystery aspect - was actually really decent and well-presented. Overall, I even think this is one of the best feature film adaptations of Holmes. The others usually started in a classy way, but then degenerated into low quality pulp - this one had consistent style.
Oh, and I love the music they chose. Reminded me of The Third Man.