The new Sherlock Holmes movie - Your thoughts?

[ThreeOhFour]

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 

Yep, we discussed this in that aforementioned conversation as well.

[Lamak]

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 !)

[Crimson Wizard]

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  

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).

[xenogia]

People mix his heroin use with his few cases of smoking opium and his use of morphine.

[Wesray]

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.

[EKM]

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.

[Ali]

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!

[Layabout]

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.

[auriond]

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.

[Buckethead]

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.

[Layabout]

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.

[Snarky]

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.)

[LRH]

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'.

[veryweirdguy]

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.

[bicilotti]

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.

[Anian]

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.

[Radiant]

The movie? I'm sure it's been said: it's a decent movie but really not a Sherlock Holmes movie.

[Igor Hardy]

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.

[Tuomas]

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 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.

[m0ds]

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.