The new Sherlock Holmes movie - Your thoughts?

[InCreator]

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

[Ali]

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?

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!

[Snarky]

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.

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.

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).

[InCreator]

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.

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).

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).

[Anian]

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  
(I apologize, please do not retaliate)

[InCreator]

Ouch.
For few Rachel Mcsomething's I don't like, there's ton of female actors I do
Plus, scandinavian girls are maybe simply too pretty thus global-scale beautiful is rather average here... my dream brunette looks like this. Rachel looks like she stopped at early teen age where girls get tall and skinny but don't have curves yet

But enough offtopic

[Tuomas]

Not enough off topic 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 Better than Gremlins though.

[auriond]

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.

[Misj']

P.S. I just saw casablanca a while ago, and it wasn't all that good Better than Gremlins though.

Go wash you mouth young man! - Nothing beats Gremlins...except maybe Gremlins 2 (and of course the Killer Tomato franchise).

[Snake]

P.S. I just saw casablanca a while ago, and it wasn't all that good Better than Gremlins though.

Go wash you mouth young man! - Nothing beats Gremlins...except maybe Gremlins 2 (and of course the Killer Tomato franchise).

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?

[InCreator]

Not enough off topic 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.

[Atelier]

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

[Igor Hardy]

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.