1182 replies to this topic

[dodge]

I think it looks stupid, witless and tedious in the grand Guy Ritchie tradition. Though admittedly, this could be the kind of goofy fun which looks agonising in a brief glimpse, but wins you over when you're immersed in its world for two hours. Also, Downey's glasses and hat remind me of Bruce Willis in Hudson Hawk:

I note the resemablance with one important exception: RJD isn't sporting the trademark Willis smirk. I see a Holmes who'll bring the requisite intelligence and darkness to keep this one from tipping too far into Fun Family Entertainment.

[marktmurphy]

There was a pretty radical Holmes "action" reboot done in 2006. Sherlock: Case of Evil. It's decent.

http://www.amazon.co...f=cm_lmf_tit_38

Yes, I've heard that's pretty decent. Must seek it out.
Even ends with a swordfight up Big Ben, doesn't it?

[Blofeld's Cat]

There was a pretty radical Holmes "action" reboot done in 2006. Sherlock: Case of Evil. It's decent.

http://www.amazon.co...f=cm_lmf_tit_38

Yes, I've heard that's pretty decent. Must seek it out.
Even ends with a swordfight up Big Ben, doesn't it?

Thanks for the headup on this one zen. May have to check it out now.

[quantumofsolace]

The last film Ritchie made was excellent. He has a great cast and a huge budget and he has lots of visual flair. If the script is good this could be brilliant.

[Mr. Blofeld]

The beginning of the trailer made my eyebrows fly up. "Crazy occult ? Whuh?"

The rest of it did nothing for me, being rather reminiscent of a certain Will Smith/Kevin Kline bomb...

[dodge]

I don't know what to think. Half of me says "That's Sherlock Holmes? WTF?!" The other half says "That looks awesome!"

Trust the second half. This really does look awesome and will make for a still better Xmas Day. A poor old stuffed shirt made fresh again.

[Jackanaples]

The beginning of the trailer made my eyebrows fly up. "Crazy occult ? Whuh?"

The rest of it did nothing for me, being rather reminiscent of a certain Will Smith/Kevin Kline bomb...

Comparisons to that craptacular movie are not warranted here I assure you.

[tim partridge]

Looks like another Jackie Chan movie (Shanghai Nights meets Around the World in 80 Days).

[007½]

I think Jeremy Brett is great, though I only own a couple of films, both with Basil Rathbone (and a cartoon starring Peter O'Toole). I've just started to read a Holmes book, too.

[DamnCoffee]

I'm suprised no one's noticed that this trailer uses the Casino Royale theatrical trailer music!

0:38 - 0:42

[jrcjohnny99]

Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I think this looks terrible.
Ritchie is the wrong type of director and the Holmes canon was never about action.
I LOVE RDJ, but he's totally wrong; why not hire Ralph Fiennes or Daniel Day Lewis?
Cant say i'm excited at all about this....

This looks about as close to Conan Doyle as NSNA was to Ian Fleming...

[Matt_13]

I'm suprised no one's noticed that this trailer uses the Casino Royale theatrical trailer music!

0:38 - 0:42

Actually I mentioned that above, I was half expecting the Bond theme to kick in since I'm so used to it!

[killkenny kid]

Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I think this looks terrible.
Ritchie is the wrong type of director and the Holmes canon was never about action.
I LOVE RDJ, but he's totally wrong; why not hire Ralph Fiennes or Daniel Day Lewis?
Cant say i'm excited at all about this....

This looks about as close to Conan Doyle as NSNA was to Ian Fleming...

My friend, maybe you need to talk to Jim. I felt the same way, until I was enlighten.

[Mr_Wint]

I like the mood in the first 15 seconds when you see Holmes from behind and all that. This is what the film could've been... oh well.

[Sniperscope]

Had a lot of hopes for this movie... I like both RDj and Guy Ritchie, but then I watched the trailer...
Ugh!
Naturally I never expected a faithful adaption (it is a Christmas Release movie afterall)... but I didn't expect this kind of pulp comic farce! Let's be honest this isn't anything remotely like Sherlock Holmes expect for the names and a reference to a violin...

When you think about it this is so typically Hollywood - cynical, "brand" obsessiveness where iconic characters are reduced to a set of sellable cliches by producers who don't give a monkey's about tradition.

This looks like it's all from the recipe book of Hollywood Action movies...redraw an iconic figure into a self-reflexive parody, prop the film up with bankable names, design kitsch gadgets, crude or just plain groan-worthy humour on par with anything penned by Purvis & Wade, CGI (of "Old London, Engerland"), Slo-Mo punches, stylised, Martial arts-inspired fight scenes, bad accents, Black Magic, under-dressed women, bondage...
Actually I think I'm making it sound a bit good now!!!

RDj looks ridiculously short, a poor Depp imitation from SLEEPY HOLLOW (esp. the gadgets), and sounds all wrong... Law, who certainly looks like Paget's Watson, really, really sounded like Holmes' whiny gf...
Why couldn't the execs have tried something a little more daring; say - making a Pulp-Victorian Era historical fantasy (which is what this absolutely looks like) BUT without resorting to using the Holmes name?

Edited by Sniperscope, 20 June 2009 - 03:25 PM.

[dodge]

The film will rock. Let the naysayers enjoy the old Basil Rathbones. New blood was called for and new blood it's got. The young, and young at heart, rejoice in the air being cleared of old cobwebs and dust.

[Safari Suit]

You hardly have to be a stuck-in-the-mud "shelockian" to think this looks dreadful. It would be an extremely unimpresive trailer even if it were called The Adventures of Victor Victorian or whatever. That's just my opinion though, I'm glad some actual "sherlockians" seem to be looking forward to it.

[Sniperscope]

The film will rock. Let the naysayers enjoy the old Basil Rathbones. New blood was called for and new blood it's got. The young, and young at heart, rejoice in the air being cleared of old cobwebs and dust.

Well, it sure sounds like you fully understand what Sherlock Holmes is about, eh?
Holmes, as Doyle wrote it, does not "rock" any which way. We're not talking about a frat party.
"New blood was called for"??? ummm... by whom? Oh it must be the clamouring billions of Holmes fans who, asked for, nay, demanded, a real "Briddish kick-butt" action adventure hero that "rocks" so that they could finally hold their heads high when derided by uncomprehending friends about their cerebral, effete hero in a deerstalker...
But thanks to Hollywood and their Code of the Lowest Common Denominator, we don't have to worry about anything intelligent passing across the screen at Christmas now do we? Imagine, having to bother with all that boring, old fashioned deductive reasoning malarky and talking and stuff, when we can have fist fights, bedroom bondage encounters, the usual explosion reaction shots, and, apparently, a Christopher Lee lookalike for a Hammer Horror villain. None of these pulp elements are wrong in themselves but they're not Holmesian - more like Sexton Blake.
"Rejoice in the air being cleared of old cobwebs and dust" Ppfft. Whether you like it or not Holmes was all about deduction, logic and reason. Not gunfights, gadgets and (sadly, but truely!) scantily dressed women. As per usual with Hollywood it has "reinvented" a character by doing everything completely opposite to the original. How clever!
Instead I say:
"The mindless, and the mindless at heart, rejoice in the stupefying dumbing down of yet another icon in the name of Mammon."

Edited by Sniperscope, 21 June 2009 - 12:01 AM.

[Jackanaples]

You know, Sniperscope, if one is interested in "faithful" Sherlock Holmes adaptations there are many available. There are literally hundreds nay thousands of Sherlock tv shows, movies and radio shows to choose from.

Most of what people think they know of Sherlock Holmes isn't to be found in Doyle anyway: the deerstalker, "Elementary, my dear Watson", defeating criminal masterminds out destroy England, etc. It's not there.

Doing "Victorian pulp" for a 21st century audience involves in part adjusting details for modern sensibilities. Much of what passed as shocking or new in Doyle's time has passed into cliche now. Things that the average Victorian obsessed over (i.e. race) are not of interest anymore. Cocaine, which was considered harmless back then (and used by Holmes) is widely considered very harmful now.

I've read the script (or at least the second to most recent draft of it), and consider it to be one of the best I've read in the past couple years. It's smart and witty. The story features a return of Irene Adler, easily one of the most interesting in the entire canon. While Sherlock is somewhat different from how we've seen him before, it's not a huge departure. He's still an eccentric genius who's only interest is his work and who falls into a morose funk when he doesn't have a problem sufficiently intriguing to capture his interest.

As for the action, well, films are visual. I don't think it's particularly overdone. I know what others think from seeing the trailer, but keep in mind that those are bits that you're seeing out of context.

Now, I'd be interested in knowing what Jim's assessment of all this is. If you don't mind, Jim.

[dodge]

You know, Sniperscope, if one is interested in "faithful" Sherlock Holmes adaptations there are many available. There are literally hundreds nay thousands of Sherlock tv shows, movies and radio shows to choose from.

Most of what people think they know of Sherlock Holmes isn't to be found in Doyle anyway: the deerstalker, "Elementary, my dear Watson", defeating criminal masterminds out destroy England, etc. It's not there.

Doing "Victorian pulp" for a 21st century audience involves in part adjusting details for modern sensibilities. Much of what passed as shocking or new in Doyle's time has passed into cliche now. Things that the average Victorian obsessed over (i.e. race) are not of interest anymore. Cocaine, which was considered harmless back then (and used by Holmes) is widely considered very harmful now.

I've read the script (or at least the second to most recent draft of it), and consider it to be one of the best I've read in the past couple years. It's smart and witty. The story features a return of Irene Adler, easily one of the most interesting in the entire canon. While Sherlock is somewhat different from how we've seen him before, it's not a huge departure. He's still an eccentric genius who's only interest is his work and who falls into a morose funk when he doesn't have a problem sufficiently intriguing to capture his interest.

As for the action, well, films are visual. I don't think it's particularly overdone. I know what others think from seeing the trailer, but keep in mind that those are bits that you're seeing out of context.

Now, I'd be interested in knowing what Jim's assessment of all this is. If you don't mind, Jim.

Well said. As for the fights and the action, Victorian gentlemen authors didn't have the freedom to describe a decent brawl. As has been pointed out, possibly by Downey, mention may have been made of Holmes "restraining" a character. So here we're seeing the...restraint. I see nothing in the trailer to suggest that Holmes won't still be high on logic and deduction. Rather, trailers are intended to lure the crowds in. And in our day we're lured by action and excitement. There's no reason why those can't coincide quite nicely with the traditional Holmes in a Sniperscopeian starched shirt. Middling minds, more at home with the tried and true, can still have--as you say--their old classics. I for one am excited by this...although I know my Holmes far better than I've been given credit for.

[Sniperscope]

You know, Sniperscope, if one is interested in "faithful" Sherlock Holmes adaptations there are many available. There are literally hundreds nay thousands of Sherlock tv shows, movies and radio shows to choose from.

Most of what people think they know of Sherlock Holmes isn't to be found in Doyle anyway: the deerstalker, "Elementary, my dear Watson", defeating criminal masterminds out destroy England, etc. It's not there.

Doing "Victorian pulp" for a 21st century audience involves in part adjusting details for modern sensibilities. Much of what passed as shocking or new in Doyle's time has passed into cliche now. Things that the average Victorian obsessed over (i.e. race) are not of interest anymore. Cocaine, which was considered harmless back then (and used by Holmes) is widely considered very harmful now.

I've read the script (or at least the second to most recent draft of it), and consider it to be one of the best I've read in the past couple years. It's smart and witty. The story features a return of Irene Adler, easily one of the most interesting in the entire canon. While Sherlock is somewhat different from how we've seen him before, it's not a huge departure. He's still an eccentric genius who's only interest is his work and who falls into a morose funk when he doesn't have a problem sufficiently intriguing to capture his interest.

As for the action, well, films are visual. I don't think it's particularly overdone. I know what others think from seeing the trailer, but keep in mind that those are bits that you're seeing out of context.

Now, I'd be interested in knowing what Jim's assessment of all this is. If you don't mind, Jim.

Well said. As for the fights and the action, Victorian gentlemen authors didn't have the freedom to describe a decent brawl. As has been pointed out, possibly by Downey, mention may have been made of Holmes "restraining" a character. So here we're seeing the...restraint. I see nothing in the trailer to suggest that Holmes won't still be high on logic and deduction. Rather, trailers are intended to lure the crowds in. And in our day we're lured by action and excitement. There's no reason why those can't coincide quite nicely with the traditional Holmes in a Sniperscopeian starched shirt. Middling minds, more at home with the tried and true, can still have--as you say--their old classics. I for one am excited by this...although I know my Holmes far better than I've been given credit for.

Fair dues to the both of you, my apologies for coming at it all bull-headed! (But I'll decline from using Sniperscopeian in the future if it's all the same )

I think I was having a bit of a grump day when I wrote my comments and perhaps vented a bit too harshly based on only a couple of minutes from a trailer - but I do stand by many of my points...

BTW gents - I'm all for postmodern reassessments of characters and I am more than a bit mortified to be thought of as some kind of "stuffed-shirt purist" simply because I felt a number of the things I saw in the trailer were radically un-Holmesian.
Still, when I think about it my absolute favourite Holmes - Jeremy Brett - was actually quite a radical reassessment of the character at the time (especially in contrast to Rathbone's cozy but fusty interpretation). And when I think about it a little more, Holmes has always been reinterpreted over the last 100 years anyway so I guess this is just another version in a long line of re-imaginings.

I'll definitely go and see because I love Guy Ritchie films and have huge respect for RDj - so maybe we'll talk again in January!?

Edited by Sniperscope, 24 June 2009 - 10:50 AM.

[dodge]

You know, Sniperscope, if one is interested in "faithful" Sherlock Holmes adaptations there are many available. There are literally hundreds nay thousands of Sherlock tv shows, movies and radio shows to choose from.

Most of what people think they know of Sherlock Holmes isn't to be found in Doyle anyway: the deerstalker, "Elementary, my dear Watson", defeating criminal masterminds out destroy England, etc. It's not there.

Doing "Victorian pulp" for a 21st century audience involves in part adjusting details for modern sensibilities. Much of what passed as shocking or new in Doyle's time has passed into cliche now. Things that the average Victorian obsessed over (i.e. race) are not of interest anymore. Cocaine, which was considered harmless back then (and used by Holmes) is widely considered very harmful now.

I've read the script (or at least the second to most recent draft of it), and consider it to be one of the best I've read in the past couple years. It's smart and witty. The story features a return of Irene Adler, easily one of the most interesting in the entire canon. While Sherlock is somewhat different from how we've seen him before, it's not a huge departure. He's still an eccentric genius who's only interest is his work and who falls into a morose funk when he doesn't have a problem sufficiently intriguing to capture his interest.

As for the action, well, films are visual. I don't think it's particularly overdone. I know what others think from seeing the trailer, but keep in mind that those are bits that you're seeing out of context.

Now, I'd be interested in knowing what Jim's assessment of all this is. If you don't mind, Jim.

Well said. As for the fights and the action, Victorian gentlemen authors didn't have the freedom to describe a decent brawl. As has been pointed out, possibly by Downey, mention may have been made of Holmes "restraining" a character. So here we're seeing the...restraint. I see nothing in the trailer to suggest that Holmes won't still be high on logic and deduction. Rather, trailers are intended to lure the crowds in. And in our day we're lured by action and excitement. There's no reason why those can't coincide quite nicely with the traditional Holmes in a Sniperscopeian starched shirt. Middling minds, more at home with the tried and true, can still have--as you say--their old classics. I for one am excited by this...although I know my Holmes far better than I've been given credit for.

Fair dues to the both of you, my apologies for coming at it all bull-headed! (But I'll decline from using Sniperscopeian in the future if it's all the same )

I think I was having a bit of a grump day when I wrote my comments and perhaps vented a bit too harshly based on only a couple of minutes from a trailer - but I do stand by many of my points...

BTW gents - I'm all for postmodern reassessments of characters and I am more than a bit mortified to be thought of as some kind of "stuffed-shirt purist" simply because I felt a number of the things I saw in the trailer were radically un-Holmesian.
Still, when I think about it my absolute favourite Holmes - Jeremy Brett - was actually quite a radical reassessment of the character at the time (especially in contrast to Rathbone's cozy but fusty interpretation). And when I think about it a little more, Holmes has always been reinterpreted over the last 100 years anyway so I guess this is just another version in a long line of re-imaginings.

I'll definitely go and see because I love Guy Ritchie films and have huge respect for RDj - so maybe we'll talk again in January!?

Thanks. That's all I could have asked for. I'll go into the films with eyes/mind open and reserve judgment till I do. Cheers.

[Binyamin]

Morning, men.

If I may be so bold as to barrel into your thread on the sixteenth (!) page...

Thought I'd quickly give my first impression of the upcoming movie, through the eyes of a Sherlockian amateur.

I had no idea a new movie was in the works until I saw the trailer. My first impression was, "good god, they're going to ruin Holmes!"

And then I thoroughly enjoyed every damn second of the trailer.

Here's the thing: Sherlock Holmes, the character as written by Doyle, always seemed to me as the least serious man in Britain. He had a sense of humor about everything. Yes, it was a detached, misunderstood, odd humor, but it was there nontheless.

Holmes was fascinated and entertained by the strangeness of humanity.

If nothing else, I believe the new movie will capture that lost aspect... and that alone will make it an interesting watch.

Carry on.

[Vauxhall]

I caught the trailer by accident last week watching THE HANGOVER at the cinema and absolutely loved it. For what it's worth, it also received an excellent ovation from the rest of the audience. The humour and action seemed just right to me, and I'm optimistic that Guy Ritchie may actually have avoided his usual pitfalls. Excited.

[Brian Flagg]

Morning, men.

If I may be so bold as to barrel into your thread on the sixteenth (!) page...

Thought I'd quickly give my first impression of the upcoming movie, through the eyes of a Sherlockian amateur.

I had no idea a new movie was in the works until I saw the trailer. My first impression was, "good god, they're going to ruin Holmes!"

And then I thoroughly enjoyed every damn second of the trailer.

Here's the thing: Sherlock Holmes, the character as written by Doyle, always seemed to me as the least serious man in Britain. He had a sense of humor about everything. Yes, it was a detached, misunderstood, odd humor, but it was there nontheless.

Holmes was fascinated and entertained by the strangeness of humanity.

If nothing else, I believe the new movie will capture that lost aspect... and that alone will make it an interesting watch.

Carry on.

From what I've read, the "dark" Holmes wasn't really depicted until the late 1960s-early seventies, when such restrictions began to be lifted in film, and society at large. I hope that this new film doesn't turn into some Matrix effects extravaganza. The Jeremy Brett Holmes is THE definitive portrayal and he managed to straddle both the wacky as well as the tormented Sherlock.

I'm keeping an open mind about this new movie, but I have my reservations, too. This is one legacy I'd hate to see go down the crapper...

[Tybre]

I don't think the movie looks that bad from the trailer. Honestly I'm quite looking forward to it. Anyway I've seen much worse perversions of Holmes. Anyone else remember that old Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century cartoon?

[Jackanaples]

For those seriously distressed about Sherlock's fighting prowess in the trailer, go hither.

[zencat]

Holy cats! John Barrymore's 1922 Sherlock Holmes is out on DVD. I had always heard this was a "lost" film. Not anymore I guess.

http://www.kino.com/...product_id=1190

The rarest title in the set, if not the strongest, is Goldwyn’s 1922 Sherlock Holmes, making its first-ever video appearance—courtesy of a 35mm restoration by George Eastman House. Barrymore delivers an understated portrayal of Holmes in this long-lost film, which is noteworthy for the screen debuts of both Roland Young (as Dr. Watson) and a youthful William Powell.

[Brisco]

Holy cats! John Barrymore's 1922 Sherlock Holmes is out on DVD. I had always heard this was a "lost" film. Not anymore I guess.

Wow! Thanks for the news, Zencat! You just made my day. What a surprise!

Brisco

[Safari Suit]

For those of you who are excited about the Ritchie thing, the second trailer: