Sherlock Holmes

So the moive just opened up yesterday and I want peoples thoughts. Personally I thought it was great with that little twist.

Haven't seen it (and probably never will) but it looks to be an absolute disgrace to the original and an insult to Doyle.

Originally Posted by Octy

Haven't seen it (and probably never will) but it looks to be an absolute disgrace to the original and an insult to Doyle.

I'm sure Conan Doyle was turning in his grave. As an ardent Sherlock Holmes fan (along with my mom), I went to see it just today. A good movie, but an absolute travesty of a Sherlock Holmes movie. I have never seen a movie defile such a revered literary character more than this one. I love Robert Downey Jr., but since when has Holmes been an buff, unshaven slob? And since when is Tower Bridge right next to Parliament?


That being said, Jude Law made a great Watson.

Originally Posted by Octy

Haven't seen it (and probably never will) but it looks to be an absolute disgrace to the original and an insult to Doyle.

QFT.

Simply put, that's it. And having a non-British actor play Holmes? Why!?! Strangely, looking at it, if the main character wasn't called Sherlock Holmes, it'd look like a good to average action movie, but because it is, it throws away everything that Doyle intended when he created him!

Now I could be entirely wrong here, but... nowhere does it say that every rendition of Sherlock Holmes has to match exactly that which the original author defined. In fact, that's downright silly. Cinema is an art, like music or photography. And every artist is free to take another man's work and provide the audience with his own interpretation as long as he gives credit where credit is due. That's all there is to it. This is Guy Ritchie's interpretation of Doyle's original work. Don't like it? Then don't watch it. But there's no rule against this, written or unwritten, and there's no reason for anyone to be turning in their grave.

Originally Posted by The Dude

Cinema is an art, like music or photography. And every artist is free to take another man's work and provide the audience with his own interpretation as long as he gives credit where credit is due. That's all there is to it. This is Guy Ritchie's interpretation of Doyle's original work.

There's art, and then there's pseudo-art. Most hollywood films are money-making exercises first and art second, if at all.

This isn't so much Guy Ritchie's artistic vision, as it is his financial enterprise.

Originally Posted by Musthavename

QFT.

Simply put, that's it. And having a non-British actor play Holmes? Why!?! Strangely, looking at it, if the main character wasn't called Sherlock Holmes, it'd look like a good to average action movie, but because it is, it throws away everything that Doyle intended when he created him!

Ritchie said that Downey Jr's British accent was impeccable, from his work on "Chaplin". My mom and dad couldn't understand a single word they were saying


Also, my mom told me about this review where a guy somehow surmised that Sherlock Holmes has a homosexual relations with Watson? What is this world coming to, when a relationship between two men automatically assumes that they're gay

Originally Posted by Musthavename

QFT.

Simply put, that's it. And having a non-British actor play Holmes? Why!?! Strangely, looking at it, if the main character wasn't called Sherlock Holmes, it'd look like a good to average action movie, but because it is, it throws away everything that Doyle intended when he created him!

There's a little thing that people in this career field do. It's called acting. You act like someone you're not. You act like you're from a culture you're not. You don't have to be British to play a British character. You never have. You never will. Suggesting that a specific cultural person is required to play a role cheapens the work done very well by as many as thousands, if not tens of thousands, of other actors on any given day in other roles that you don't whine about because they weren't born and raised in the country of their role.

Originally Posted by Gaidin

There's a little thing that people in this career field do. It's called acting. You act like someone you're not. You act like you're from a culture you're not. You don't have to be British to play a British character. You never have. You never will. Suggesting that a specific cultural person is required to play a role cheapens the work done very well by as many as thousands, if not tens of thousands, of other actors on any given day in other roles that you don't whine about because they weren't born and raised in the country of their role.

Except, I can tell he's an American. He can't act well enough to portray him as British.

Whereas if someone was British, that wouldn't be a problem would it?

Originally Posted by Musthavename

Whereas if someone was British, that wouldn't be a problem would it?

It depends, doesn't it? Derek Jacobi is British, but I don't see him playing Holmes. He'd be a good Watson, though; at least, better than Jude Law.

Originally Posted by Musthavename

Except, I can tell he's an American. He can't act well enough to portray him as British.

Whereas if someone was British, that wouldn't be a problem would it?

Except you didn't say anything about the casting, and neither did I. You said that only a british actor should play Holmes. One criticizes the specific choice while the other is a huge over arcing whining rant about how you should only be from one culture to be able to play a certain character. There's a difference, one that you're trying to hide wildly behind by throwing out this red herring about Downey Jr. himself. I liked the way he played it and the unique style of the movie, but I wouldn't contest anything you have to say about specific casting because I honestly don't care to. I do have something to say when you spit out a huge rant that borders on xenophobic. If you want to criticize a specific casting choice, read your post before you hit submit next time and make sure you're actually talking about what you want to.

Originally Posted by Musthavename

Except, I can tell he's an American. He can't act well enough to portray him as British.

Whereas if someone was British, that wouldn't be a problem would it?

although we are talking about downey here...who played a actor who was playing someone disguised as a black guy in Tropic Thunder

Originally Posted by Musthavename

Except, I can tell he's an American. He can't act well enough to portray him as British.

Whereas if someone was British, that wouldn't be a problem would it?

oh please robert downey was the perfect person to play a witty substance abuser with plenty of character flaws to go around.

If he can play a black man, he can play a brit

Originally Posted by Musthavename

QFT.And having a non-British actor play Holmes? Why!?!

out of all the potential flaws in the movie, that bothers me the least. British actors play Americans all the time.

I'm quite a big fan of the original stories, and of some the old screen adaptations (the faithful ones, or ones with good acting and direction).

I doubt I'll enjoy this Hollywoodisation. It looks like another cashcow for the producers to milk, aimed at a fairly low common denominator (probably not quite the lowest).

I read Roger Ebert's review, and the moment he mentioned an opening scene involving personal combat involving the top of the unfinished Tower Bridge, I stopped reading. Sherlock Holmes did not engage in melee with villains he encountered; in fact, the only time he ever had to resort to the basest physical combat was when both he and Moriarty had outsmarted each other to the degree that all that was left for them was to duel over the Reichenbach Falls. Whenever Holmes expected danger, he simply asked Watson to "bring the service revolver". Out of all the short stories and the few novels, Holmes engaged in physical violence perhaps three or four times. The way this film reads in reviews, Holmes was a superhero with the strength of Superman, the intuition of Spiderman, and the genius of Mozart. One can easily see just from non-spoiler reviews that it's a huge B.S. film meant to appeal to people who haven't read anything of Sir Doyle.

When I learned that Jude Law had been cast as John Watson, I immediately vowed never to watch this vile corruption of my most beloved fictional character. Jude Law (aside from being a snotty, arrogant ass) looks absolutely nothing like the sketches of Watson supervised by Doyle himself in the 1910's. As a matter of pure fact, Jude Law looks almost to be the opposite of Watson! He is young, slim, clean-shaven, whimsical, and full of life. The Watson of Doyle was rather older (having been in India during the revolts), of stocky build, with an Elgar-like moustache, and rather like a silly middle-aged man. There is no comparison in terms of looks or personality between Mr. Law and Mr. Watson in the stories. Aside from that, I even saw a poster with the actor who plays Holmes naked, covering his naughty bits with a pillow. Victorians did not lay naked in bed; at most, they went to bed in night-gowns or they stayed up late in their full dress shirts, vests, suspenders, and trousers. The only time a Victorian man would be naked (especially the shadowy Sherlock Holmes) is during a bath or manly swimming.

The whole thing looks like rubbish designed to please sex-driven people.

According to Roger Ebert, the latest film adaptation of Sherlock Holmes is a pretty good flick and is more focused on the action-adventure aspect of things, sporting great special FX."

SPECIAL EFFECTS? ACTION? ADVENTURE? I will stick to Jeremy Brett's subtle portrayal, thank you!

F.X. don't work when you can just corner off a city block and hire real human beings. It probably costs much more to render Victorian London with C.G.I. than to construct a set and hire extras. Hollywood doesn't even bother anymore, does it?

SPECIAL EFFECTS?

Special effects means showing victorian england. Nobody makes sets like that anymore.

I keep hearing that this movie is really good.

Monarchist, if you watched the trailer, he was naked because he was betrayed and handcuffed to the bed, with the key placed underneath the pillow.

Originally Posted by Kanaric

Special effects means showing victorian england. Nobody makes sets like that anymore.

I keep hearing that this movie is really good.

Scorsese did for Gangs of New York.

Haven't seen Avatar yet, does it really look that much better than Blade Runner made almost 3 decades ago without CGI?

And my favorite sci-fi movie is Forbidden Planet made over 50 years ago. How important is aesthetics compared to say, plot?

Originally Posted by Future Filmmaker

Monarchist, if you watched the trailer, he was naked because he was betrayed and handcuffed to the bed, with the key placed underneath the pillow.

It's amazing how many times the asexual Holmes gets himself in such predicaments.

I think it's ironic.

Sherlock Holmes has become such a popular household name that marketers have used it to sell a generic action/adventureomedy. A victim of its own success, if Doyle's original was not so brilliant they would not be prostituting it today.

I heard it was very good.