Guy Ritchie Film of Sherlock Holmes

[Donald A. Petkus]

I'm relieved that Ritchie's soon to be exwife Madonna was not cast as Irene Adler in the currently in production Sherlock Holmes film, but ....

Some of the recent on location shots show Robert Downey Jr's Sherlock as looking a bit unkempt even when Holmes is not in disguise. Since Holmes had a catlike care in his personal appearance, should I be concerned that this film will be ant-Canonical? Should I be concerned that Ritchie's current film looks like British Pulp Fiction clone? (I wouldn't want Tarantino directing a Holmes film>) Donald

[Janine Schmelzer Bock]

I like your comparison to the Quatermain & Co comics as looking at the Holmes portrayals. I, like you, was prepared to hate this movie and I didn't. I bought into the new modern twist.

I'm still not convinced that Downey was the best Holmes to put in the movie--he was not refined enough. But I actually bought into how Ritchey portrays his addictions and his living quarters. I imagine that there were times that Watson (or Mrs. Hudson for that matter) would not care to be around the 'mess' that Holmes created in his experiments. I've lived with brilliant people. They're not always the most likable.

I appreciated that Ritchey gave Watson more heft. I always felt that the Granada series never really addressed how much Watson was involved in the mysteries. The reason why Watson and Holmes got along was NOT because Watson was a bystander. Watson was many times set-up by Holmes and he got the brunt of whatever came his way. But he took it! And always came back for more.

I also don't think it's that far of a stretch to think that Irene Adler wouldn't have acted in the way this movie portays her. The Granada series shows her dressing as a man several times, tricking even those who love her, and especially tricking Holmes himself. Plus, give me a break--do you not think that Holmes would have never had any love interests? He would have! Why not play to those, especially when Ritchey is thinking in terms of a blockbuster film.

It is going to be hard for me to ever except a Holmes that does not play the violin well, that does not clean up exceptionally and wear great clothes, and doesn't work as well with the high class as well as the low class (as in this movie, Lestrade and Watson were his only contemporaries).

[M. Clyde Pittman]

Whats funny, is I have yet to see a Sherlockian say that the movie was as terrible as it looked to be through the previews nor have I seen one say that they regretted seeing the movie at all.

Hint. Nick, see the movie.

Also by the way, there is plenty in that article that I posted to suggest that those quoted from the Baker Street Irregulars did not hate the movie entirely and liked some aspects of the film, which is what I have been preaching all along.

[Nick Kitt]

"I like your comparison to the Quatermain & Co comics as looking at the Holmes portrayals. I, like you, was prepared to hate this movie and I didn't. I bought into the new modern twist."

Really ? I guess you like your Holmes light and funny. OK, good for you.

"I'm still not convinced that Downey was the best Holmes to put in the movie--he was not refined enough."

To say the least..

"But I actually bought into how Ritchey portrays his addictions and his living quarters."

There was no mention of any addictions in the film, especially his cocaine,which was a mistake.They completely overlooked the flawed genius angle,making Holmes a smirking, silly man with occasional flashes of brilliance. Like I said, you like your Holmes light and funny. Do you honestly think Holmes would lay around his rooms for two weeks in the dark and not take cocaine while reciting his famous "my mind rebels at stagnation" speech ? Modern twist,my fanny !!

"I imagine that there were times that Watson (or Mrs. Hudson for that matter) would not care to be around the 'mess' that Holmes created in his experiments. I've lived with brilliant people. They're not always the most likable."

Yes, we already know that. They are in their own little world.

"I appreciated that Ritchey gave Watson more heft. I always felt that the Granada series never really addressed how much Watson was involved in the mysteries."

This has got to be the most ridiculous statement and completely false. Granada did just the opposite and Brett and company worked to make Watson much more than a bystander. If you didn't see that, you weren't paying much attention.

"The reason why Watson and Holmes got along was NOT because Watson was a bystander. Watson was many times set-up by Holmes and he got the brunt of whatever came his way. But he took it! And always came back for more."

That's exactly what Granada did. Check out EMPTY HOUSE,ABBEY GRANGE,HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES,SIGN OF FOUR, and many others.
Oh,please....

"I also don't think it's that far of a stretch to think that Irene Adler wouldn't have acted in the way this movie portays her. The Granada series shows her dressing as a man several times, tricking even those who love her, and especially tricking Holmes himself. Plus, give me a break--do you not think that Holmes would have never had any love interests? He would have! Why not play to those, especially when Ritchey is thinking in terms of a blockbuster film."

Stop with the Holmes romance already. Holmes was asexual. The body is just an appendage to the brain. Anybody remember that. He had no need for that or female companionship. That point was driven home again and again. Irene Adler was no criminal and should not behave like one. Rachel Adams was woefully miscast and Adler would never enter the employ of Moriarty. She was a wronged woman who sought protection from a powerful man in SCANDAL. It's pure baloney the way the film treated one of the most interesting characters in the Canon.

"It is going to be hard for me to ever except a Holmes that does not play the violin well, that does not clean up exceptionally and wear great clothes, and doesn't work as well with the high class as well as the low class (as in this movie, Lestrade and Watson were his only contemporaries)."

And yet you like this film. Make up your mind.


"Whats funny, is I have yet to see a Sherlockian say that the movie was as terrible as it looked to be through the previews nor have I seen one say that they regretted seeing the movie at all."

But they didn't say it was sensational either. Every reaction is middle of the road..at best. I haven't seen one Sherlockian be ENTHUSIASTIC, have you ?
No, you haven't.

"Hint. Nick, see the movie."

Clue, Clyde, I don't have to.


"Also by the way, there is plenty in that article that I posted to suggest that those quoted from the Baker Street Irregulars did not hate the movie entirely and liked some aspects of the film, which is what I have been preaching all along"

You don't get it,Clyde. No one is beaming about this film. No Irregular is demanding anyone to see this film. It's just OK and there are certain aspects they liked. Not one has said it's a GOOD HOLMES FILM !!!!

You can preach till the cows come home. This is a silly film that was expertly made with very light touches of things that relate to the world of Sherlock Holmes. On a movie level,I'm sure it entertains. On a Holmes level,it's absurd nonsense. Downy and Law are even smirking on the poster,for heaven's sake. You see, but you do not observe, Watson!!

[seimei]

You see, but you do not observe, Watson!!

He drew different conclusions from his observations based on his point of view and experiences in life. He did, however, at least bother to see so that he could have all of the facts in hand. The film, as any case, is filled with trifles that no article or poster can contain.

I'm very disappointed to see such vitriol on a personal level. You may dislike the film even without having seen it. That is a personal right - we are, after all, in America. Many people dislike Brett as Holmes, which is also an opinion. To be fair, he had a great advantage in his portrayal in that the stories he acted in remained fairly faithful to the books.

Personally, I like Rathbone, Cushing, Brett, and Wontner. They provided different takes on the character, but I found the character of each to be believable.

I was pleasantly surprised by this particular movie in some ways and disappointed in others. It was too dark in terms of portrayed 'black magic' for my taste, but I thought they wrapped that up well enough at the end - merely that they took it too far. It certainly was done as well as many of the Holmes movies of the past, and better than many others of the past. I enjoy taking different looks at the character and believe that it would be much to ask for an actor to capture all of him 100% accurately simply because the character is so complex and that complexity lends a certain subjectivity to our perceptions of it. There are so many aspects to him that each person tends to focus on particular ones more than others simply because we need something to grab onto as human beings to help us categorize for understanding. For as many Sherlockians as you have in a room together, you'll have that many different perceptions of Holmes.

It is up to us to collect data as much as possible first hand and then to draw our own conclusions from it based on the facts as we surmise them. The key is to think for ourselves and examine thoroughly. Our conclusions are our own.

For my part I would be perfectly happy to watch the film a second time.

[Nick Kitt]

"He drew different conclusions from his observations based on his point of view and experiences in life. He did, however, at least bother to see so that he could have all of the facts in hand. The film, as any case, is filled with trifles that no article or poster can contain."

Yes, but you could have called the film THE SON OF SHERLOCK HOLMES and got away with that. Your point ?

"I'm very disappointed to see such vitriol on a personal level."

What personal level ? I just challenge totally absurd and erroneous statements.

"You may dislike the film even without having seen it."

And I personally find that easy to do.

" Many people dislike Brett as Holmes, which is also an opinion. "

And one they can totally have. But Downy is no Brett,so your point is moot. Nor does Downy make any valid attempt to really understand the character as created by Doyle. He's just Downy ( or should I say a Victorian Tony Stark) doing a silly version of Holmes.

"To be fair, he had a great advantage in his portrayal in that the stories he acted in remained fairly faithful to the books."

As was his choice and the guiding factor in his productions. Brett worked very hard to remain true to Doyle. More so then anyone else.

"Personally, I like Rathbone,"

Early Rathbone was fine. When he tired of the role ,it really showed. He way over acted. The war year Holmes were pretty silly, but there were some real gems in the Universal series. Nigel Bruce, however,did immense harm to the Watson character and in a good Holmes, it takes two to tango. You must have a great Watson. Brett had TWO.

"Cushing,"

Cushing put a lot of thought into the role on many levels. He even had decent Watsons in Andre Morrell and Nigel Stock. Just picked up Cushing's BBC years as Holmes and his STUDY IN SCARLET is excellent.

Brett"

Goes without saying...


" and Wontner. "

Also very good. His films are a little slow and dated and you can hear they are on a sound stage,but Wontner was great. Looks most like the Paget drawings.

"They provided different takes on the character, but I found the character of each to be believable."

OK...


"I was pleasantly surprised by this particular movie in some ways"

Really ?!? Oh,yes,they did capture Victorian London very well...

"and disappointed in others. "

I can imagine..


"It certainly was done as well as many of the Holmes movies of the past, and better than many others of the past."

There was never any argument that, as a whole, it was a very entertaining picture,it just wasn't about any Holmes that we could relate to as readers.

"I enjoy taking different looks at the character and believe that it would be much to ask for an actor to capture all of him 100% accurately simply because the character is so complex and that complexity lends a certain subjectivity to our perceptions of it. "

I disagree. I believe the right actors can bring out all of the idiosyncrasies of character in the course of a long run. No one can do all in one film,that's for sure. But, by the very nature of the actors you selected as your favorites lends itself to the idea of how you prefer your Holmes to be portrayed. All of these played to Doyle strengths ( even Rathbone,to an extent, with his "modern" films),so you have a sensible attitude as to how Holmes should be perceived on film.


"There are so many aspects to him that each person tends to focus on particular ones more than others simply because we need something to grab onto as human beings to help us categorize for understanding. For as many Sherlockians as you have in a room together, you'll have that many different perceptions of Holmes."

And yet, none would be near a smirking Downy, I'd wager.



"It is up to us to collect data as much as possible first hand and then to draw our own conclusions from it based on the facts as we surmise them."

That goes without saying. But some are more adapt at gathering data then others.

" The key is to think for ourselves and examine thoroughly. Our conclusions are our own."

I could not agree more. The most intelligent thing you've said.

"For my part I would be perfectly happy to watch the film a second time."

Surely you have better things to do with your money...

[M. Clyde Pittman]

Nick-

I absolutely pity you as a fan of Sherlock Holmes if you need a film that is 'sensational' to your standards for you to enjoy it. And to your point, yes, I have read where many Sherlockians have said they 'enjoyed' the film and were pleasantly surprised. I do not need to see people doing cartwheels and lighting off fireworks or screaming for Oscars to convince me that a movie may be a fun way to spend 2 hours.

Your ignorance to the film grows with every post you make. They absolutely do make a reference to cocaine or morphine use at the very scene in which you commented about. They show an empty syringe on the table that Watson clearly looks directly at before the "rebels at stagnation" lines from Downey jr. Absolutely anyone that knows anything about the original ACD stories is well aware that Holmes is under the influence in this scene. They found a way to include it without directly referring to it to prevent a definitive "R" rating. Also, they definitely portray him as a flawed genius. How you can even begin to gauge how they portray him from seeing three minutes of footage is beyond me.

It is absolutely mind boggling that you continue to argue such definitive points without seeing the movie. You say repeatedly that "you don't have to". I seriously suggest that you do, because the majority of your points that refer directly to this movie are flat out wrong, and you would catch them before you post anything else that just reads as someone making blind assumptions.