Warner Bros. Reimagining Sherlock Holmes

[spider-neil]

The tone is quite different. Sherlock is much more snobish and fastidious than he is in the movie, but I found the tone shift very welcome and needed.

In fact the only real contradictions I found were very minor. They misprounounce Lestrade's name(but they do that in nearly every film adaptation), and the meeting between Sherlock and Watson's fiance. Technically, Sherlock should already be well aquainted with her because she was the client from Sign Of Four, where Watson met her and fell in love.

watson was married three times, was his first wife mary?
also from the books they showed how holmes practically loses his mind when he isn't on a case although it would have been nice to see him take some morphine.

how do you pronounce lestrade?

less - trade ???

 

[The Caped Knight]

Moriarty is more 'the man behind the curtain' villain.

Exactly

 

[Doctor Jones]

Holmes in the film proncounced "Les - strod"

 

[spider-neil]

Holmes in the film proncounced "Les - strod"

yeah, that was a little odd.

 

[ChickenScratch]

watson was married three times, was his first wife mary?
also from the books they showed how holmes practically loses his mind when he isn't on a case although it would have been nice to see him take some morphine.
how do you pronounce lestrade?
less - trade ???

Les-Traad

I'm not sure Holmes would use drugs on screen since they are trying to reach a wide audience. Much like you'll never see James Bond do speed or acid like in the opening chapters of Moonraker. He uses it to sharpen his mind though.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Hahaha. They would NEVER get away with that on screen. And RDJ playing him would make it even worse.

 

[mr. peasant]

Les-Traad

I'm not sure Holmes would use drugs on screen since they are trying to reach a wide audience. Much like you'll never see James Bond do speed or acid like in the opening chapters of Moonraker. He uses it to sharpen his mind though.

However, it was hinted at when he described his attempt at using Blackwood's spell book. For on-screen, it can easily be replaced with alcohol anyway.

On a side note, anyone else somewhat disappointed that they didn't make use of the Baker Street Irregulars in the movie?

 

[spider-neil]

I thought watson telling holmes what the scratches on the pocket watch meant was a nice touch. in a study in scarlet where holmes and watson first meet, to test holmes watson gives him a pocket watch and tells him (holmes) to tell him the details, one of the details was scratches on the watch meant the owner was a drunk this upset watson because the watch belonged to his brother.

 

[Lighthouse]

watson was married three times, was his first wife mary?
also from the books they showed how holmes practically loses his mind when he isn't on a case although it would have been nice to see him take some morphine.

how do you pronounce lestrade?

less - trade ???

IMDB lists her name as Mary Morstan, who was the client in Sign of Four.

I believe it is pronounced Less-trade, although the proper pronunciation could be ambiguous. Apparently the French pronunciation is Less-Trod, and the British pronunciation is Less-Trade.

I thought watson telling holmes what the scratches on the pocket watch meant was a nice touch. in a study in scarlet where holmes and watson first meet, to test holmes watson gives him a pocket watch and tells him (holmes) to tell him the details, one of the details was scratches on the watch meant the owner was a drunk this upset watson because the watch belonged to his brother.

Actually, that is in the first chapter of the Sign of Four right before Mary shows up.

 

[spider-neil]

IMDB lists her name as Mary Morstan, who was the client in Sign of Four.

I believe it is pronounced Less-trade, although the proper pronunciation could be ambiguous. Apparently the French pronunciation is Less-Trod, and the British pronunciation is Less-Trade.



Actually, that is in the first chapter of the Sign of Four right before Mary shows up.

sorry. yes you are correct.

 

[That-Guy]

I figure sure we'll see plenty of great interaction between Holmes and Moriarty in the sequel. As Batman Begins has become the clear model for this type of reboot/origin-type story, The Dark Knight would like be a model for a sequel. Sherlock Holmes was essentially a film that delved into who Holmes and Watson are... what makes them tick and all of that. The sequel would, logically, be more about how they'll react to an evil that truly tests their abilities, much like The Joker in TDK.

However, I also wouldn't be opposed to actually not knowing who Moriarty is until the end. It would be cool if Richie throws several red herrings in there to keep you guessing. I'd love it if Brad Pitt does show up and play a villain... and then we find out that he's NOT Moriarty.
Regardless of what they do though, I do hope that there is at least one villain (even if it's not the main one) that we don't realize is a bad guy until the end. That was one of my only gripes about the first film. We knew Blackwood was bad, and it was obvious that he would survive his execution, regardless of whether you thought that he had supernatural powers or not. And as soon as Hans Matheson showed up, I knew he was going to be a bad guy. That dude just looks evil (probably why he played such a good Mordred).

Also, on the sequel note... what should they call it?

 

[Turtles]

I figure sure we'll see plenty of great interaction between Holmes and Moriarty in the sequel. As Batman Begins has become the clear model for this type of reboot/origin-type story, The Dark Knight would like be a model for a sequel. Sherlock Holmes was essentially a film that delved into who Holmes and Watson are... what makes them tick and all of that. The sequel would, logically, be more about how they'll react to an evil that truly tests their abilities, much like The Joker in TDK.

However, I also wouldn't be opposed to actually not knowing who Moriarty is until the end. It would be cool if Richie throws several red herrings in there to keep you guessing. I'd love it if Brad Pitt does show up and play a villain... and then we find out that he's NOT Moriarty.
Regardless of what they do though, I do hope that there is at least one villain (even if it's not the main one) that we don't realize is a bad guy until the end. That was one of my only gripes about the first film. We knew Blackwood was bad, and it was obvious that he would survive his execution, regardless of whether you thought that he had supernatural powers or not. And as soon as Hans Matheson showed up, I knew he was going to be a bad guy. That dude just looks evil (probably why he played such a good Mordred).

Also, on the sequel note... what should they call it?

Well, since we all know Hollywood can't do anything but copy Nolan's Batman movies whatever, why don't they just call the sequel Sherlock Holmes: A Dark Night In London?

 

[dark_b]

hollywood copied from nolan's batman movies?

 

[TheComicbookKid]

I think he just means holding back on introducing the famous antagonist in the first film that has become vogue.

 

[That-Guy]

Yeah, Christ. Some of you guys need to make smartass comments about anything, don't you? All I meant was that the "reboot" philosophy for this type of film primarily delves into the main characters and what makes them who they are, while leaving the villain to his dastardly plot but not much else. You can see it in films like Star Trek and Casino Royale.

 

[Dr. Evil]

Even though the reviews of this movie have been bad, it's nice to know that Robert Downey Jr. ends the decade as one of Hollywood's most popular and bankable stars, especially after what happened to him at the start of the decade.

 

[블라스]

The reviews have not been bad.

 

[BlackLantern]

Even though the reviews of this movie have been bad, it's nice to know that Robert Downey Jr. ends the decade as one of Hollywood's most popular and bankable stars, especially after what happened to him at the start of the decade.

damn right....go RDJ go

 

[That-Guy]

Yeah, 68% on RT isn't too shabby. Granted, it's not 100%, but it's better than a lot of movies out there.

 

[Turtles]

Yeah, Christ. Some of you guys need to make smartass comments about anything, don't you? All I meant was that the "reboot" philosophy for this type of film primarily delves into the main characters and what makes them who they are, while leaving the villain to his dastardly plot but not much else. You can see it in films like Star Trek and Casino Royale.

Reboot philosophy? It would be more appropriate to call it an origin story philosophy, because 99% of origin stories, not just the reboots, follow this pattern. 99% of origin movies concentrate on the primary characters and what makes them who they are, largely ignoring the villain because the filmmakers don't want the audience bogged down with, and bored by, too many details about a character that may not have much to do with the overall story line, or only be seen once.

The Matrix movies, which are not a reboot by any means, are a good example of this. The first movie highlighted all the "one" nonsense, Neo's feelings about it, the relationship between Neo and Trinity and Morpheus, and the plight of the humans, but largely ignored the Agents. It wasn't until the second movie and third movies that Agent Smith had the spotlight focused on him, and he became more than your typical one-off movie villain.

Actually, this new Sherlock Holmes film is, in a way, breaking the origin story/reboot story (whatever you want to call it) philosophy. If it closely followed the typical origin/reboot story pattern, then we probably would have gotten a story about a young Holmes meeting a fresh out of the army Watson for the first time, them moving in together, and finally them going on their first case together and tackling their first villain together. But because 40+ year old RDJ just happened to be cast, we got to see an older Holmes with an already established career and strong relationship with Watson. Basically, the filmmakers skipped right over the "how and why they became who they are" part, and delved right into the "what they did after" part. That's almost a good thing, because the "why" part at the very beginning of any origin story is usually the most boring part of the story.

What was done in this movie is kind of the equivalent of skipping over Batman Begins and watching The Dark Knight first.

 

[Secret Fawful]

Forget Moriarty, the next film needs to be based on the Hound of the Baskervilles.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Yes, lets forget Moriarty when we say his name more than once and Holmes saying "Case reopened."

Yes, let's go with that!

 

[Mr. Para-Normal]

I enjoyed the movie I saw it the day after christmas. It was a sold out show. The audience seemed mix though because hardly anyone laughed at the jokes or anything it was mostly silent the entire movie. The only joke that got a big laugh was the one homles says " No woman wants a doctor who can't tell if a man is dead or not". LOL

 

[BlackLantern]

Holmes in the film proncounced "Les - strod"

that's how Ive always heard it pronounced

 

[ultimatefan]

SHERLOCK HOLMES REVIEW

Guy Ritchie´s reinvention of the legendary detective succeeds where things like Young Sherlock Holmes failed: it makes Sherlock cool again.

I don´t see this as a reboot, given that Holmes didn´t really have such a major film franchise the way of a Star Trek or a Batman. This feels more like just a Sherlock Holmes story that Doyle would have created, but told with a modern sensibility.

I confess, seeing the trailers, that I had some fears of seeing something akin to Van Helsing. But SH is a far more cerebral and intelligent movie than the trailers would have one believe: a plot so intricate, with a twist at every turn, and yet a grand plan all along, that would give Chris Nolan a run for his money. Yet what makes everything gel together is RDJ and Jude Law, their witty may-september chemistery, combined with Ritchie´s dynamic directing, makes a movie filled with exposition all along fly by where a lot of non-stop wammo-blammo movies would get repetitive and boring. The cast, by the way, is pitch-perfect all around, with a special mention to Stanley Tucci as a creepily collected and self-confident Professor Moriarty that makes you believe he´s in touch with supernatural powers, as he professes, pardon the pun.

One of its main challenges was: how to make people believe Holmes as an action hero? Ritchies simple answer is to apply his intelligence to fighting, getting you to see step by step of his quick wit as he internally processes all the necessary moves, to which, in fact, Ritchie´s trademark use of speed-switching motion works perfectly. It actually reminded me of Batman in The Dark Knight Returns, going through all the science of how to beat up his enemies.

For those who say his directorial style may not fir the character, first of all there were far less typical Ritchie mannerisms than one would think there´d be. Second, at the end of the day Holmes was a pulp hero before there were pulp heroes, a pop culture icon before there were pop culture icons, a franchise before… You get the picture. As long as you keep what made him interesting to begin with – which is what Sommers tossed in the trash with the Universal monsters -, you can add some dynamic to it and still make it Sherlock Holmes.

And Holmes is every bit the restless inquisitive mind created by Doyle, with his encyclopedic knowledge, nearly microscopic observation, borderline feverish abstraction, and delightfully eccentric personality. There isn´t much of a grand arc for him, but the SH stories were never about that, they were about Holmes being challenged by the case he was investigating, and this is a challenge indeed.SH may not blow your eyes and melt your heart as much as Avatar, but it may be much more rewarding to your mind in repeat viewing.

8/10