Sherlock Holmes discussion

Gothamite said:
Totally unrelated to the movie, but if anyone's in London, check out the Sherlock Holmes museum, located in the exact address of his house in the book. It's done up to be exactly like his house, based on every minute detail of the books and it is eight kinds of awesome. I had never even read a Holmes book before going to the museum and it was still the coolest thing, ever.
Click to expand...
Wow, I'd love to check that out!
 
It's so detailed that they even have random stuff like the bulletholes in the wall (apparently he likes to shoot holes in the wall, when he's bored) and if you look hard enough, you can find all of his recreational drug paraphernalia.

And at £6 to get in, I'm pretty sure it costs less to visit the museum than it does to see the movie.
 
Last edited:
I thought the movie was decent, but not really that great. There was no need for Rachel McAdams, Blackwood was stock and the bromance between Holmes and Watson seemed tired. As a matter of fact, the whole movie seemed like a bad episode of Supernatural, set in the 19th Century.

Still, Robert Downey Jr. never fails to impress, I guess. I had a few minor irritations at the characterisation of Holmes. He was really suave and smooth most of the time, when I always imagined him to be one of the least personable people you'd ever meet.
He referenced Alice's Adventures in Wonderland in one scene and in the books he's not supposed to know anything about popular culture. I also didn't like Moriarty as a shadowy, badass. I always imagined him as a rickety old mad scientist-type.
None of this bothered me that much, but I've only read one or two of the books.

My friend Shane (who claims to have read all of the books) hated the film, with a vengeance. He claimed it was wrought with plot holes
(why was there soil and worms in a grave that had only been there for 10-12 hours?)
. He did like the fights and the performances, though.
 
Last edited:
I say! I just got home, pip pip, from watching this ol' flick here and I must say it was rather a bloody good show, eh wot?

It was actually a lot of fun, entertaining and charming, and like all good buddy cop movies, the real heart of the movie lies in the buddy relationship of Holmes and Watson. I found it weird that it's billed as "Robert Downy Jr is... SHERLOCK HOLMES!" and not "Robert Downy Jr and Jude Law are... HOLMES AND WATSON!" because while Law is indeed the sidekick, he's just adorable.

The look of Victorian England was wonderful and I was particularly happy that it wasn't a prequel that showed us how Holmes becomes Holmes, but rather, took the Indiana Jones approach of the opening of the movie setting the tone that "this is one of many of adventures". So all in all I liked it. I liked Holmes' use of observation as the doomsday weapon equivalent of badassery. And I like that he had to stop and think in order for it to work, hence why he couldn't just do it all the time in the middle of fights. And the French Giant was awesome.

However, there were some things that annoyed me...

Firstly, Mark Strong wasn't very intriguing as Blackwood. I felt he lacked any real menace. All through, I kept thinking, "Shouldn't he have chosen to do it *this* way instead of *that* way", desperately coming up with ideas on how else to create that menace. Which is unfortunate. The problem with buddy cop movies has always been a lack of good villains (look at the LETHAL WEAPON movies for Chrissakes, or BAD BOYS... the only exception is probably the best buddy cop movie ever; HOT FUZZ, who had the wonderful ensemble of Timothy Dalton, Edward Woodward, and Jim Broadbean). Mark Strong, sadly, wasn't Heath Ledger. (Let's be honest, I will no compare all master criminals to TDK's Joker.) I dunno why, but for some reason, Gabriel Byrne just seems to work.

Also, speaking of casting, I'd love Mycroft to be played by George Clooney. And Daniel Day-Lewis as Moriarty. Or! Ooo! Stephen Fry! (That would make me laugh but it would be AWESOME.)

The other problem I had was that it was SHERLOCK HOLMES. Absolutely nothing (except for the weakest part of the movie, which I'll mention in a moment) required it to be Holmes. It could've been called CONSTABLE ARCHIBALD WHISPER AND THE BLACKWOOD RESURRECTION, if it must be set in Victorian England. Nothing is gained by making it Holmes, and it's a constantly bizarre departure of the character. What irked me about it was that every time someone called Downey Jr "Holmes" or "Sherlock", I found it distracting because he's not even remotely Sherlock Holmes. He's Downey Jr with a British accent. Yes, sure, he's got the all the obnoxious flaws of Holmes, and he's wonderfully wonderful, but he doesn't feel like Holmes at all. Now, I'm not a Sherlockian, so it's not fanboy discomfort, and it's not that making him badass sucked, and it's not that I have preconceptions of Holmes that's bastardized through pop culture, but rather everytime someone called him Holmes, I just dropped out of the movie and found it odd.

I'd've loved it if it was a brand new franchise. But it wasn't and what irks me is that the only way it uses the fact it's Holmes is in a rather shamless way; to set up the sequel.

The man in the black hat whom we don't know turns out to be Moriarty. Imagine if it was CONSTABLE ARCHIBALD WHISPER AND THE BLACKWOOD RESURRECTION and at the end, the man in the black hat's name was revealed to be... Professor Abraxes. Everyone would go, "huh?" and feel ripped off. And you know what, everyone does feel a bit ripped off with the idea that this is to be continued in the sequel. And why is Moriarty's face concealed? Because they haven't cast him yet.

This is what annoys me: it is a mystery-action-comedy and one of the big mysteries - "who is the man in the black hat" - is a mystery only because of a casting decision and no other reason. How are we supposed to work that out? You can bet that if they got Brad Pitt to play Moriarty we'd've seen his face in the carriage. We didn't because they didn't/couldn't/wouldn't cast him.

And it annoys me greatly. When I saw the carriage scene, immediately, I went, "Okay, who is it?" The only reason to conceal a face is because the reveal of the face would give away the true identity. So the idea is that the man has two identities. The murder is a suspect, but which one? So, immediately, I assumed it was Blackwood, until Blackwood was resurrected, and then it made no sense to have hidden his face in the carriage when it would've been such a big reveal. So no, it couldn't be Blackwood. I desperately looked for another suspect and couldn't find one. And that's when I assumed that the man in the black hat was...

Watson.

Watson pronounced Blackwood dead. Just as Holmes dashed in and out of 221b Baker Street to catch up to the carriage, so did Watson. Watson was the one to set off the trip wire, which made it only look like he was in danger, but was subsequently unharmed. Soon afterward, he's beating up three men at once. Blackwood has the same cane-sword as Watson, making them potentially old army buddies. Why was Watson helping Holmes undo the cyanide machine? To get the wireless communication device. And why would Watson continually get Holmes involved? Well, to make sure everything happened as it needed to be, to make sure Holmes would never suspect him, and that's why he got Irene Adler involved, why he had a false pretense with a thieving governess, and why he enlisted the aid of crazy, black magic man Blackwood. It alters the scene where Holmes 'reads' Watson and Mary into a test by Watson. And here's the final thing: this would be why this movie had to be Sherlock Holmes. If this had been Constable Archibald Whisper, you'd've suspected his sidekick... ah... Brigadier Thomas (that'll do) as the big bad instantly but because it's Holmes and Watson, you'd never have seen it coming. Blackwood's defeated, and Holmes then reveals Watson as the black hatted man. Or Watson, in his solitude in his new manor, 'reveals' it to the audience and he, and only he, has truly ever beaten Holmes.

It was all there. It all made sense. And instead, all that potential was wasted on the 'promise' of a sequel. I tell you, if it had ended like that, not only would you have not needed/wanted a sequel, but when they mentioned one was coming, you'd be even more excited to see Holmes unravel the first movie.

I did like it, though.
 
Bass said:
Watson.
Click to expand...

I read a thing yesterday by the people controlling Sir Arthur Doyle's estate in reaction to some offhand comments made by Robert Downey Jr. about gay undertones between Watson and Holmes. If they had a problem with that I can't image they wouldn't have a problem with that.

Interesting theory though.
 
E said:
I read a thing yesterday by the people controlling Sir Arthur Doyle's estate in reaction to some offhand comments made by Robert Downey Jr. about gay undertones between Watson and Holmes. If they had a problem with that I can't image they wouldn't have a problem with that.

Interesting theory though.
Click to expand...

Sherlock Holmes is public domain. **** 'em.

Doublehex said:
Damn it man, when are you gonna write a screenplay?
Click to expand...

WHEN HOLLYWOOD RECOGNIZES MY BRILLIANTASTICNESS!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top