Dit onderwerp is gemarkeerd als "slapend"—het laatste bericht is van meer dan 90 dagen geleden. Je kan het activeren door een een bericht toe te voegen.
I don't think it is a good idea to have a non British actor playing SH.
Not very long ago I got from Netflix a SH movie, called "The Case of the Silk Stocking", with Rupert Everett playing Sherlock Holmes. The story is not a Conan Doyle's one, but it was pretty good, and Everett as our favourite sleuth was just perfect, aquiline profile and all.
I wonder why they did not think of him for this movie as well.
a bit of 'Baritsu' might not be amiss, but it sounds like they are trying to make this into Holmes vs The 300, in which case they might as well cast Brad Pitt as the Master. then he could turn Holmes into Batman, like he did to Achilles!
I cannot stand Will Ferrell. At least Sacha Baron Cohen is British!
Not quite sure what to make of it yet.
Downey Jr. is, in my opinion, the least likely choice for Sherlock Holmes. It just looked as a big buffoonery.
In some ways the director of such a movie is just as important as the leads.
I think back to Peter Weir's success with Master and Commander. An intelligent take on the Patrick O'Brian books which managed to steer a course between box office and intelligence.
He really inhabited the character - flaws and all.
"Victorian superheros, hmmm... "
they (Hollywood) turned Achilles into Batman, so why not do the same for Holmes? after all, leaving him as he is is SO last century!
the Invernessed crusader protecting Gotham by night, with his trusty sidekick by his side (note the large "W" on Watson's chest).
i suppose i'll have to see it eventually, but i am absolutely waiting until it comes out on NetFlix.
Also, I sat in on a panel last week - Michael Whelan, Steven Doyle, Laurie King, Leslie Klinger, Roy Pilot - and one of them (I believe it was Klinger) said that he'd done some consulting for the movie and thought it would be pretty good.
Holmes has been around for over a century. We've had good films and bad films-- not to mention the array of pastiches. We've still got the Brett series to watch if we want something super-faithful, we've still got the books if we want the original stories. At the end of the day, this is going to be just another take on Holmes. And I'm open to a new take on Holmes. At least Watson is super-sexy for once.
And honestly, the trailer reminds me a bit of Pirates of the Caribbean, in a way. Remember how when you first heard that Disney was making a PIRATE movie? Based on that RIDE? And how ridiculous that sounded because who in THIS century would want to see a PIRATE move? And then the first trailer came out, and we all thought "Hey, this might actually be kinda good, swashbuckling fun". And then we actually saw the movie, and we all let out a collective "OMG PIRATES!!!"
So that's what I think is going to happen here. It will be a fun take on an old standby, and it may leave behind a few new converts.
well, maybe not ALL of us.
I just saw it (had a screening pass from a cinema society I belong to).
NOTE: MAJOR SPOILER AHEAD
It's "Conan Doyle meets Dan Brown". And it's extremely violent. Honestly, there are more fisticuffs (and graphic fisticuffs) in this film than in the entire canon. There are all kinds of "perils of Pauline" moments. Mary Morstan is introduced as Watson's fiancée, but is a stranger to Holmes. And Irene Adler should sue for defamation of character (she's presented as a temptress in the employ of Moriarty!).
And I hate movies that end with the detective making a speech to the survivors in which he explicates everything and ties up all the loose ends. Whatever happened to showing rather than telling?
How could they do that to our dear SH????
Basically, I came down on the side of "OMG PIRATES!!!"
The relationship between Watson and Holmes was interesting to watch, and there were a handful of little jokes (that only people who have read the stories would get) which made me chuckle. I also thought that Adler was presented as quite a bit more than just some seductress; I remember being pretty happy with her portrayal.
It wasn't exactly Doyle's Holmes, but I enjoyed myself and then went home to settle in with the The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes afterward :-)
Also, I had never seen (or read of) such an athletic Watson!
Like lilithcat, I did not like the way Irene Adler was portrayed.
Altogether, I can say that it was entertaining even though it misrepresented the character, and his qualities/defects, dear to all of us sherlockians.
They definitely set the movie up for sequels.
As a teenager myself who is a devoted Sherlockian and Jeremy Brett fan, I have been somewhat dissapointed that my fellow teenagers are unaware of Sir Conan Doyle and his brilliant creation, Sherlock Holmes. However, this new movie is inspiring several of my friends to read the Canon, and one has even expressed interest in watching my Jeremy Brett collection.
Despite my qualms about the movie's interpretation of the character of Sherlock Holmes, it has certainly enlivened intrigue amongst the teenage world for him, and an interest in the books. If this is what it takes to keep the spirit alive, then I am in favor of this movie.
Aansluiten om berichten te kunnen plaatsen