What do you think of the new Sherlock Holmes?

as someone who's read ALL of the original Sherlock Holmes novels and short stories, after watching the new film trailer all i can think is: i dont know what that was, but it WASNT Sherlock Holmes?

what did you think?





(i know ive been saying a lot about what i "dont like" lately, but i promise i dont hate EVERYTHING!!!)

 

I think I'll wait till I have seen the movie.

 

To me, it looks more faithful to the original character than other adaptations. True, it looks like it has a bit more action and more humor than the original stories, but RDjr's portrayal seems spot on.

 

Gritter, edgier Holmes for the times...SHINO to some, but to me the definitive reimagining of the classic character. I think this bold take on Arthur Conan Doyle's super detective clues into the pulse of the current generation.

(I have no idea what I just wrote. )

 

Nope. Don't like it. Don't like it at all.

 

Finally a Holmes that faithfully adapts the cokehead aspects of the original.

 

Jude Law looks perfect as Dr. Watson (finally, he's handsome and athletic), and I like Rachel McAdams as Irene Adler. Beyond that, the film doesn't seem to resemble Doyle's writing. I'm hopeful that the trailers are misrepresenting it.

 

Leaving aside the misrepresentation of Conan Doyle's Holmes as a "cokehead", the Jeremy Brett TV series had numerous examples of the syringe; references would sometimes be made in adaptations of stories which never originally made mention of it.

And although I usually reserve judgment on things until I see them for myself...I'll be avoiding this at all costs.

 

I'm a huge Holmes fan who has also read all sixty original stories. That said, I believe in individual interpretations of canon as a general principle. In my personal Holmes canon, for example, Nicholas Meyer's three novels (starting with The Seven-Per-Cent Solution) are authentic manuscripts, and their contents true. (Incidentally, 7PCS not only reveals that Watson made up the events of "The Final Problem" and "The Empty House", but that four of Doyle's own stories were forged "drivel" not even written by Watson. And really, it's hard to disagree.)

I don't necessarily mind if Holmes is put in situations radically different from what Doyle imagined, so long as he isn't removed from his own time (as in the 1940s movies depicting him fighting Nazis). What I do mind is if the abuse the character himself. For the time being, I'm keeping an open yet wary mind.

 

I've read all the Conan Doyle stories, the three Nicholas Meyer books, and seen numerous TV and film versions.

I'll just say the new movie looks like a fun action flick, but it sure isn't Sherlock Holmes. It's reminds me of another Maverick or Wild, Wild, West type of thing, with Sherlock Holmes happening to be the main character.

That said, I'll see it. It looks fun. at least it isn't the 1,000,000th version of The Hounds of the Baskervilles.

For the Best Screen version of Sherlock Holmes, Look no further than Jeremy Brett. His adaptations are very close to the source material, have fantastic Victorian sets and props. I think he was about perfect.

I also really like The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, an excellent and touching comedy.

 

It looks like a really fun movie and Downey is delightfully droll in the trailer.

I remember really liking the novel The Hound of the Baskervilles, but I've never been Holmes' biggest fan, admittedly.

 

If you could put another character in the main role and not miss a beat then the story is not about the main character. This movie could easily be retitled Allen Quatermain and noone would no the difference.
Brett was the best Holmes.

 

Agreed. I like RDJ, but this doesn't look like Sherlock Holmes. I do like that they've incorporated the fact that Holmes did box, and Jude Law looks like an excellent Watson, but if that's supposed to be Irene Adler...

 

Me and my brother, both Holmes fans, laughed ourselves senseless through the trailer. It's almost serves as a parody similar to Swarzenegger's Hamlet from Last Action Hero.

 

Never read a Holmes novel. Read a comic or two here and there. Seen parts of some of the movies over the decades(not even a whole movie). My biggest Sherlock exposure is a number of cartoons in the late 80's/early 90's AND ,this is the sad part I'm sure to you guys who've read all 60 novels, Data from TNG with the holodeck programs.

So, I'll see it cause I can either like it as a movie or not without worrying about its accuracy to Doyle's writing.

 

Just curious ... why not? I've read the script, and I found it very faithful to Doyle's concept. Is it the action and fighting? Doyle makes, for example, references to Holmes' boxing prowess, so he MUST practice. I don't recall the story, but Holmes at least once introduces himself to a bare-knuckle boxer as "the amateur who went three rounds with you." He uses Japanese baritsu against Moriarity. Holmes is also an expert with the sword and pistol. That doesn't just happen. The script is perfectly in keeping with that. In fact, the filmmakers went to great lengths to study the martial arts and boxing techniques of the day and place.

Also, it is Holmes' intellect and deductive power that wins the day. The action is there, but it's not the key to the story.

Does the humanizing bother you? Granted, that's not in the stories. But the causes behind Holmes' pain in the script -- Watson's pending marriage and his own drug use -- are right out of the stories.

There is a sort of "pulp" feeling to it, but remember where the Holmes stories started. The real "non-canon" issue comes with a potential relationship with Irene Adler. She is terrific in the script, but her scenes would never have occurred in Doyle. I kinda think he might have approved, though, although that's just me and I really can't defend that.

Of course, I'm guessing at what might have rubbed you the wrong way, and I readily concede that this isn't the Holmes of Jeremy Britt or Basil Rathbone. But the character has shown an amazing ability to adapt over the years (I still love Michael Caine's Without A Clue) and this works for me. Well, the script does. I'm looking forward to the film.

Would you mind if I ask what bothered you?

 

By the way, I do have a copy of the script if anyone wants to drop me an email.

 

Much of this is true.

Holmes was an accomplished Boxer, Swordsman, shooter, etc.

However, This was never an important part of the stories. They were slowly paced (compared to stories told now) mysteries with Holmes and Watson doing much, much more comtemplating than beating down guys with clubs or shooting people. This film, at least as seen in the trailer, is a non-stop overblown action movie with one liners. This is not in the spirit or Style of Doyle, or even the Genre holmes was part of.

Doyle said that Holmes is a calculating machine, and that the more you try to humanize him, the less interesting he is.

 

^Agreed on the action, although what really bothers me isn't that so much as this woman in lingerie I see in the trailer (Irene Adler, I presume?) beating up Holmes and leaving him tied naked to a bed. "Beneath this pillow lies the key to my release."

You can argue all you want for Sherlock Holmes being some sort of Victorian action star...but you'll never convince me something like that is "true to the spirit of the original stories".

 

i think the action-flick aspect is what got me too, i just dont see SH in that way. Dont get me wrong though, it will probably turn out to be a good movie.


but then again, with the way hollywood works these days its only a matter of time before Mickey Mouse or Beaver Cleaver come out with a big-budget over-fx'd action flick too...