What do Sherlock Holmes fans think of the current film with Downey as Sherlock Holmes ? I like The private Life of Sherlock Holmes, for what it is - an interesting but not definitive exploration of the character. He's damn difficult to capture. That's the mystery.
My accountant says, "1 + 1, 40% of the time, equals divorce".
I felt that if you count the deleted by the studio segments both films were kind of similiar in tone, Of course the new one wasnt as tongue and cheek about it as the Wilder film. But both captured aspects of the character not seen on screen much.
shareI have voiced my opinion of the new Sherlock Holmes film elsewhere but l will add it here as well, as an adventure film ok as a Sherlock Holmes film it falls as flat as a pancake, there are so many bad things about it, 1. An american (drug taker) Robert Downey Jnr. is awfully miscast, Jude Law is ok as Watson, Holmes is supposed to meet Mary Mostan for the first time in this film, in the Conan Doyle story The Sign Of Four thats where Holmes met Mary for the fisrt time, it`s so full of shi....flaws it`s a laugh, l blame Guy Richie he just has not done his home work, and with him being an Englishman you would think he would have at least got the details right...l give "Sherlock Holmes" 4/10
shareI must respectfully disagree with you on almost all points.
Yes, Holmes knows Miss Mary Morstan in the stories as she was his client in The Sign of Four, so changing how they met in the movie is simply artistic license. The intention was not to make The Sign of Four but to show how much Holmes relied on Watson and was threatened by Miss Morstan "taking him away".
Yes, Robert Downey Jr is American, but there's no reason for that to automatically rule him out of playing the part. We're not talking about James Bond, after all! ;-) I don't understand why his previous substance abuse issues are an issue either. Holmes was a semi-frequent abuser, himself. The only real problem with his casting was his height, but through the magic of movies (and lifts) that problem disappears.
Jude Law was absolutely marvellous as Watson. I'm not even a Jude Law fan, and I thought he was at least on a par with David Burke and Edward Hardwicke from the Jeremy Brett Granada series, if not better. His character was flawed but strong and useful, not a bumbling fool played for laughs as he once used to be.
As for Guy Ritchie not doing his homework - nonsense. I'm no fan of his, in fact I was dreading seeing the film when I heard he was directing, but he proved me dead wrong. The movie was exciting and well paced and at no point did it flag or did I check my watch. There were so many canon references sprinkled throughout that it proved the writers were not ignorant of the source material, but rather had made deliberate and considered decisions about what they would keep, what they would throw out, what they would change and what they would simply ignore. Which were the decisions they were paid to make.
I'm not suggesting this was a flawless interpretation, to be sure, but ultimately the only problem with it that really annoys me is Holmes' scruffiness. Unless undercover or locked away in his rooms taking cocaine, listlessly playing with his chemistry set and generally bemoaning the lack of original crime in England, he should be immaculately groomed!
I think somebody's had tee many martoonies!
THANK YOU!! I thought that I was the only one who was bothered by "Holmes' scruffiness"; I have always loved Sherlock Holmes, have read the stories since my Dad gave me the complete stories in fifth grade. (That has set me firmly on my path as mystery-lover and complete Anglophile) However, recently I fear :) I have become completely obsessed, what with the Guy Ritchie movie and now the BBC Sherlock (oh, don't even get me started on that one...). I liked the Guy Ritchie movie very much, BUT, as you so astutely said, he needed a shave! It is stated often in the books that Holmes is "cat-like", loves "cleanliness" and that even when living on the moors near Baskerville Hall, his chin was clean and his linen perfect. That facet of Downey's character interpretation, I just couldn't get past. Thank you for this chance to get that off my chest.
"I hope they have pudding." - Luna Lovegood
I agree with zorro2a. (You can see my review on Amazon -- under my real name, which I'm not revealing here.)
When you change Holmes' personality/character, you ruin the stories. Doyle knew what he was doing, and there is little room for alteration. Jeremy Brett's interpretation remains definitive.
Hope to catch it this weekend at the local theater (and I think it'll be my last chance to see it before it goes DVD), but I won't be expecting much.
I don't fault Downey for accepting the part, since it's a given he was offered a considerable "chunka change" to be Holmes; but the crass mentality of the producers for going with Downey, just because he's currently "good box ofice," instead of casting a more appropriate actor as Holmes, is typical Hollywood for you!
Poor Sherlock Holmes has hardly ever been adapted and portrayed accurately onscreen! Only the BBC television series that starred Jeremy Brett has ever done both the charater and Arthur Conan Doyle's written adventures of Holmes any kind of justice!
Secret Message, HERE!-->CONGRATULATIONS!!! You've discovered the Secret Message!
As I understand it, RDJ had to work hard and fight to convince TPTB that he could be Holmes as they thought he was too old for it. It was not handed to him on a silver platter.
(And Jeremy Brett's Holmes, the definitive Holmes IMHO, was not a BBC production but a Granada one, shown on ITV.)
I think somebody's had tee many martoonies!
You know, if Downey can play Charles Chaplin, I don't see why it was a such a problem that he play Holmes.
I thought he did an amazing job. It doesn't matter where someone is from if the job they do is adequate.
I was very sceptical whether this casting would work but Robert Downey jr.is doing a really good job. His English accent is fine and he catches the irony and the humour as well as the anarchic nature of the character. Well done!
shareThe problem is that the character he's playing is not Sherlock Holmes. His performance is good, but it's of a character created by the screenwriters -- not Doyle's.
shareI found the current film to be very entertaining. While it takes a lot of liberties with the original characters, it is necessary to do so; modern audiences do not have patience for "cerebral" movies. They need action, so Guy Ritchie and his cast supply it. I thought the plot (spoiler alert!) with its focus on Moriarity as a war-profiteer was derivative of Wilder's plot in this film, with the submarine as a "super-weapon" that will incite a world war.
share