CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › SHERLOCK HOLMES Post Release
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

SHERLOCK HOLMES Post Release - Page 2

post #51 of 214
12/27/09 at 2:27pm
And for those who gripe about the one-note Blackwood. I agree 100%. I was hoping Strong would make him more 3-dimensional. But the villian in this movie was never going to have a lot to do. This was simply a showcase for Holmes and Watson and villian is only around so that they can foil his plans. Blackwood is the Ra's Al Ghul of this franchise. Moriarty will be the Joker.
Reply
post #52 of 214
12/27/09 at 3:20pm
Just saw the film last night. Thought it was great. Certainly far from high art, but it delivered on all the fronts I was hoping: banter was fun and well written, had a few very clever plot points, characters were more faithful to the canon than I was expecting, and what really won me over in the end was that I was left wanting more. Not that I wanted to immediately rewatch the film (that's a different thing), but that I immediately wanted a sequel. I'm ready for part 2.

I totally agree with the sentiment that Blackwood was the Ra's Al Ghul.
Reply
post #53 of 214
12/27/09 at 5:46pm
Why would anyone want the filmmakers to triple dip on the fighting analysis thing for the finale? It would have been obvious and overdone. and would have lessened the way cooler idea of Holmes showing the guy up while he's slowly being dragged to his death.

I had a great time with this movie!
Reply
post #54 of 214
12/27/09 at 6:30pm
A good start to a franchise- while partly in a similar way to something like Star Trek, with the tone and performances carrying a lot of it, I feel this worked pretty well as a stand alone. Loved the Law/ Downey chemistry, thought the deduction stuff was foregrounded just enough (hopefully more in the sequel), and felt the whole thing just moved well.
Reply
post #55 of 214
12/27/09 at 6:33pm
Throughly enjoyed it, and I am something of a Holmes purist.
I was glad they emphasized Holmes Deductive abilities,particuraly in the scene were Homes proves that Blackwood is a fraud using "cheap Conjuror's tricks".
I agree that Weisz would have been a much better Irene Adler then McAdams, but McAdams was adequate in the role.
Strong was one dimensional, but the way the character was written I don' think any actor on earth could have done better. I have to give the writers a down check for the Villian.
I loved that they threw us Baker Street Irregulars a lot of bones by including a lot Holmes's classic maxims, and I loved the tribute to Basil Rathbone's Holmes with the Violin and the Flies routine.
And this films CGI version of Victorian London is much,much, better then what we saw with Zemackis's "A Christmas Carol".
It is kind of amusing, though to read a number of people who have never read the Conan Doyle stories treating Sherlock Holmes like just another comic book character,though.
Reply
post #56 of 214
12/27/09 at 7:38pm
I was surprised to see how the movie goes down the "Sherlock vs. Jack the Ripper" path, but more surprised at the From Hell-like connection between the Ripper and the Freemasons (though the movie is coy about them and calls them something else). But apparently people have been using Holmes to blame the Masons for the Ripper killings for years (not Doyle, though- he was a Mason). I forgot all about Murder By Decree!
Reply
post #57 of 214
12/27/09 at 8:01pm
Yeah, most of what I know about Holmes is outside of the written cannon (Murder by Decree, which I love, and The Seven-Percent Solution, which I like...the movie, not the book). I hadn't even thought of Blackwood as a Ripper character, but it totally makes sense and fits with the pulpy nature of the movie and the character.

I was really surprised to find I enjoyed it. I mostly despise Ritchie but felt that he reigned in his annoying trademarks enough (although I think the look of the film is a little too dreary, which doesn't really match its carefree tone). Downey and Law are a good match and have a lot of fun together. The woman have virtually nothing to do and I liked the woman who played Mary a lot more than McAdams, but I wish she had a slightly more important role other than waiting for Watson to finally "leave' Holmes. It reminded me of Star Trek, honestly. A refreshing, fun (if somewhat stupid) remake.
Reply
post #58 of 214
12/27/09 at 11:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post
Yeah, most of what I know about Holmes is outside of the written cannon (Murder by Decree, which I love, and The Seven-Percent Solution, which I like...the movie, not the book). I hadn't even thought of Blackwood as a Ripper character
When they mention the five murders for which they hang him, and the placement of the victims, it seemed pretty explicit.

I was thinking the sequels should have him tidying up other famous historical mysteries in the pre-title sequence, like in the Bond movies, but having just watched Billy Wilder's The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes (which also calls out the gay thing pretty hard), I see they already had him tackle the Loch Ness Monster...
Reply
post #59 of 214
12/28/09 at 12:09am
Thread Starter 
What I liked about the Ripper thing is that they make it feel sort of like Holmes wandered into FROM HELL.
Reply
post #60 of 214
12/28/09 at 11:47am
I've got to see "Murder by Decree"... as it is, "Sherlock Holmes" left me very disappointed. The Holmes/Watson dynamic was spot-on for the most part, except when the filmmakers decided to make it a Holmes/Adler story. Besides that, the plot was patently obvious from the beginning and nothing surprised me. Would've liked to have seen Brad Pitt's Moriarty, although possibly just because of the anarchic quality of that speculated-upon casting.
Reply
post #61 of 214
12/28/09 at 11:53am
A question regarding the scene where Watson pronounces Lord Blackwood dead: correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a doctor notice that the neck lacked any noose related damage? He had a hood on that would have somewhat protected his neck from any burns, but he still should have shown some sort of bruising. Also, wouldn't his neck have been broken from the initial drop? Pulse or no pulse, these are kinda simple things that should have been noticed by the doctor.
Reply
post #62 of 214
12/28/09 at 12:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judas Booth View Post
A question regarding the scene where Watson pronounces Lord Blackwood dead: correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a doctor notice that the neck lacked any noose related damage? He had a hood on that would have somewhat protected his neck from any burns, but he still should have shown some sort of bruising. Also, wouldn't his neck have been broken from the initial drop? Pulse or no pulse, these are kinda simple things that should have been noticed by the doctor.
It ain't that kinda party.
Reply
post #63 of 214
12/28/09 at 12:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Judas Booth View Post
A question regarding the scene where Watson pronounces Lord Blackwood dead: correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't a doctor notice that the neck lacked any noose related damage? He had a hood on that would have somewhat protected his neck from any burns, but he still should have shown some sort of bruising. Also, wouldn't his neck have been broken from the initial drop? Pulse or no pulse, these are kinda simple things that should have been noticed by the doctor.
He was attached to a harness that would have prevented his neck breaking as Holmes illustrated in the final scene. As for the lack of rope burn...his hood in addition to a high collared shirt...?
Reply
post #64 of 214
12/28/09 at 12:41pm
More likely it was a case of Watson not looking for those things because why would he expect them NOT to be there? The man had no pulse, why go looking for more proof that he's dead?
Reply
post #65 of 214
12/28/09 at 12:47pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob loblaw View Post
He was attached to a harness that would have prevented his neck breaking as Holmes illustrated in the final scene.
Yes, Bob. That was my point. He SHOULD have had a broken neck, and I'm kinda questioning whether or not a doctor would have noticed this or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bob loblaw View Post
As for the lack of rope burn...his hood in addition to a high collared shirt...?
But that doesn't explain the fact that there wasn't any bruising or damage WHATSOEVER on his neck when he checked his pulse. Again, he should have noticed this.
Reply
post #66 of 214
12/28/09 at 12:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
More likely it was a case of Watson not looking for those things because why would he expect them NOT to be there? The man had no pulse, why go looking for more proof that he's dead?
This would be the only explanation I could think of. It has me wondering on what exactly was the standard operating procedure for checking the life of a hanged individual in those days.
Reply
post #67 of 214
12/28/09 at 12:56pm
They amputated hands when you got a splinter back then. And if Watson was worth a damn as a doctor he'd have had some living patients, and less time to play grab-ass all day with the eccentric detective.
Reply
post #68 of 214
12/28/09 at 1:05pm
I quite enjoyed this movie. Lots of fun, and of course RDJ brought it. All complaints on this one are valid, but it clicked for me. I loved the visuals, especially the slow-mo dock explosion scene. The early forensics (measuring maggots to determine time of death) were extremely well-done as well.

Regarding the plot, I quite enjoyed the "mystery" for all its pulpy goodness. A bit of Scooby-Do fake supernaturals, a bit of Brisco-County-like technology, and a decent resolution.

What I loved were the sly drug references. The pipe on the desk in the beginning, as well as Holmes's expression right before he gives in and lights his pipe, sending him on the hallucinatory journey to solve the case. It was as if he was giving in to an addiction, and it worked really well. I could tell Ritchie was working very hard to get those heroin/laudanum references in.
Reply
post #69 of 214
12/28/09 at 1:05pm
I was surprised they introduced Moriarty so early. I knew he was in the movie, but I figured they would wait until the end to set him up for the sequel. I think it actually hurt Blackwood's weight as a villian because it makes you think that there is this shadowy figure in the background pulling everybody's strings, even Blackwood's. I talked to a couple of people who saw the movie and who were not familiar with the mythology of Sherlock Holmes...they assumed Sherlock would unmask the professor in the first movie because he was the main villian.
Reply
post #70 of 214
12/28/09 at 1:11pm
No, the way they introduced Moriarty in this movie allows him to be a shadowy villain in the background for at least a few more movies. Each movie can be Moriarty getting pieces towards the next puzzle.

SPECTRE in the Bond movies serves kind of the same purpose. And that's really what this movie felt like, a Victorian James Bond.
Reply
post #71 of 214
12/28/09 at 1:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
They amputated hands when you got a splinter back then. And if Watson was worth a damn as a doctor he'd have had some living patients, and less time to play grab-ass all day with the eccentric detective.
That's because Watson has a PHD in ass-kicking. Yeah I said it.
Reply
post #72 of 214
12/28/09 at 1:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontEATnachos View Post
No, the way they introduced Moriarty in this movie allows him to be a shadowy villain in the background for at least a few more movies. Each movie can be Moriarty getting pieces towards the next puzzle.

SPECTRE in the Bond movies serves kind of the same purpose. And that's really what this movie felt like, a Victorian James Bond.
There is no way Moriarty is not the main villian in the next one.
Reply
post #73 of 214
12/28/09 at 1:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob loblaw View Post
There is no way Moriarty is not the main villian in the next one.
If they want to make more than two movies there is.
Reply
post #74 of 214
12/28/09 at 1:19pm
Yeah, I don't know how they don't make him the villain in the next movie. After setting it up so hard in this one, it'd be nuts not to. Its possible he's one of two villains and survives for the third. But he'll be in it in a larger capacity. No doubt about it.
Reply
post #75 of 214
12/28/09 at 1:28pm
omg its gonna be like heath's joker only with Mel Gibson
Reply
post #76 of 214
12/28/09 at 1:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontEATnachos View Post
If they want to make more than two movies there is.
I doubt they would put that much effort into Moriarty, even having him kill an officer at the end of the movie, only to have another Blackwood type villian for the next movie. I think they are clearly following the Batman Begins - Dark Knight model here.
Reply
post #77 of 214
12/28/09 at 1:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
omg its gonna be like heath's joker only with Mel Gibson
I was about to make the whoever plays Moriarty is doomed joke. I'm worried about Russell Crowe.
Reply
post #78 of 214
12/28/09 at 1:45pm
Having thought about it a little more, Mel Gibson makes a lot of sense. I believe he and RDJ are good friends, correct?
Reply
post #79 of 214
12/28/09 at 1:47pm
Does Crowe play him in the film?
Reply
post #80 of 214
12/28/09 at 1:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post
Does Crowe play him in the film?
I'm pretty sure not. He certainly didn't sound like anybody I recognize. I don't think anybody knows.
Reply
post #81 of 214
12/28/09 at 1:55pm
How is that possible with the internetz at our disposal?

ETA, from Wikipedia:

In Sherlock Holmes, Ed Tolputt plays Irene Adler's employer, a mysterious villain veiled in shadow and later identified by her as Moriarty.
Reply
post #82 of 214
12/28/09 at 2:10pm
Ed did a great job there. His folding of the newspaper sent chills.
Reply
post #83 of 214
12/28/09 at 2:17pm
I think the point with Moriarty's voice and hiding his face is that anybody can play him in the sequel; they're not boxing themselves in by making a choice now (and risk having to pay more when the time comes to get the sequel rolling).
Reply
post #84 of 214
12/28/09 at 2:20pm
I don't think ol' Ed is hanging onto the gig.



Is Moriarty going to be ancient in the sequel? If yes, Terence Stamp. If no, I'll get back to you.
Reply
post #85 of 214
12/28/09 at 2:20pm
Right, that guy is just a place holder. Plus, its true to the characters mystery. His face is never revealed in the original novels/stories (in which I believe he only appears twice) and the only person who ever sees him is Holmes (Holmes recounts all the details to Watson, as per the norm).

ETA: That guy looks like my cousin! I think Stamp is a good choice, but if they go younger how about Michael Fassbender? I know he's Irish and fairly young (he's younger than Downey, so that's probably out) but I'd love to see him get evil.
Reply
post #86 of 214
12/28/09 at 2:24pm
For me, it boils down to who can hold their own against Downey in the sequel.
Reply
post #87 of 214
12/28/09 at 2:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie View Post
For me, it boils down to who can hold their own against Downey in the sequel.
Val Kilmer.
Reply
post #88 of 214
12/28/09 at 2:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matches_Malone View Post
Val Kilmer.
Corbin Bernsen?
Reply
post #89 of 214
12/28/09 at 2:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post
I don't think ol' Ed is hanging onto the gig.



Is Moriarty going to be ancient in the sequel? If yes, Terence Stamp. If no, I'll get back to you.
At least Ed will be alive to see the sequel, unlike whoever takes over the role. You dodged that bullet, Ed!
Reply
post #90 of 214
12/28/09 at 2:37pm
Might I suggest...

Unless, of course, they want to go for a bigger name.
Reply
post #91 of 214
12/28/09 at 2:38pm
Not against Brad Pitt in the role. I'm sure he'd be fine. Just doesn't immediately come to mind. Granted neither did Downey for Holmes and look how great he turned out.
Reply
post #92 of 214
12/28/09 at 2:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
Might I suggest...

Unless, of course, they want to go for a bigger name.
I think he fits the part but it's gotta be a bigger name, doesn't it? Plus I can't get him out of my head as the main baddie in GI Joe. That ruins it for me.
Reply
post #93 of 214
12/28/09 at 8:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hadjimurad View Post
I've got to see "Murder by Decree"... as it is, "Sherlock Holmes" left me very disappointed. The Holmes/Watson dynamic was spot-on for the most part, except when the filmmakers decided to make it a Holmes/Adler story. Besides that, the plot was patently obvious from the beginning and nothing surprised me. Would've liked to have seen Brad Pitt's Moriarty, although possibly just because of the anarchic quality of that speculated-upon casting.

Problem is that PItt looks NOTHING like the way Moriarty is described in the books. He looks and acts like what he is to most of the world:A quiet, mild mannered wimpy looking professor.
Reply
post #94 of 214
12/28/09 at 9:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob loblaw View Post
I think he fits the part but it's gotta be a bigger name, doesn't it? Plus I can't get him out of my head as the main baddie in GI Joe. That ruins it for me.
He's a good actor, but he looks too much like a villian..and that is wrong for Morarity.
Reply
post #95 of 214
12/28/09 at 9:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dudalb View Post
Problem is that PItt looks NOTHING like the way Moriarty is described in the books.
This isn't Superman we're casting. You'd be lucky if your average Joe even knows who Moriarty is, let alone is "supposed" to look like.
Reply
post #96 of 214
12/28/09 at 9:50pm
Downey went on for a bit about how awesome he thought Bill Murray is as an actor in a recent article and revealed they tried to get him to play Obadiah Stane in Iron Man. I wouldn't be surprised if he were on Downey's shortlist for this and he would seem to be pretty good casting for it.
Reply
post #97 of 214
12/28/09 at 9:52pm
I could see Phillip Seymour Hoffman as a good Moriarty.
Reply
post #98 of 214
12/28/09 at 10:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulain View Post
Downey went on for a bit about how awesome he thought Bill Murray is as an actor in a recent article and revealed they tried to get him to play Obadiah Stane in Iron Man. I wouldn't be surprised if he were on Downey's shortlist for this and he would seem to be pretty good casting for it.
Murray would actually be PERFECT...if he could do an accent.
Reply
post #99 of 214
12/28/09 at 10:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnemyoftheStamos View Post
They definitely dropped the ball with the whole Holmes-vision fight analysis thing. He does it all of twice and both times quite early into the film. Would have been nice to spread it out a bit and have it factor in somehow into the finale.
Yes, I thought they were setting it up for an epic fail at Holmes' most dire moment. I don't know much about the character, so perhaps it would have been out of character, but I thought it would've been fun to see his intellect fail him when he needed it most.
Reply
post #100 of 214
12/29/09 at 12:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil
They amputated hands when you got a splinter back then. And if Watson was worth a damn as a doctor he'd have had some living patients, and less time to play grab-ass all day with the eccentric detective.
This is true. "Doctor" didn't mean the same thing back then. They've already given Watson more modern medical expertise than is likely accurate, since doctors still killed more patients than they saved back then. Having him see the hanging, believe his eyes and flub the death pronouncement makes sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker
Right, that guy is just a place holder. Plus, its true to the characters mystery.
I was a little surprised that they didn't go back and dub in a named actor after the fact. Filming him in shadow makes sense, but not casting him even in post-production indicates they weren't that confident in getting a sequel, or that they weren't sure yet whether Moriarty will have a big role in that sequel.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cuchulain
Downey went on for a bit about how awesome he thought Bill Murray is as an actor in a recent article and revealed they tried to get him to play Obadiah Stane in Iron Man. I wouldn't be surprised if he were on Downey's shortlist for this and he would seem to be pretty good casting for it.
Love it. Screw the accent, it'd be a fair sacrifice for the kind of brilliant and dangerous instability Murray could bring to the role.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › SHERLOCK HOLMES Post Release