criterionforum.org

Watching these films on TCM the family decided to go to the movies and see the Guy Ritchie version, which I wasn't looking forward to. I was shocked the first few showings were sold out but we made it eventually. It actually wasn't that bad, I'd even dare say it was fun. It wasn't the action spectacle the trailers made it out to be: There were a few action sequences but the slo-mo/kung-fu stuff the trailers hinted at never really materialized (there's some slo-mo when Holmes is figuring out his best course of action in his head,) and there was some lousy CGI, but it stuck fairly true to the heart of the characters, depending more on Holmes' power of deduction; I was afraid they'd make him more of an action hero here and while they teeter the line they really don't. It's certainly louder and more frantic than your usual Holmes movie, and the mystery is fairly ridiculous and over the top, but I had a good time, and it's probably the least obnoxious, most restrained Guy Ritchie movie I've sat through if that can be considered praise.

Of course this could be a case of "it didn't suck as bad as I though it would" but I still thought it was quite fun. I also like Without a Clue so you should probably keep that in mind.

Spoiler

I also must admit I got a boyish kick when I realized one of the characters was Professor Moriarty, who is set up to be the villain in the next one--and considering it beat out Avatar I'm sure a sequel is in the works.

Not as bad as I expected, but still pretty thoroughly meh. Downey Jr. as Holmes is just miscast. Well, he's not miscast for the movie that Guy Ritchie made, but he's certainly miscast as Sherlock Holmes. Jude Law, though, made quite a good Watson.

kaujot wrote:Downey Jr. as Holmes is just miscast. Well, he's not miscast for the movie that Guy Ritchie made, but he's certainly miscast as Sherlock Holmes.

When we came out of the theater just about everyone felt the roles should have been reversed (Downey as Watson, Law as Holmes.) I don't know if I agree with that entirely, though I think what they really meant was they felt Law probably would have made a better Holmes than Downey. I actually didn't mind him as Holmes, or at least this film's version of Holmes, but I can agree Law would have made a better Holmes and then get someone else as Watson. But I thought the two played rather well together and it's unfortunate there wasn't more interplay between them because what we did get I felt was rather good. I think for that reason alone I'd actually go see another one.

cdnchris wrote:When we came out of the theater just about everyone felt the roles should have been reversed (Downey as Watson, Law as Holmes.) I don't know if I agree with that entirely, though I think what they really meant was they felt Law probably would have made a better Holmes than Downey. I actually didn't mind him as Holmes, or at least this film's version of Holmes, but I can agree Law would have made a better Holmes and then get someone else as Watson. But I thought the two played rather well together and it's unfortunate there wasn't more interplay between them because what we did get I felt was rather good. I think for that reason alone I'd actually go see another one.

I agree that there should have been more interplay between them, because there wasn't nearly enough. Each time there would be a spark going, the scene would end or Holmes would end the conversation with some one-liner. Rather surprisingly, I hadn't even thought of Law playing Holmes, but I think he'd be rather brilliant at it. It's a shame that Michael Caine is too old to play a Watson, because their chemistry (as seen in the little-seen Sleuth) is a thing of beauty.

cdnchris wrote:I actually didn't mind him as Holmes, or at least this film's version of Holmes, but I can agree Law would have made a better Holmes and then get someone else as Watson.

I liked this quite a bit more than I expected as well. I thought Downey was fine for this version of Holmes, but I also like the idea of Law as Holmes, and Eddie Marsan (who played Lestrade here) would have made a fine Watson.

Slightly off topic, but I've been amusing myself by reading some Sherlock Holmes stories here and there, and was wondering if anyone familiar with the short stories could recommend a handful of the best or most interesting (since I'm not inclined to read them comprehensively)?

Mr_sausage wrote:Slightly off topic, but I've been amusing myself by reading some Sherlock Holmes stories here and there, and was wondering if anyone familiar with the short stories could recommend a handful of the best or most interesting (since I'm not inclined to read them comprehensively)?

"The Adventure of the Speckled Band," "The Red-Headed League," and "A Scandal in Bohemia" are amongst my favorites. They can all be found in The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes.

"The Cardboard Box" (originally cut out of the book version of The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes due to graphic content [graphic at the time, anyway]). I second Jeff's selections and would also add "The Case of the Engineer's Thumb," "Silver Blaze," and of course, "The Final Problem." The latter two are in the Memoirs, and I believe the former is in The Adventures.

Downey plays an incredible Sherlock Holmes, Law is great as Watson, but Guy Ritchie directing?

The best part of Sherlock Holmes was the pacing that tried to make the audience guess along with Sherlock, although he was always 1 step ahead. In this film, sure he is always 1 step ahead, including beating up people in fights, and at an incredibly fast pace. Maybe too fast. Guy Ritchie does not give the audience enough time to really think about clues and for us to solve the mystery along. Where's the fun?

As a detective/action film, pretty good. As a Holmes film, give me some Basil Rathbone instead.

Jeremy Brett forever!