• Welcome to The Fedora Lounge!

New sherlock holmes movie

Discussion in 'The Moving Picture' started by bobalooba, Jun 22, 2009.

  1. bobalooba

    bobalooba One of the Regulars

    Simply called "Sherlock Holmes" with Robert Downey Junior in the title role. It focuses on Holmes being involved with satanists of some sort though it still takes place in the early 1900's or late 1800's. Though the plot seems a bit too silly and it has surely been made into an action film (these satanists wanna destroy Britain) I have high hopes for it. A point of interest is the fact that holmes will not be wearing a deerstalker, he will be wearing a fedora (guess they're making a comeback :) ) and watson is supposedly less the bumbling type and similar to the watson in the books, in awe of holmes but not completely wrapped up in him.

    Oh well, cross your fingers with me holmes fans. BTW this film is being released christmas day, 2009
  2. Takes place in 1890, I believe. I've seen the trailer and read early scripts, and frankly I don't think fellow Holmesians/Sherlockians, are going to be very pleased with it. I certainly wasn't. I think Brett and Rathbone would be spinning in their graves if they knew about this film.
  3. ron521

    ron521 One of the Regulars

    Somehow I am reminded of the cartoon Holmes which was shown on Saturday mornings a few years ago, in which he was somehow transported to the 21st century (?), everyone had flying cars, Watson was a robot/cyborg type being, and Holmes still solved cases using his brilliant reasoning...actually better than it sounds.
    I enjoyed reading the books, and some of the stories were very close to an action movie, one I liked involved a chase on steam launches down a river.
    Actually had not heard of this new movie, but now I'm looking forward to it.
  4. zetwal

    zetwal I'll Lock Up

    Small 'consolation' indeed!
  5. Ron, you're talking about the kids' TV show "Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century", where a descendant of Inspector Lestrade decides to bring Holmes back to life in 2100s London to fight crime the old-fashioned way.

    I loved the Canon. The stories are amazing, as is the 1990s Granada series, with Jeremy Brett.

    I don't hold high hopes for this film. From the trailer, I'm wondering if it's more a comedy than an action/drama film. Sherlock Holmes and the Case of the Silk Stocking looked better than this.

    Regarding the deerstalker hat, if anyone's actually spent the time to LOOK at the Sidney Paget illustrations, they'll realise that the occurrence of the hat is actually quite RARE. Holmes only wears it on a few occasions, usually sticking to a top hat, a homburg or at times, even a boater. I can only remember very few times when he wears a deerstalker. And certainly never about town. The deerstalker and cape and the tweed suit was strictly countryside attire.
  6. I've seen the trailer. It looks most decidedly unpromising.
  7. The trailer disappoints me. Holmes looks too little the way Holmes should look. Reading the posts here I thought it might be a bit like the Universal films with Rathbone - not quite correct but an interesting interpretation which is still Holmesian enough and Rathbone does look almost identical to the original drawings. The trailer looks like it's taken things too far. Rathbone's films (yes I am a big fan of them so I keep mentioning them) change the era and have a dumb Watson but it works because in the later films the era change is fairly subtle and Watson isn't too bright in some cases in the books (constantly calling Holmes' deductions fantastic and then saying how simple they are).
  8. I have agree the trailer looks awful.

    Some are already telling Holmes fans to "get over it" and accept the new idea of the great detective.

    I don't mind updating or rebooting a series. "Batman Begins," "Star Trek" and "Casino Royale" were fantastic.

    HOWEVER, there is a point where so much of the character is changed, why bother using the name of that character?

    If Holmes doesn't look or act like Holmes, call him something else. People who say "get over it" obviously don't care, so it wouldn't make them mad. Holmes fans could go see the movie and not be upset at the changes.
  9. I quite agree. Sherlock Holmes was a DISTINCTIVE character. What made him unique was that he didn't go around kicking butt and shooting people or stabbing them with the handle of his magnifying-glass or whatever horrific tribble they're dreaming up these days.

    He outwitted his opponents with his deductions and caught them up in a web of their own lies and then tossed them off to Scotland Yard and let Lestrade and his lot take care of the rest. Somehow, Holmes getting handcuffed, naked to a bed after what looks like some sick, Victorian bondage game with Irene Adler is ridiculous. Just seeing that bit of the movie in the trailer made me think that this is more a comedy than anything else.

    Holmes was not a drug-addict as some might suppose. While he did take cocaine and morphine, I generally refuse to believe that he was an addict in the true sense of the word. Neither did he regularly smoke a curved, calabash-style pipe (it's never seen in any of the original illustrations) and God help Downy Jnr, if Holmes is spotted in the middle of Whitehall or some other extremely Londonish location, wearing a deerstalker cap.

    After seeing the trailer, I don't think I'll be seeing the movie.
  10. Lady Day

    Lady Day I'll Lock Up Bartender

    It seems like they are doing the same thing to Holmes, as they did to Batman. Both characters are thinkers, detectives not action heros. Action or force was defensive, not offensive.

    I do think Downey is a good choice, but making him a 007 in the 19th century seems a bit silly.

  11. So I watched the trailer. Sherlock Holmes, naked chained to a bed with only a cushion hiding his modesty....

    For Shame.

    The fact that Irene Adler "the woman" is in it in some sort of sexual role is a real shame. Scandal in Bohemia is my favourite story.

    This is really sub-par.

    Victorian-era 007. What a freaking joke!
  13. Davep

    Davep One of the Regulars


    It seems to be Sherlock Holmes meets "demons and angels". It also seems a bit campy.
  14. hatted

    hatted One of the Regulars

    Okay, I understand the gripes, but keep in mind that a good actor doesn't just copy the moves of actors who had the role before him, but takes ownership of the role, makes it his own. Robert Downey Jr. is precisely the kind of film actor that can do this. Give him a chance. In the end, this may turn out to be a lousy movie, but it's too early to tell.

  15. I think if it is a lousy movie, it won't be Downey's fault. The blame can go squarely on ex-Mr. Madonna, Guy Ritchie who's marriage was crumbling as he put this movie together.
  16. It's not whether he copies the moves of previous actors, if everyone did that we wouldn't have different interpretations. My gripe, mainly, is staying TRUE to the character, if you know what I mean. Doing stuff that Holmes would NEVER do, is not staying true to the character.
  17. hatted

    hatted One of the Regulars

    Or, it's the actor's interpretation...
  18. bobalooba

    bobalooba One of the Regulars

    They are not using the deerstalker and as for the pipe I don't think it's as much of a holmes thing as an establishment of the period, as for his "addiction" I don't believe he was hopelessly addicted and I do like that watson had moral objections in the original canon, I think that may make for interesting parts of the new movie but I will probably not see this film until others do. I hope it surprises me (god knows my standards are low enough)
  19. Tiller

    Tiller Practically Family

    I'm not going to bash the movie, especially since it doesn't come out until Christmas eve. I'm honestly just happy that they are making a Holmes movie, so I'll wait till I actually see the thing before I start complaining or praising.

    That said the traditional murder mystery movie, seems to be forever banished to TV. Luckily this gave us Brett's interpretation of Holmes, and is still giving us Suchet's interpretation of Poirot, so it isn't all bad. Non the less it is a bit sad that these movies (like westerns) are very rarely made anymore.

Share This Page