Usagi Yojimbo DojoBoard

I'm a big Holmes fan, but don't know what to think about the newest film starring Robert Downey Jr:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X29IK0auNnw

It will probably do well at the box office.

Thanks to buddy Heidi MacDonald for pointing this out to me.

I never pictured him as an action hero.

I feel Sir Arthur Conan Doyle rolling in his grave. No one can replace Jeremy Brett's performance, in my mind he was one of the best Holmes.

I really do not understand this need for super action. Holmes was eccentric yes, but not covered in gizmos, being handcuffed to beds, and acting like James Bond of the late 1800's eccentric. He would walk into a room walk around, sniff, touch stuff, look closely at minor objects and walk out, and from that he would solve the case. This film comes off as dumbed down so to appeal to the masses who probably never will pick up the books. What is Hollywood's big deal with not trying to raise the bar and make an in depth mystery film that makes you think. That is what Holmes was always about.

BTW Mr. Sakai have you seen the recent publication by Dynamite Comics? They are publishing a Sherlock Holmes comic series, following close behind where Sir Conan Doyle left of ? A few weeks back I picked up a copy and it already seems to be pretty good.

I generally like Robert Downey Jr., but this trailer doesn't do a lot for me.

I haven't actually read very many Sherlock Holmes storis (I recently picked up a big book of them for about $2 from a Borders store that was going out of business, so I hope to catch up on them soon), but I've listened to an old audiotape set I found on ebay with Christopher Lee reading four Holmes stories. They're not the greatest Holmes stories, but I could listen to Christopher Lee read the phone book.

While we're on the subject of Robert Downey Jr., you should really watch this video of UK film critic Mark Kermode's impression of him from his Iron Man review if you haven't already:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIlMu2nFO7w

Gallennon wrote:I feel Sir Arthur Conan Doyle rolling in his grave. No one can replace Jeremy Brett's performance, in my mind he was the best Holmes.

Fixed that for you.

But yeah if they were going to take this route of super-action Holmes they should've just cast Jason Statham and been done with it.

Colin Solan wrote: But yeah if they were going to take this route of super-action Holmes they should've just cast Jason Statham and been done with it.

That might be pretty entertaining in a train wreck sort of way (actually, this movie does have a connection to Statham since it's directed by Guy Ritchie, who worked with Statham on a couple of movies). I wonder if "I am not 'the CENSORED'" would become Sherlock Holmes's new catchphrase.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k-WKMyXJHk

(Am I the only one who thinks that the filtering system on this board is a little ridiculous sometimes?)

Colin Solan wrote:Fixed that for you.

Thanks. You knew what I was thinking, but I was trying to be considerate to those Holmes fans who are not fond of Brett.

I wonder if he will have that cocaine and morphine drug habit like he did in the books? LOL!

I wonder if any of this will be in this movie:

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/06/06/ho ... ourse.html

[Moriarity and I] tottered together upon the brink of the fall. I have some knowledge, however, of Bartitsu, or the Japanese system of wrestling, which has more than once been very useful to me. I slipped through his grip, and he with a horrible scream kicked madly for a few seconds and clawed the air with both his hands. But for all his efforts he could not get his balance, and over he went.
-- Sherlock Holmes in The Adventure of the Empty House

Holmes is a distinctly British hero, defined by eccentricities and quirks that would NOT be acceptable to major American movie studios. This version looks more like Bruce Willis than Arthur Conan Doyle.

Oh, well. It might be a bad interpretation, but at least it'll probably be forgotten in a year or two.

Don't be to sure. TNT will probably make it a new classic.

Gallennon wrote:
I really do not understand this need for super action. Holmes was eccentric yes, but not covered in gizmos, being handcuffed to beds, and acting like James Bond of the late 1800's eccentric. He would walk into a room walk around, sniff, touch stuff, look closely at minor objects and walk out, and from that he would solve the case. This film comes off as dumbed down so to appeal to the masses who probably never will pick up the books. What is Hollywood's big deal with not trying to raise the bar and make an in depth mystery film that makes you think. That is what Holmes was always about.

If it was faithful to it's source, it wouldn't make as much money as a "pumped up" version will. Your average audience doesn't know Holmes aside from a funny hat and a coat and maybe a magnifying lens. Also, the narrative structure wouldn't work as well if we just watch him going around deducing, explaining things to us. That is more of television's territory, and that's been done to death with shows like CSI and its ilk.

Here's what I'm talking about. Let's talk P.K. Dick a second here, one of my personal fave authors. Several of his books have also been adapted to film, such as A Scanner Darkly, We Can Remember it for You Wholesale (Total Recall) and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep (Blade Runner). Of these, A Scanner Darkly was the most faithful to the source. Here are the domestic movie grosses.

A Scanner Darkly: $5,501,616
Total Recall: $119,394,840
Blade Runner: $27,580,111

You can see the other two, being sexed and muscled up performed much better than being faithful would allow them to be.

I'm a big fan of Sherlock Holmes, but I'm also realistic about how movies are made as well. Hopefully it will be quickly forgotten like others have mentioned.

I just find it sad that this shows how in this modern age were we talk about how we are better educated, that really in the end we are not. The masses are as ignorant as ever and Hollywood and TV are not helping. yet we have the means to help educate folk and give society the class it once had way back.

My Mother, who was an English teacher in Middle School, did a project that grew more disheartening every year she did it. It was dealing with a story about a student cheating on a test and getting expelled from his privet school for cheating. At first a lot of her students agreed on the stories out come or would give insightful arguments to why the did not agree. But the last few times she did it before retiring the answer all swayed to "How did the school get away with that." or "the kid was dumb cause he got caught."

Basically TV and Hollywood recently have become much worse, and more interested in helping keep people ignorant, seeing that ignorance sells product. Even the films you spoke of Total Recall and Blade Runner, though not like their book counterparts, were still better done then half the crap we see today. Literally everything today has to be sex, violence, and stupid. While the other half is a remake of a remake, of a really good classic film. Now granted exceptions to the rule ironically have been some pretty graphic films, Sin City, Watchmen, Jon Adams, and a few others I can not think of right now. Though the 30's-50's were not great socially, they had a lot more class and artfulness in films and media. Just proves my theory that Films and the TV are the modern day Colosseum.

Gallennon wrote:Just proves my theory that Films and the TV are the modern day Colosseum.

"The battle for the mind of North America will be fought in the video arena: the Videodrome."

Gallennon wrote:I just find it sad that this shows how in this modern age were we talk about how we are better educated, that really in the end we are not. The masses are as ignorant as ever and Hollywood and TV are not helping. yet we have the means to help educate folk and give society the class it once had way back.

Well, I sympathize with what you are saying here but I disagree. I think that this is business as usual for the human race. We're people being people.

While we do have the means to educate, you still cannot make the horse drink.

I also don't think those movies I mentioned are any better done today than they were 25 years ago. Both of them are chok-a-blok full of the same juicy goodness that runs popular media today. The sex, violence and stupidity are still there in force even. They all contribute to a good story, and those two films were perhaps good stories. That's subjective though I guess.

I also disagree with the class of the past comment. They just couldn't get away with as much then as they can now. I bet they would if they could, there's just no way to tell. But that's just my thought.