Albert Schweitzer - german premiere in Magdeburg!!!
[quote=âPhil H, post:160, topic:2027â]Sherlock Holmes (2009)
Got some cinema vouchers from a friend for Christmas so decided on a family trip out to the movies. The first for a long time. Guy Ritchieâs recent track record has been rubbish to say the least and I wasnât expecting anything from this one at all but to my happy surprise it was actually pretty good. Downey Jr and Jude Law make an interesting and entertaining new slant on Holmes and Watson; adding a lot more physicality to the parts while at the same time making them somehow more domestic and human. More like a bickering old married couple. It is genuinely funny in parts too while still being exciting and keeping the mystery of the plot engaging. The whole family enjoyed it too which was a plus. I have to say âWell done, Mr Ritchie. You surprised me.â[/quote]
But will the Conan Doyle Purists like it?
I doubt it. Could be wrong, though.
All I know is that I have one good friend that is a Conan Doyle fan. He went to see the new movie this weekend and he told me it was the first film he had ever walked out on in his life. He only made it about fifteen minutes into it, I think.
He had been given a free pass to see it, so he wasnât out any moneyâotherwise, he said he wouldnât have walked out.
Myself, I am a little curious about seeing it; but, will probably just wait until it hits DVD and rent it via Netflix.
I imagine he didnât go see Paul Morriseyâs âHound of the Baskervillesâ when it came out. Donât think would have managed 15 minutes.
Canât really answer that one as Iâm not a Conan Doyle purist myself but perhaps Chrisâ response suggests not.
[quote=âChris_Casey, post:163, topic:2027â]I doubt it. Could be wrong, though.
All I know is that I have one good friend that is a Conan Doyle fan. He went to see the new movie this weekend and he told me it was the first film he had ever walked out on in his life. He only made it about fifteen minutes into it, I think.
He had been given a free pass to see it, so he wasnât out any moneyâotherwise, he said he wouldnât have walked out.
Myself, I am a little curious about seeing it; but, will probably just wait until it hits DVD and rent it via Netflix.[/quote]
Well, as I said, I am no Conan Doyle nut nor a major fan of Guy Ritchie so I think I went in with no expectations either way. Perhaps that is the secret to enjoying the film. To be honest, if your pal couldnât sit through more than 15 minutes of this movie he has a very low pain threshold for such things. You should lend him some Crea masterpieces and toughen him up a bit ;D Seriously though, unless you go in determined not to like it I could find no reasons to find it that objectionable. Downey Jr does not play the part in the classic deerstalker, bent pipe, detached genius sort of way a la Basil Rathbone or Jeremy Brett. He is a lot more robust but all the attention to detail and deduction based on minute pieces of seemingly irrelevent information is still very much intact and, for me anyway, the different approach was refreshing and more interesting. Likewise the character of Watson is much more engaging. Less of the bumbling fool of Nigel Bruce and more of the returned military hero who is tied in a sort of co dependent relationship with Holmes which is both satisfying and irritating for the pair of them.
Of course these things are always down to personal taste. But I was pleasantly surprised by how much fun I had with it.
Having seen the trailer for Sherlock Holmes, I probably wonât be going to see it. It looks irredeemable dreadful. Holmes jumps out of windows? Slow motion boxing scenes? Romance involving Holmes? I donât remember that from any of the books⌠It looks as if the directors wants to make a action-man out of him. Also, I am a bit of a Conan Doyle purist, so that is yet another reason why I will try to to miss it.
I havenât bee to the Cinema for ages. I think the last time i went was to watch OUATITW with Phil H!
Iâm full of shit, QUANTUM OF SOLACE was the last thing i saw at the cinema come to think of it 
And you thought it was⌠either A) Great B) Good or C) Awful?
[quote=âJohn Welles, post:169, topic:2027â]And you thought it was⌠either A) Great B) Good or C) Awful?[/quote] B) Good
Thanks. Iâve never been a big fan of James Bond (I only like the Connery ones).
I thought it was good as well, much better the 2nd time.
Well I guess this is a good example of why we should never judge the quality of a film by its trailer. Good or bad.
There are no slow motion fight scenes. Only âpre fight scenesâ where Holmes is planning ahead what moves he will make and what effect they will likely have. When he puts his plan into action it is all at regular speed. A device which actually works quite well I think as it shows Holmesâ clinical approach to everything, even what appears at face value to be brute strength.
As for the Romance, again this does not actually appear. The woman in question is Irene Adler who, you will know, was considered by Holmes to be âthe Womanâ and who he admired above all other females. As I say, there is no actual romance as such played out in the film but there releationship is offered as an enigmatic one. Passion under the surface but not acted upon. A certain âfrissonâ in the air as my good wife put it.
There certainly is window jumping though. No denying that. And this Holmes does exhibit more of an action man persona than previous versions.
As I said before, everyone will have their own opinions as always but I wouldnât be so quick to condemn this particular film by its trailer.
Good points Phil; trailers are notorious for not showing a certain film in a good light, but still; Iâll think I will pass on this one.
Since Iâm a big Sherlock Holmes fan (CDâs novels and short stories/Basil Rathbone movies), Iâm really looking forward to this movie. I guess Holmesâ weak sides (Cocaine addiction) are left out as usual and the movie doesnât center around the characters as much as the action!?
Meanwhile a clear A)
One of the best films of the last years. And still a typical Bond film. Iâm really impressed.
No coverage of drug addiction, you are correct. A missed opportunity perhaps as Downey Jr could certainly have brought some personal experience to that side of the character :
But although there is lots of action, as I said before, if anything I think this film centres more on the characters of Holmes and Watson and their relationship than other adaptations Iâve seen.
[quote=âPhil H, post:177, topic:2027â]A missed opportunity perhaps as Downey Jr could certainly have brought some personal experience to that side of the character :
But although there is lots of action, as I said before, if anything I think this film centres more on the characters of Holmes and Watson and their relationship than other adaptations Iâve seen.[/quote]
Itâs a pitty that this âdownsideâ of Holmesâ character is always neglected in movies. Well, itâs not a surprise that early movie adaptions donât feature that peculiar habit but it should not be a problem portraying it today (Dr. House for instance). It shouldnât be overdone though. It wasnât a problem in the stories where Watson sometimes openly talks about Holmesâ addiction and is concerned about his friendâs health.
Itâs great that the story centers around the characters more than in other adaptions. Looking forward to it!
Yes, it would be good if there was a film that centred on Holmes drug additicion. Something thatâs never been cover on film, so it would be interresting.
Wasnât it used in The Private Life of SH by Billy Wilder?