"Robert Downey Jr.'s 'Sherlock Holmes' isn't for the Doyle faithful"

by Nathan Natas 11 Replies latest jw friends

  • Nathan Natas
    Nathan Natas

    So the headlines say.

    I saw the movie yesterday and enjoyed it tremendously. I am very happy that Robert Downy Jr. appears to have gotten control of his personal demons.

    I don't worry about Sir Arthur Conan Doyle spinning in his grave. If he is, it is probably with GREAT JOY that the character he created has proven to be so entertaining and inspirational to millions of people, and thus shall it ever be, amen.

    Downey's Sherlock is as cerebral as Rathbone's, but with an added element of physicality. After all, Doyle told us Sherlock was a skilled boxer. Downey shows us how skilled, using a mix of traditional boxing, wing chun kung fu and Philippine stick fighting techniques with devastating effect on his opponents.

    The way is clear for Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law to enjoy a series of sequels if everyone keeps their heads. With "Sherlock Holmes" the way is open for Downey and Jude Law (Dr. Watson in a younger and far more viril form than Nigel Bruce ever imagined*) to enjoy a string of sequels, which ought to provide them both with a very comforable retirement when that time comes.

    If sequels are planned, they should be filmed back-to-back as the last couple Harry Potter films were. This is not only efficient, but ensures that the movies will be "in the can" when personal or historical whims might dictate otherwise.

    ...and Professor Moriarty is barely in evidence yet.

    *Dr. Watson had served in the British campaigns in Afghanistan and was decorated for his valor.

  • Heaven
    Heaven

    Going to see "Sherlock Holmes" tomorrow (Sun Dec 27). I can't wait! I am a big fan of Robert Downey Jr. I too am glad he has been able to come out ahead of his problems.

  • leavingwt
    leavingwt

    I've read the entire body of Doyle's Sherlock Holmes work.

    From the previews for the film, it was pretty clear they were headed in a different direction.

    I'm hoping that Guy (the director) has gotten his Mojo back. All of the films he made while married to Madonna were dreadful.

  • wobble
    wobble

    Yea, the purists and the lazy critics will decry this modern version, but we cannot keep all literary characters in aspic, and why should we ?

    I will go and see the film, and enjoy it for what it is, Sherlock Holmes for the 21st Century, I think both actors have great talent, and as you rightly say this could be a long running franchise.

    I can always pick up my copy of one of his adventures by Doyle ,and sink into the atmosphere of Victorian London whenever I want , but good Cinema gives us something new to enjoy.

    love

    Wobble

  • journey-on
    journey-on

    I'm going to see this movie tomorrow. Robert Downey Jr. is looking hot and healthy these days and I think he's a terrific actor. I like seeing new and different interpretations of old favs.

  • hecouldbewrong
    hecouldbewrong

    The movie was very enjoyable. Faithful, not really. Its true, Sherlock was described as employing some boxing, oriental martial art, and single stick fighting technique, but this movie overdoes it. If Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce are all you've ever seen, than this latest version is a great deal more accurate, however. The best, most faithful treatment of both the character and Arthur Doyle's stories is, by far, Jeremy Brett's portrayal in the Granada television series and films.

  • AnnOMaly
    AnnOMaly

    For me, there is no other 'Holmes' but Jeremy Brett.

    Rathbone is no. 2. And while Nigel Bruce's Dr. Watson was entertaining, it was irritating he was portrayed as a bumbling fool.

    Others I've seen don't come close.

  • AdaMakawee
    AdaMakawee

    AnnOMaly I was JUST going to say the same thing. Jeremy Brett NAILED Sherlock Holmes. I have most of the series and always watch for marked down dvd's of the rest. Its just not the same after you see the best.

    Ada

  • Farkel
    Farkel

    Nathan,

    Last year, I read a rather thick book full of Doyle's Sherlock Holmes (short story) mysteries. The first half-dozen were fun, but later on, they all were basically the same trite story and became rather dull for me, anyway.

    I also recently watched a whole bunch of Alfred Hitchcock "classics", including his legendary "The 39 Steps, North by Northwest, Marnie, The Birds, Rear Window, Vertigo and Rebecca. I was always a big fan of Hitch, so I was surprised at how trite and boring they all turned out to be. Only "The Man Who Knew Too Much" and "Psycho" were "classics" in my opinion.

    I think many of his TV show episodes were better than his movies. As a kid, I used to love to watch that show. Often, Hitch would start the show drunk out of his mind, slurring his words and weaving. He was quite a character. I read his biography right after he died and in turns out he was quite the prankster in real life, too.

    Neither Doyle nor Hitchcock have aged very well, IMHO.

    Farkel

  • journey-on
    journey-on

    We just got back a couple of hours ago from seeing it. The funniest thing happened. A witness couple I slightly know came in just as it was starting and sat down on the same row with one seat between us. They never noticed us in the dark. In the scene where Lord Blackwood supposedly uses black majick with all the symbols and weird ritualistic stuff, they suddenly grab their coats, get up and leave. They missed the whole classic Sherlock mystery-solving explanation.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit