Sherlock Holmes 2009

Edit: Changing the title to make it slightly less confrontational - since it looks like some actual discussion is happening, I'm going to leave this open. Please avoid trolling.


As a charter member ( over 20 years) of my local chapter of the Sherlock Holmes Society , we were invited en mass to a preview screening of the new Holmes film by Guy
Ritchie.

I think it is my duty as a Sherlockian and lover of good films, to warn you NOT TO GO see this aberration. Why you ask ? Where do I start????

Well lets start with the basic .requirements of any entertaining film.It fails in every important way possible. It's badly cast, badly acted, poorly written overly violent for no apparent reason , the story makes little or no sense, lasting apx 120 minutes but feeling like 4 hours

As a Sherlockian I can tell you it treats the core characters with as much respect as an illiterate bully looking for porn mags at the library. Holmes never had any difficulty paying the rent as he's quite wealthy. Holmes and Watson do not have gambling problems, Holmes is not a slob, nor is he a one man wrecking crew who plunges in head on regardless. Rather, he is a person who on the whole allows others to do most of his dirty work while he sits back waiting for the trap to be sprung. Irene Adler is not a kung fu fighting master criminal but an
actress/singer who uses disguise. Like Holmes her weapon was intellect. As for the whole Mary Morstan situation, Holmes is the one who hooks her up with Doctor Watson in the first place. So for Holmes on film to be jealous and make trouble, is imposible, clearly he can't use deduction on her as he already knows her. Holmes and Watson never come to blows , Mrs Hudson is Scottish and not afraid of Holmes. And one tiny detail... Holmes and Watson do not own a dog of ANY kind, let alone a dead ringer for a certain insurance selling bulldog....Oh Yes! Can you say product placement? Guy Ritchie has treated Holmes and co with about as much respect as Mike Ashley has Newcastle united.

For the writers to take a few over the top episodes from the books, insert a few quotes and wrap them in rubbish does not mean they have an alleged accurate ortrayal. As for the costuming, it's a dogs breakfast of styles from 1840 through to 1925. There are more cockneys per square inch than there
were in London at the time and there appear to be only a handful of upper class people and they are all without exception , Evil.

So what's the story?

Holmes has to stop a megalomaniac from taking over the world through alleged Satan worship, but is in fact Kabbala. The baddie who dresses like a Nazi from 1933 and speaks like one, wants to create a new world order. Where have we heard that one before? Oh yeah, Indiana Jones or was that WW2?

The greatest offence, as if the what I already mentioned wasn't enough , is the clear use of Jewish iconography and objects to create a sense of evil and danger. My wife , one of millions who can read Hebrew was shocked to see the following.

1- Showed a passage supposedly from the Kabbala ( a practice that was so deeply shunned at the time by Jews it was cause for hoying out of the congregation) ,.The passage purported to be about a ritual with animal parts was in fact a text about the elements of life.

2- At one point, the film casts evil intent on the character of some high nobles with the inclusion of a richly decorated ceremonial box. The box in fact is a Tzadakah box or charity box. You select a cause to donate to and drop your change in to eventually give it to the charity of your choice. To elevate such an object of good to symbol of evil and danger is the same as equating a breast feeding mother to that of a murderer.

it gets better

3- During the film there is a massive overly long, slow motion
explosion. The music played is the same as is used in every WW2
special about the concentration camps. It was creepy and unsettling.

4- Lastly they plan to kill off most of the members of the House of Lords and the House of Commons by using a device to activate poisonous pellets that will sen

 

The san francisco chronicle agrees with you. Their review said something to the effect that the director did a decent job because it wasn't a script he'd written himself. It went on to say what a horrible writer the guy was, and that the movie itself was only so-so.

On the whole, from what you've said, the situation isn't much different from what's been done time and again to Scarlet Pimpernel. He and Chauvelan always have swashbuckling swordfights in all the TV shows and movies, even though Blanely relies on disguises over violence in the books.

Loved the Jeremy Brett shows.
Also have some of the books-on-tape that were decent.
Only other thing that was remotely good in recent history was Young Sherlock Holmes, which was almost completely kitch, but managed to mostly respect the original material (as I remember--maybe I'm wrong).

Thanks for the warning.

--incidentally, my granduncle was shot while serving on the russian front. Why was he there? because he was a german citizen of "military" age. Not every german soldier was a Nazi. Another hollywood stereotype that should be ripped apart.

 

I forwarded your text to a friend who saw the movie.

"Well that depends on whether you accept the premise that the production team is allowed to re-invent the material.
Holmes has never been portrayed as a slob, but the original material does say he would hold up in his apartments for days smoking his pipe. I think what this movie shows is in some respects a more realistic example of what that behavior would lead to."
"I was not really paying attention to the Kabala items he mentions. To be honest I am not sure the movie used Kabala imagery, looked more Egyptian inspired than Jewish, but I could be wrong. Even if the movie did use some Kabala items incorrectly, that would actually make sense since it was a
bunch of Englishmen who were fooling around playing secrete society. No one had to say they got it right."
"It is impossible for Holmes to be jealous of Watson's impending marriage, since he introduced him to his fiancé. Beyond the fact that in this movie universe, who is to say how they met; Holmes may have introduced them but that does not mean he likes the fact that Watson is moving out."
"...the movie is not a straight adaptation: Watson is moving out, and Holmes has yet to meet Moriarty."


I have another question: was the movie as bad as the WWII propaganda movies with Holmes? Those (the couple that I saw) were truly attrocious. Can't believe how shallow they were... even for that era. I guess that was just appealing to the certain section of Britain's population.

 

Maybe this will help clarify things: Robert Downey Jr.'s Sherlock Holmes is to Doyle's Sherlock Holmes as Kevin Sorbo's Hercules is to the Heracles of Greek myth.

It's not a timeless true-to-the-source adaptation, and it makes no pretense at being one. It's an of-its-era movie. The David Niven Casino Royale could only have been made in the late 60s, and this Sherlock Holmes film could only be made now.

The Holmes-Watson relationship would, but for a few period peculiarities, fit perfectly in a Judd Apatow film. The heroes encounter a trap straight out of the Snidely Whiplash playbook but with the gritty terror of the device amped up to an 11.

And Koohii's friend is dead on about all the symbology; it would be one thing if the film made even a remote implication that the symbols are connected to a legitimate mystical power, but as in any good Holmes story the apparent hocus-pocus is logically explained away by the end. It's pretty clear that this is a Skull-and-Bones-type fraternity of rich douchebags with too much time on their hands, so it makes perfect sense that they would use "exotic" symbols with no care for their true origin or meaning, as long as they look cool.

I'm not saying the movie is great. And I can understand being a big enough fan of source material that you have no interest in an adaptation that is light on fidelity to said material. At the same time, I am a huge fan of BOTH the Jason Bourne books and films. And I thought that Watchmen, for all its efforts to reproduce the visuals of the comic frame-for-frame, was a hollow mess of a film. Ultimately a film adaptation has to be judged not by how well it adapts the source material, but by how well it works independently of the source material as a filmic piece of art in its own right.* Film first, adaptation second.

Yes, some films are so divergent from the source that it becomes obvious that the filmmakers had no interest whatsoever in the source material, so they just made their own movie with the superficial character names and settings of the famous franchise in a cynical ploy to get more pre-sold audience members (this is not limited only to adaptations but also sequels/prequels/remakes - I think it very much applies to the SW prequels, but that's for another thread ). But I honestly DON'T think that that is the case with this film.

 

<cough>StarShip Troopers
<cough>Jurassic Park
<cough>timeline
<cough>Sum of All Fears

to <cough> the first few that come to mind

 

Starship Troopers is a perfect example. What's interesting about this case is that, unlike a lot of other films to use this misleading tactic, this one could have been a success in its own right if it hadn't been brought down by the controversy and chaos over the superficial appropriations from Heinlein's book. Decent movie, bad adaptation.

The Sum of All Fears is, I think more just an overall misfire. They actually managed to stay decently close to the original plot, considering how much they mangled the characters in the prequel/reboot mishmash. "Young Jack Ryan" the root of the fidelity-to-source problems. Problems with filmmaking quality are another story. Bad movie, half-decent adaptation.

Timeline, ugh. Bad movie AND bad adaptation.

Jurassic Park, I'm not sure why you included here. I consider the differences between the book and movie to be similar to (though nowhere near as extensive as) those between the book and movie of The Bourne Identity. The differences are not simply superficial. It's almost the same story, just told with a very different storytelling perspective and tone. Great movie, OK adaptation.

 

Have to disagree. The JP movie was vastly different in tone, character, and message. Characters were grotesquely altered to suit the needs of the movie maker rather than the story. There was a detailed submission at one point for JP to be included as the worst SciFi movie of the decade because of the alterations and the effect of them on the story.
It's like the original prime-time broadcast of Beverly Hills Cop, when eddie murphy says "Does he beg, roll over, and--another voice says "Stuff"--eddie murphy resumes "like that?" Kiddie-ized, pasturized, and generally robbed of any value it might have had. It might have been an OK "family" movie, but as an adaptation of the novel, it was horrible.

 

Well, I'm not an avid fan of Conan Doyle's Holmes books. Never read them.

That said, I've enjoyed the hell out of this movie. So Guy Ritchie and co picked up on the references to Holmes' proficiency in bartitsu that Doyle included and amped that up. Big deal. Relax and enjoy the show. It was definitely entertaining.

 

Would have liked to have seen Holmes's drug addiction featured in the movie. Perhaps that could feature in the inevitable sequel? Speaking of the sequel, who do you think should play Professor Moriarty? A few months ago, there was a rumour that never panned out that Brad Pitt would make a cameo at the end as Moriarty.

 

I would have to agree with this here, I've never read one Sherlock Holmes novel or watched any of the previous incarnations(and at the moment , I don't plan to), but I have heard of the character and was interested in seeing how Robert Downey jr would play the role. I was pleasantly surprised to find that I completely enjoyed the film from beginning to end. One of the more entertaining films I've seen this year. Downey's performance as Holmes was just as good, if not better than his ones from Chaplin, Iron Man and Tropic Thunder. He made Holmes more of a rough and tumble guy, while still being incredibly intelligent and having an edge of being slightly odd. He also did a pretty decent British accent. Jude Law was great as Watson, he and Downey played off each other wonderfully and I could really buy their "Odd Couple"-esque friendship. Rachel McAdams, while her character was somewhat underdeveloped(I personally wanted to see more of her), did the best with what she had and was a lovely presence onscreen. Ditto to Mark Strong as the villain , who also didn't get too much screentime, but gave an appropriately chilling performance that made the character not totally forgettable. I loved the reveal at the end of how all of his "supernatural powers" were just elaborate illusions and trickery. The slow-motion scenes of Holmes playing out fight moves in his head before he performed them was very creative and unique, and portrayed the way Holmes' mind works perfectly. Hans Zimmer's score was good as well, weaving a nice,quirky theme throughout the film that fit with this more eccentric version of Holmes. It almost reminded me of the Jack Sparrow music that Zimmer composed for the Pirates of the Caribbean movies.

This was also the first Guy Ritchie film I have seen, and I have to say, I was impressed. I may have to seek out other films from him and see what I've been missing. The cinematography and the production design were wonderful, it gave a nice, realistic,"lived-in" feel to the England of that period. It looked like you could almost smell the aromas of the streets and backalleys that were seen. I happily look forward to a sequel. 8/10.

 

Well, MagratheanMag, you've put together a rather venomous attack. At first I was intending on entering into the spirit of the 'discussion' that Raven rather optimistically refers to in his edit.

But you seem to have worked yourself into such a frenzy that I rather suspect I am wasting my time.

I would nudge you in the direction of this fine article. The gist of that piece is this: care has been taken to adhere to the canon in several important respects; the film is far more authentic than many previous adaptations of Holmes; Conan Doyle himself really didn't care less about what was done with the character.

Yes, inaccuracies do exist. If you are a purist and that is your sole reason for slating the film, then so be it. But that wasn't your only grievance.

You felt it was poorly cast, poorly acted, poorly scripted, etc. I disagree strongly on all counts, but that is your opinion. If the film itself could not convince you otherwise then my words certainly won't. I would simply urge anyone who hasn't seen it to go and judge for themselves. Personally I felt it was an excellent piece of cinema.

Allow me to move on to your two most striking claims.

Firstly, the so-called 'product placement'. You imply that the dog is intended to resemble an 'insurance selling bulldog' (for our non-British readers, MagratheanMag is referring to the mascot for this insurance company). This, in your words, is 'product placement'. A British insurance company has paid a Hollywood studio to use a bulldog in its film, as a form of product placement.

I will allow the absurdity of that implication to speak for itself.

Secondly, the apparent misappropriation of Jewish iconography. I am not entirely sure how to rebut such a bizarre accusation, except to say that you are looking far too hard for this. And by the way, the music used during the explosion scene is an original piece by Hans Zimmer, as part of his score for the film.

 

I felt that Holmes' coke addiction was hinted at with Watson's "bring him something to comfort him" line to the land lady.

 

Maybe RDJ is saving his drug addiction portrayal for Iron Man 2. Demon in a Bottle anyone?

Back on track though. I'm pretty sure that Watson hinted at the coke addiction. I really doubt we'd see that expressed any other way in a PG-13 film.

As for Moriarty, Russell Crowe maybe?

 

whoa whoa whoa you guys. why's everyone against robert downey jr i thought everyone was past his century ago addiction. thats all in the past. first of i watched sherlock holmes and it was a great movie, it had great actors and great acting job by the way. critics always expect too much of something that they dont really see the effort put into a movie, which in short words they are negative people and i say it in no offense but it's true. guy richie is a really good director, he made tons of badass movies like snatch, rocknrolla, lock stock and two smoking barrels. i wasnt disappointed at all watching sherlock holmes. it had intense action. if you thought the acting was so bad why don't you guys try and do it. it was great film

 

^Who is dissin' the guy's issues? By the way, addiction never goes away RDJ just isn't using anymore.

I think his problems with addiction have given him a good insight into these sorts of characters. Stark and Holmes. I'd like to see what he could do with that in these roles. Iron Man doesn't look like it's going that route, and Holmes just suggested it in a way that you wouldn't catch unless you know about the coke addiction in the source material.

 

Robert Downey Jr. got Golden Globe for his role in Sherlock Holmes.

 

Rumours are that Ritchie is lining up Brad Pitt to play Moriarty.

 

I saw this movie a couple of weeks ago and thought it was great fun.

I've not read the books and my knowledge of Sherlock Holmes is down to a Hound of the Baskervilles adaptation I saw on the BBC.

I felt it was fast paced and funny, and wasn't at all surprised when everything was revealed to be explainable by science as this is what Holmes is about (in my eyes); explaining the unexplainable.