Nate Dorward Posted November 20, 2009 Report Posted November 20, 2009 I always found Bruce painfully thickheaded as Watson, actually..... & you don't like the BBC series? Quote
Dave James Posted November 20, 2009 Report Posted November 20, 2009 Well, certainly, Dr. Watson, as played by Nigel Bruce, bears little if any resemblance to the character in the Conan Doyle originals. I'm sure Hollywood exercised its "poetic license" for purposes of injecting a bit of levity into the proceedings and, perhaps as well, to make Holmes seem that much brighter. I just find Bruce's bumbling and overall clumsy demeanor amusing. Of course, that's not the only way they toyed with those stories, A number of the later plot lines revolved around events in the '40's to correspond with the war effort. I have not seen the BBC series, so I could not comment on that. Up over and out. Quote
BruceH Posted November 20, 2009 Report Posted November 20, 2009 (edited) I caught a little of a Holmes series on PBS once; might have been the one you're talking about, Nate. Watson was played as quite smart. Seemed well done. Edited November 20, 2009 by BruceH Quote
BERIGAN Posted November 20, 2009 Report Posted November 20, 2009 I saw the trailer on the big screen the other night when we went to see The Men Who Stare At Goats. The trailer made the new Holmes flick look very tongue-in-cheek and campy. Unintentionally hilarious too, but not worth paying to see, for me. BTW, the movie, ...Goats, was pointless and lame. Oh well. The trailer to The Men Who Stare At Goats, told me it would be lame. Quote
BERIGAN Posted November 20, 2009 Report Posted November 20, 2009 Well for one thing, and as closed minded as this may seem, for me, there will never be anyone who can measure up to Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce when it comes to playing Holmes and Watson. Second, there are very few movies I enjoy that are laden with CGI's, even the simple stuff. Ironically, one of those is Iron Man starring the unindicted co-conspirator himself, Robert Downey, Jr. Lastly, there are a lot of other movies I'd rather see. Up over and out. I wish they had written Nigel Bruce to be smarter, but I think the films are very clever. Someday I need to give the Jeremy Brett Holmes more of a chance...I just hate the washed out colors in the show. He ends up looking like death warmed over. Perhaps I need to watch them with the color off. Geez, just looked him up, no wonder he didn't look well in those later shows, poor guy! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Brett#...esses_and_death Quote
mikelz777 Posted December 26, 2009 Report Posted December 26, 2009 (edited) I went to see this today and I have to say that I enjoyed it, it was good entertainment. I liked both the look and the feel of the movie and I thought Downey and Law were excellent in their roles and worked quite well together. If you are a Holmes purist and can't get past deviations of the characters from the stories then maybe this movie isn't for you. I kept an open mind and consciously tried not to make comparisons just enjoying the movie for what it was. Judging from the ending, we're likely to see a sequel. I wouldn't say that it's a "must see" but I certainly wouldn't discourage anyone from going to see it. I'd give it a solid "B". Edited December 26, 2009 by mikelz777 Quote
ghost of miles Posted December 27, 2009 Author Report Posted December 27, 2009 I'm hoping to go on New Year's Day next Friday--pretty much chained to work till then. From what I'm reading, it sounds like Downey & Law's performances will make it worth it, whatever one might think of everything else about the film. Quote
jazzbo Posted January 8, 2010 Report Posted January 8, 2010 Saw this with a friend who really wanted to see it. Didn't seem like a Holmes movie to me at all. Feh. Quote
Big Wheel Posted January 8, 2010 Report Posted January 8, 2010 I thought some of the Guy Ritchie tropes were over the top but overall was surprised by how much I enjoyed it. Law and Downey are underrated actors and you can tell they enjoyed themselves making this one. Quote
BFrank Posted January 9, 2010 Report Posted January 9, 2010 Didn't seem like a Holmes movie to me at all. Feh. Exactly. If Guy Ritchie had spent more time on character development & storyline and less on CGI, it might have been a decent movie. It looked good, but that only goes so far (not far enough). "Feh" is right. Quote
Alexander Posted January 9, 2010 Report Posted January 9, 2010 One review I read said that they hoped that someone else would direct the sequel, so that the decent movie trapped inside this blockbuster would have chance to emerge. I liked Downey's approach to the character (he basically has Aspergers) and I liked Jude Law's competent Watson. I just didn't like anything else about the film... Quote
Jazzmoose Posted January 9, 2010 Report Posted January 9, 2010 I thought it was pretty good, much better than those godawful Rathbone/Bruce dogs. Sorry guys, but the friggin' Home Alone movies are closer to the spirit of Sherlock Holmes than those things. Quote
connoisseur series500 Posted January 9, 2010 Report Posted January 9, 2010 I did not care for the movie at all. The acting was good, but the storyline is so bad. It was also hard to understand Downey's dialogue in moments, because he spoke too fast with a fake accent. I even walked out before the very end. Quote
BFrank Posted January 9, 2010 Report Posted January 9, 2010 I did not care for the movie at all. The acting was good, but the storyline is so bad. It was also hard to understand Downey's dialogue in moments, because he spoke too fast with a fake accent. I even walked out before the very end. Yep. Quote
BruceH Posted January 9, 2010 Report Posted January 9, 2010 My older son saw it and said it was better than he expected, much better than the trailer made it look. That doesn't surprise me, but I still don't want to see it. Quote
ghost of miles Posted January 30, 2010 Author Report Posted January 30, 2010 (edited) I went to see this today and I have to say that I enjoyed it, it was good entertainment. I liked both the look and the feel of the movie and I thought Downey and Law were excellent in their roles and worked quite well together. If you are a Holmes purist and can't get past deviations of the characters from the stories then maybe this movie isn't for you. I kept an open mind and consciously tried not to make comparisons just enjoying the movie for what it was. Judging from the ending, we're likely to see a sequel. I wouldn't say that it's a "must see" but I certainly wouldn't discourage anyone from going to see it. I'd give it a solid "B". I finally got to see it last night and thought it was a blast--a very entertaining steampunk update of Holmes. As somebody else noted, it's quite clear that Downey and Law brought a lot of enthusiasm to their performances. On a minor note, what a great end-titles sequence! Holmes credits Looking forward to the sequel, which supposedly has been fast-tracked now for production and will start shooting early this summer. Edited January 30, 2010 by ghost of miles Quote
Shrdlu Posted January 30, 2010 Report Posted January 30, 2010 My son played it for me the night before last. It was awesome babee! Loved the feel. Hot guys, hot chicks, clever plotlines (here and there). You are right, it's Indiana Holmes. That's what I expected. After watching the recent Irish series "The Tudors", I was well ready for that. (That Tudor series is "Henry the Hotstud".) For genuine Holmes, give me Basil and Nigel any day. "Holmes! There's not a moment to lose!" Ha ha ha ha ha! Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.