Thirty seconds into the movie and you know that except for the names of the characters this has nothing to do with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Nevertheless it is fun. Great mood. Grimy, muddy 19th century London. Robert Downey Jr. doesn't get to wear a clean shirt or to clean his fingernails throughout this movie. Dr. Watson apparently had a gambling addiction. a fact that I found interesting having read the entire canon. Only once, I admit, but nonetheless I did read it very closely. Mary Morstan and Irene Adler make it into the movie, the latter cozily portrayed by Rachel McAdams. Mark Strong plays the villain (no not Moriarity, they are saving him for the sequel). Halfway through the movie you realize that Strong would have made a far more convincing Holmes than does Downey. But go see it, great special effects, and the closing credits are the best that I have ever seen.
Entertaining movie. Guy Ritchie's work in this was commendable. The camera angles and splicing of shots made all the scenes really interesting. London looked great. Downey made Holmes character eccentric enough, yet believable as being smarter than everyone. Rachel McAdams played a great criminal and was hot.
Quote from: BH on January 04, 2010, 08:39:25 AM
Entertaining movie. Guy Ritchie's work in this was commendable. The camera angles and splicing of shots made all the scenes really interesting. London looked great. Downey made Holmes character eccentric enough, yet believable as being smarter than everyone. Rachel McAdams played a great criminal and was hot.
Ah.
That explains it.
I really enjoyed the movie and seeing Rachel McAdams. Stew, IIRC, wasn't Holmes a boxer in the canon?
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 05, 2010, 02:20:40 AM
I really enjoyed the movie and seeing Rachel McAdams. Stew, IIRC, wasn't Holmes a boxer in the canon?
I admit to not having read the whole thing for around 25 years, but unless it is alluded to in Watson's description of Holmes' background in "A Study in Scarlett" I can't think of anywhere else that it might have been suggested. The most obvious deviation from the canon (outside of Holmes' cutesy behaviour) is the introduction of Mary Morstan. Mary first appeared in the canon as a client of Holmes. In a later story we learn that Watson had romantic intentions toward her and he moves out and marries her. Doyle then kills her off and Watson resumes his affair with Holmes. In the movie she is first meets Holmes at a dinner arranged by Watson and there is immediate friction between Holmes and her (it comes off as jealousy in the movie)
Quote from: CBStew on January 05, 2010, 02:08:02 PM
Quote from: Gil Gunderson on January 05, 2010, 02:20:40 AM
I really enjoyed the movie and seeing Rachel McAdams. Stew, IIRC, wasn't Holmes a boxer in the canon?
I admit to not having read the whole thing for around 25 years, but unless it is alluded to in Watson's description of Holmes' background in "A Study in Scarlett" I can't think of anywhere else that it might have been suggested.
He beat the shit out of a couple of guys in "The Naval Treaty" and "The Solitary Cyclist" and threw Moriarty off Reichenbach Falls in "The Final Problem." His background in boxing comes up in the "Sign of the Four", but it's only mentioned in passing.