I saw a mention of this (I think online) and wondered when it would be released. Turns out that it was released July 17 (limited - 363 theatres) and this weekend (still only 686 theatres, US only)
I don’t think I have seen an ads on TV.
Granted this wasn’t designed to be a summer blockbuster, but why the small release? With some ads LOTR people would probably show up just to see Ian Mc Kellan. Apparently he was on Jimmy Fallon but I don’t know if there has been any other promos.
It has an 88% rating at rotten tomatoes, and enough theatres to be not a DVD only deal.
I managed to see it opening weekend, at a screening that included a Q&A with Ian McKellen and Laura Linney. I wish it had more of a wide release, because it is a great movie. It might have done better in the fall, I think, but at the same time I feel lucky to be able to have seen it in the theater at all.
I also saw it last weekend in a small, arty theater in Bethesda. I did like it, but there wasn’t really much of a mystery. The movie it reminded me most of was another film Ian McKellen made with Bill Condon, Gods and Monsters, but with a little boy instead of a hunky gardener. Similar themes of a legendary man facing the infirmities of his old age and approaching death.
Wife and I saw it Saturday evening, really enjoyed it. Ian McKellen is great. As noted it’s not so much about Holmes solving an amazing mystery as it is about him dealing with old age.
Some fun bits (spoilered in case you haven’t seen the film):
Having to cope with the public’s image of him as presented by Dr. Watson; “No, I never wore a deerstalker hat. Actually I prefer a cigar to a pipe”.
Cameo by Nicholas Rowe (star of “Young Sherlock Holmes”) as an actor portraying Sherlock Holmes in a movie that the real Sherlock Holmes goes to see.
The look on Holmes’ face as he’s writing a letter and (I think) realizing why Dr. Watson enjoyed fictionalizing some details.
I also meant to mention, since it has to do with limited publicity: I hadn’t heard about this film until 2 or 3 days before I saw it. A friend sent me a link and asked if I wanted to go see it with her.
I haven’t seen any TV ads but I guess I didn’t realize it wasn’t getting much promotion because I follow Mr. McKellan on Facebook and he talks about it a lot.
That’s sort of what I was getting at. Folks who go in expecting the stereotypically Holmesian deductions which lead to the arrest of the left-handed circus contortionist who stole the Maharaja’s ruby ring from the Bank Of England’s most secure vault on St. Swithen’s Day may be disappointed.
I absolutely adored this film. Holmes taught a boy how to approach problems in a logical fashion. The boy taught Holmes how to have empathy. The scale of the mysteries is of no consequence. It’s all about the journey, not the destination… a lot like life.
My husband and I saw it Saturday and enjoyed it. An air of melancholy hangs over it because of what Holmes is going through, but there’s also some mischievous humor in it. The little boy and McKellan have great chemistry, and Laura Linney does well with a pretty thankless role. Because I’m, well, me, and I have to, I’m thinking McKellan is going to be a Best Actor nominee. I wouldn’t be surprised either way, but I’ll be rooting for a nomination.
I’d seen the trailer at least a couple dozen times in the theater over the past several weeks. I liked it because it gave you a feel of the movie without really revealing important parts of the plot.
I adored this movie, and I hope, hope, hope that McKellan gets an Oscar nomination for it, he was excellent. And I think Laura Linney also could be a nominee. The little boy held his own, he was pretty good, too. I have recommended it to everybody I know.
I would agree. The role is tailored for a nomination - he is on screen in nearly every scene. The industry has a lot of affection for him. The film is typical Oscar bait in the Merchant/Ivory mold - British, costume, slow paced, etc.
Was a pleasant way to spend a couple hours on a very hot July day.
One minor nitpick, at one point Holmes says his last case must have been a failure or else he would not have spent the past 35 years in seclusion. There’s no way he aged 35 years between the past and “present” scenes. He’d have to be pushing 100! Didn’t see why they said something preposterous like 35 years instead of 5, 10, or even 20.