BBC1 have just shown an updated version of Sherlock Holmes to general press and public approval - should be heading your way this autumn. I loved the way they took some original elements and made them work logically in today’s London. I’m not going to spoil anything but here are the heroes and here is their version of Watson’s diaries … to avoid spoilers don’t read past 31st January.
I enjoyed the movie, but I was disappointed that the DVD doesn’t have any kind of commentary track. Maybe they’re saving it for the Director’s Cut/Special Edition or something. I suspect that the director and/or the main stars have one or two interesting stories to tell about the making of the movie.
This is coming from, possibly, the biggest Robert Downey Jr fan on Straight Dope. At this moment, I am wearing to bed a black T-shirt with a blue arch reactor ironed on the middle. I loved the 2009 film, had a blast on opening day, saw it four times, and checked out the JB Holmes out of curiousity.
Long-drop hanging and standard drop were still fairly new to Britain in Sherlock Holmes’s time —prior to that point, hanging still tended to mean slow suffocation. Hence, from a historical perspective, it’s really just a minor anachronism. And if we suppose that the prison (say) happened to use a standard-drop method, albeit not the common way at the time, then we would think it possible that the man had been given an ever-so-slightly-too-short rope. Of course, it’s still a bit of a stretch.
The special measures he took were explicitly described in the movie. Whether they would have worked is another matter, but there’s no need to speculate on what happened there. The thornier problem that Peter Morris mentions is that Watson should have noticed the remarkable absence of several obvious and expected indications if he had done his job with even minimal attention and competence.
As an actor, Brett was born to play Holmes. I’ve seen a lot of Holmeses over the years (never cared to read the stuff though) and he is utterly believable as the weird detective. Some aspects of the productions were less than stellar, but even so, they did a damn fine job with them.
There’s some discrepancies in the novels I recall about how many times Watson was married or what became of the first Mrs. Watson. He left Holmes to marry in one book, then he moved back in with him single again, and then when Holmes returned from the dead he was married, so perhaps he divorced or perhaps she died. I wonder if they’ll work the plot around that.
While intriguing, apparently there is a lot of doubt as to whether Day-Lewis will actually do the movie, due to his rather fickle reputation. I don’t think he’s signed anything yet, in other words.
I saw the movie some time ago, but I recall enjoying it. I’ll also say that I, too, love Jeremy Brett’s take on Holmes, and agree with BrotherCadfael’s take on Edward Hardwicke as Watson.
That’s the Adventure of the Speckled Band. The man is Dr. Roylott, and that particular scene made an impression on me the first time I read it precisely because it showed Holmes’ great strength.
Just saw this version over the weekend, and enjoyed it. I found Downey’s and Law’s portrayal to be excellent. My only quibble was that the slow-motion fight scenes were not used after the first half of the movie. I would have enjoyed that technique in the climactic moments.
I enjoyed the Ritchie movie overall, despite some quibbles, and agree it was kind of a steampunk Holmes. Still, for fidelity to the original stories and the joy of seeing a great actor in the role he was born to play, you can’t go wrong with the Jeremy Brett series.
I really liked Ritchie’s adaptation, to the point where I’ve now seen it three times, and I agree with those who say it’s one of the closest to the books so far. I think it spends a bit too much time on big loud action sequences, as many do, and unlike Brainiac4 I hated the use of slow motion and found it extremely irritating. However, I think Holmes’ use of his deductive techniques is clever and spot-on, and the way that Downey and Law play off each other is well worth the admission price. Plus, it does manage to stay plenty exciting.
I also disliked McAdams as Adler, and was kind of frustrated with the way that this film never could decide whether to make Holmes completely asexual or a romantic hero. The latter isn’t true to the books, but I just want some consistency.
Also, I have my own nitpick, unrelated to the hanging, which may have an in-universe or factual answer for all I know:
If Blackwood is an illegitimate child, and his relationship to his father is concealed, how did he manage to become a lord? Don’t you need, you know, noble birth for that?
I’ve been enjoying this show quite a bit. It is a phenomenally stupid show, with the plots generally being rather un-Holmesian to say the least, and a little too much overemphasis on trying to shoehorn in every reference to the original text that they possibly can.
But oh god. It’s so, so funny. Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman have the roles of Holmes and Watson - or should I say Sherlock and John - down perfectly, and they’ve perfectly transported them into the modern world. (I love how everyone comments on the ambiguity of their relationship, in the great tradition of thousands of cheeky Holmes fans over the years.) And honestly, the fact that the plots were all so clumsy and lacked ‘original flavor’ just made me want to go back and reread all of Doyle’s stories. Which I have been doing with abandon.