Is this a trick question or does “The Hound of the Baskervilles” (possibly the single most famous story in the canon) not count for some reason?
Like the man said, “it is later shown to be explained naturally.”
Damn you, I was just going to post that! :p:D
So, commasense, basically I refuted your points about Irene Adler, and Holmes fisticuffs abilities. TWDuke here has refuted the occult, others have refuted the science.
All you have left is Watsons height (and the amount of action), and although I appreciate the opinions, nowhere in the canon does it say Holmes is taller than Watson. Yes, Holmes is tall. However, Watson is described as being thin- does that make Holmes portly? In any case, since no point of Watson being short is made in the books, either way is OK. It hurts nothing.
In any case, this movie is closer to canon than the “classic” Rathbone-Bruce films.
I agree that the action gets a bit overboard. So, a half dozen paragraphs of rant is distilled down to “it has more action that I like”.
Actually the man (the OP) said "whether or not it is later shown to be explained naturally"
I thought that was too easy…
Thank you.The "supernatural "events in the film are all explained naturally as well, so the objection would be pointless if it were limited to unexplained phenomena.Although some of the explanations are a bit science-fictiony.Then again, snakes don’t really clime ropes, drink milk, and come when you whistle, no matter how much you train them.Although there are suggestions in the movie that something diabolical could be at work; the raven that follows the killer like some sort of familiar is an obvious one. in the climactic confrontation, the Holmes raises the possibility that the killer has tampered with forces that may destroy him. Although Holmes obviously means to psychologically manipulate his adversary, events play out in such a way that it seems prophetic. None of it requires a supernatural explanation, but I think there was a deliberate decision to leave that possibility open for those who prefer it.As for Holmes’s being described as “tall,” that says nothing about his height relative to Watson, simply that he is taller than average. Now, truthfully, Downey is of only average height, maybe slightly less, but what does it matter? How is height an important plot or character point in this story? It seems like a very superficial point to go on about.
We saw the film yesterday and thought it was quite good - not great, but worth the money to see it in a theater instead of waiting for DVD.
Sure, there were a few nitpicks, but all-in-all, I think the story was explained well and all of the illusions clarified. The subtle Gay sub-plot was sort of funny, and would explain a lot as to why they put up with each others idiosyncrasies over the years.
Gets an 8 out of 10 from us.
One quibble I did have:
You’d think Holmes would know how to pronounce “Don Giovanni”.
Hint: It’s not “gee-oh-vah-nee” … .
Saw it and enjoyed it. But it really is a 21st century take on Holmes. Downey was great, and avoided comparisons to Jeremy Brett by playing it entirely differently. Brett will always be Holmes for me. I’ve never read the stories, but I’ve seen most of Brett’s portrayals.
What’s interesting is that the revolver Holmes was using (under the pretext of trying to develop a silencer) was a Nagant M1895; which due to a technical quirk of design is actually about the only revolver which can be effectively silenced. In short, if you were a late 19th Century inventor/tinkerer and wanted to develop a silencer for a handgun, then the Nagant would be the gun to be doing it with.
I do have to say that Having Holmes deduce that the man in the carriage was a Professor (Moriarty) just because he had chalk on his lapel was a bit of a stretch. I mean, just because someone-especially in the Victorian era- has the title “Professor” doesn’t mean they’re actively teaching, or that if they are, they’re doing it in a classroom with a chalkboard.
Trigger pull moves the cylinder flush with the barrel, does it not?
Basically, and also the cartridge is designed to close any remaining gap between cylinder and barrel on firing… But I’m trying not to hijack the thread with discussions of Victorian handgun technology. I just thought it was neat that the movie’s armourer clearly knew their stuff and that the film was genuinely trying to get the feel of Victorian London right.
Very cool. That fits in well with my observation about the radio device - that, even if the writers didn’t know about all this Victorian technology, they allowed the experts they hired for the film use their expertise.
I’m a little baffled about
…the continued existence of the Guy Fawkes Memorial Tunnel conveniently located under the Houses of Parliament.
Yeah, it would be quite a hike to go via sewer from the Houses of Parliament to Tower Bridge, too.
My teenage son and I saw the movie yesterday and really enjoyed it, although Brett’s Holmes will always be the authoritative one for me. This movie had a grittier London feel to it, and was obviously a much bigger-budgeted affair. The Holmes-Watson relationship was believable and nuanced. It was cool to hear Holmes’s voice-overs on his fighting techniques and deductive process. I appreciated the non-magical explanations for all of the bad guy’s tricks. And I actually liked McAdams as Adler.
It struck me that Mark Strong, the actor who played Lord Blackwood, is a dead ringer for a younger Stanley Tucci:
I found it distracting with regard to the fight scenes.
Overall I thought it was a pretty good movie, though it dragged in a couple of places due to overemphasis of the Holmes-Watson “buddy” aspect, and my willing suspension of disbelief got a real workout. As to authenticity, I didn’t mind the Kung Fu Holmes action stuff, but physically the “real” Holmes was not an unshaven shrimpie.
I actually enjoyed the voice-overs - I thought it played well to the merging of Holmes’ ability to incorporate intelligence to action - not just brute force. And then to see it again, fully executed, able to pick out the actions described. . . well, I enjoyed that too.
Course, I’m an RDJ fan. About 22 of us went together (and yes, about half were dressed in Steampunkery or some version) and we did indeed wet ourselves. Along with some of the upcoming previews that also had steampunk overtones.
I guess I’m not as CGI-sensitive as y’all, because I didn’t see some of the things y’all pointed out - but perhaps on a second viewing when I’m not trying to absorb so much at once . . .
I did think that the JL - RDJ pairing was very well-matched. Doesn’t hurt that they hit it off well on set.
I am looking forward to the presumed sequel. Well, after Iron Man 2. First things first, and all that.
I saw it and enjoyed it, though it did vary quite a bit from the script I read, which I feel felt a bit more intelligent and plausible - not huge things different, but it had more detail on Blackwood’s background and how he developed the seemingly supernatural elements and such. Still, I really did like the film, and though it took some liberties, I felt it was and excellent modern interpretation of what the original stories may have felt like to a Victorian audience - exciting, adventurous, and fun. Was it perfect? No…but I would never go so far as to say it was as far from Doyle as I, Robot was from Asimov. The Holmes movie had many small nods to the originals (loved the V.R. shooting scene), and overall was enjoyable. And my company, a ten year old boy and a fourteen year old girl, absolutely loved it and now want to know more about Holmes. In my opinion, that’s mission accomplished. 
I saw it last night and loved it. I’d heard in advance that it wasn’t going to be too terribly similar to the Holmes I know and love, but fun anyways, and it certainly lived up to that. In fact, I think it was much closer to Holmes than I expected (if still different), which always helps. Definitely the tone was very different, but there were a lot more similarities in the details (I loved when he dressed up as a beggar) that I enjoyed. My one complaint (besides Adler) was that
I thought the last-minute explanation of the ‘sorcery’ elements was a bit rushed. I appreciate that there was, at least, a rational explanation, but I thought that after having spent so long building up Blackwood as a dangerous sorcerer, it needed a more in-depth explanation (preferably in a drawing room) to really be convincing. Especially since he does a lot of not-explicitly-sorcerous, but still movie-magical things (like showing up in the right place all the time) that while expected of movie supervillains, doesn’t work as well for a mundane.
Anyways, definitely worth seeing.
It reminded me of The Three Musketeers movie I watched way back as a kid, in that it had very little resemblance to the original but I managed to enjoy it anyway.
I didn’t like the casting for Irene Adler though. Rachel McAdams didn’t seem very believable in that role.
Actually, as a flush fit would be inefficient, it fits into it. Pretty much a rather blah revolver otherwise.
But I’m not looking for spoilers and have no idea why I clicked this thread, I will bow out until I have seen it. But from that question and others my daughter has asked it sounds like a Sherlock Holmes for the anal retentive, which connects me and Mr Holmes.