OK, seriously now.
Yes, they knew explicitly ahead of time that the machine was in the sewers because Holmes deduced that. How she had time to run home and change is the more unanswerable question.
I’m assuming that she pulled her men’s clothes (is that really a spoilerable plot point?) out of the same prop bag that gave RDJ his change of clothes. I mean, one moment he’s in an undershirt and suspenders, then wham-blam-cutscene-ma’am, he’s fully dressed in a real shirt, cravat-type-deal, and jacket, not to mention that he is totally dry.
The one thing I noticed with the chronology was when Lord Blackwood mentions that “the Civil War has made America weak.” To my mind, this makes more sense if the plot takes place shortly after the war, but I definitely prefer the theory that it takes place in the 1890s.
Judging by the construction status of Tower Bridge (completed 1894), I’d say the story takes place in about 1892 or 1893.
Lord Blackwood was ill-informed. The Civil War left the U.S. more militarily and economically powerful than it had been before. By the 1890s its military was no great shakes, true, but this wasn’t due to the Civil War but rather to the lack of any particular threat other than the Indian tribes.
The story took place in 1891. There was a quick shot of a newspaper headline showing the date. Don’t remember the month, but definitely remember 1891.
That’s interesting, because Professor Moriarty is obviously the villain in the sequel. He’s also the villain in “The Final Problem,” the story that’s about the “death” of Sherlock Holmes. And that story is set in 1891.
Be afraid. Be very afraid: http://www.cinematical.com/2009/09/22/brad-pitt-moriarty-in-sherlock-holmes-sequel/
(IRT Elendil’s Heir)Has Brad Pitt ever played a villain? I have to say, I think he is an excellent actor - I might not like all of his movies (I’m looking at you, Troy), but he tends to be one of the high points of a movie, IMO. I don’t think I’ve ever seen him in a villainous role though.
Watch Kalifornia.
Physically he’s all wrong for the part. But then, so was Downey. So he’ll be in it for sure! :smack:
One of my favorite dark movies.
Eh, SD has been mourning this Sherlock Holmes movie for months, and it turned out great, so I’m not too worried about this supposed casting choice. I’m sure he’ll be fine, if he actually gets cast in the part (remember when everyone was sure that Matt Damon was going to play Captain Kirk in the Star Trek remake?)
I just saw it this past weekend and it was great! I don’t know much about the books except what’s been distilled into popular culture, so I can’t comment on that aspect. As a fun popcorn movie though, it far exceeded my expectations. Downey and Law had great chemistry together, definitely much more than either of them had with their female interests. The best moments in the film for me were the little moments at the end of the scenes where Holmes and Watson are just enjoying each others’ presence, ex: the carriage scene in which Watson throws out the vest after arguing with Holmes and then stifles a laugh. It’s these little touches in the characterization of their relationship that makes it believable.
As for the possible villain in the sequel, I thought he was good in Fight Club, but I’m not sure if that really counts as a villain role. Definitely very different than Moriarty
What about “The Creeping Man”? A quack sells a man some kind of experimental drug that’s supposed to make him young again, but also ends up giving him some of the traits of a monkey. Though that might have been intended as science fiction rather than something ‘supernatural’.
I thought this was foreshadowed as a clue; when we first see Lord Blackwood, the camera focuses on his mouth and we see one of his front teeth being quite crooked. Later on, I believe I caught a glimpse of all his teeth being perfectly straight. I thought this was a clue for perhaps Lord Blackwood’s body being exchanged for someone else, or a case of identical twins…
Anyone know what’s up with that?
I don’t think there’s anything up with it. I noticed the actor’s badly crooked tooth throughout the movie. Maybe you just caught a shot of him from another angle that didn’t show the crooked tooth.
I have the “56 short stories with original illustrations from the Strand Magazine” in front of me. (Chancellor Press, 1986 edition)
- Holmes and Watson are almost equal in height. Curiously, their depictions don’t actually help to solve the quandary conclusively.
- There’s a second tale (after his “Final Problem”) where a Devil’s Foot is referred to. The circumstances that surround the case certainly lend themselves to a supernatural interpretation
- The film deviates from “canon” (such as it is) on several points. Among them: in 1891 during the “Final Problem” Watson has not only married but has distanced himself from Holmes
- The whole disguising thing takes place during his first adventure “A Scandal in Bohemia”. Holmes disguises himself as a groom, stalks Irene Adler and serves as witness to her wedding. Later on he saves her from being “robbed”, and she discovers him, disguises herself as a man and witnesses his return to his home. I don’t think Holmes would try to trick her again that way. And Adler certainly wouldn’t fall for the same trick twice.
- The Bohemian Scandal takes place in 1888. And Watson is already married at that time.
- The deerstalker hat actually appears in the original illustrations–before “The Final Problem” (“The Boscombe Valley Mystery”). Most of the short stories’ illustrations show both Watson and Holmes as hatless. In the illustration that depicts Holmes’ “death” he actually seems to be losing his hat (Image by Sidney Piaget, 1893). A deerstalker. Don’t worry: in “The Empty House”(aka Holmes’ resurrection) he has a new one.
If we are strict the film errs on many points. However, it’s true to the original stories in spirit.
I just saw it and I really liked it. A lots been said, so I’ll only bring up one thing that struck me. I thought the Lord Blackwood character was a little weak, but found it refreshing that the protagonists, Holmes and Watson, were so well portrayed. How many movies have awesome and interesting villains who steal every scene they’re in, only to have said villains taken down by protagonists who are comparatively boring and lame? I appreciated seeing a film where the hero was actually more interesting than the villain.