[movie]Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

[Isgrimnur]

Looks like a Mauser C96 (broomhandle).

[TiLT]

It's nice, but does Sherlock Holmes really need a handgun?   Don't get me wrong -- I love gunplay in films, I just don't quite match it with this particular character, even the Guy Ritchie-take.

Holmes brings along guns in most of the stories in which he puts himself in potential danger. He doesn't always bring a gun personally though, but asks Watson to do so, seeing as he has actual military experience. I can only recall one instance in the first few books where the two of them actually fire a gun.

I honestly don't really like the direction they've taken Holmes in these films. Sure, they've been willing to rip up some of the old misconceptions about the characters that we have been "cursed" with for ages (such as Dr Watson being a lumbering buffoon), but they've added a ton of new ones. Seeing Holmes solve cases with fistfights while women behave nothing like they should considering the time period (and the way they were written in the books) is enough to bring me straight out of the atmosphere they're trying to build.

[Bullwinkle]

It's nice, but does Sherlock Holmes really need a handgun?   Don't get me wrong -- I love gunplay in films, I just don't quite match it with this particular character, even the Guy Ritchie-take.

Holmes brings along guns in most of the stories in which he puts himself in potential danger. He doesn't always bring a gun personally though, but asks Watson to do so, seeing as he has actual military experience. I can only recall one instance in the first few books where the two of them actually fire a gun.

I honestly don't really like the direction they've taken Holmes in these films. Sure, they've been willing to rip up some of the old misconceptions about the characters that we have been "cursed" with for ages (such as Dr Watson being a lumbering buffoon), but they've added a ton of new ones. Seeing Holmes solve cases with fistfights while women behave nothing like they should considering the time period (and the way they were written in the books) is enough to bring me straight out of the atmosphere they're trying to build.

Plus the whole Holmes and Moriarty being friends and trying to stop the Industrial Revolution with their powers...

Actually, Holmes was good at the fisticuffs, too, so that's not as much a departure as something we're not used to seeing.  However, I totally agree with you on the female aspect.  Irene Adler is one of the coolest female characters in literature, and she's a waste in the first movie.  I like Rachel McAdams, but I didn't think she brought it, so to speak.  Not entirely her fault, though, as the part wasn't really written well, and felt anachronistic, as you say.  I wouldn't have a problem with her character standing out from other women of the time, but what they had just didn't click, IMO.

[CeeKay]

trailer! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yU1nnvrCy8&feature=player_embedded

[rshetts2]

Well it looks like you wont have to endure much of Irene Adler (Rachel Mc Adams) in this movie.  She wasnt even listed in the cast at the end of the trailer.  She must have basically a cameo.

[TiLT]

It's nice, but does Sherlock Holmes really need a handgun?   Don't get me wrong -- I love gunplay in films, I just don't quite match it with this particular character, even the Guy Ritchie-take.

Holmes brings along guns in most of the stories in which he puts himself in potential danger. He doesn't always bring a gun personally though, but asks Watson to do so, seeing as he has actual military experience. I can only recall one instance in the first few books where the two of them actually fire a gun.

I honestly don't really like the direction they've taken Holmes in these films. Sure, they've been willing to rip up some of the old misconceptions about the characters that we have been "cursed" with for ages (such as Dr Watson being a lumbering buffoon), but they've added a ton of new ones. Seeing Holmes solve cases with fistfights while women behave nothing like they should considering the time period (and the way they were written in the books) is enough to bring me straight out of the atmosphere they're trying to build.

Plus the whole Holmes and Moriarty being friends and trying to stop the Industrial Revolution with their powers...

Actually, Holmes was good at the fisticuffs, too, so that's not as much a departure as something we're not used to seeing.  However, I totally agree with you on the female aspect.  Irene Adler is one of the coolest female characters in literature, and she's a waste in the first movie.  I like Rachel McAdams, but I didn't think she brought it, so to speak.  Not entirely her fault, though, as the part wasn't really written well, and felt anachronistic, as you say.  I wouldn't have a problem with her character standing out from other women of the time, but what they had just didn't click, IMO.

Just because Holmes was a boxing champion during his university days (if I recall correctly) doesn't mean he uses those skills elsewhere. I've never read a Sherlock Holmes story involving fisticuffs with Holmes himself. In fact, the only situation in which he came into physical conflict that I've read about (except for the whole Moriarty fight) had him completely defenseless at the hands of two untrained guys who were trying to choke him to death. It feels like the writers of these movies are cherry picking the stories and greatly exaggerating the stuff they think sounds "cool".

There's only one part of the first movie that I felt worked well, and that was Dr Watson.

[metallicorphan]

It's nice, but does Sherlock Holmes really need a handgun?   Don't get me wrong -- I love gunplay in films, I just don't quite match it with this particular character, even the Guy Ritchie-take.

Holmes brings along guns in most of the stories in which he puts himself in potential danger. He doesn't always bring a gun personally though, but asks Watson to do so, seeing as he has actual military experience. I can only recall one instance in the first few books where the two of them actually fire a gun.

I honestly don't really like the direction they've taken Holmes in these films. Sure, they've been willing to rip up some of the old misconceptions about the characters that we have been "cursed" with for ages (such as Dr Watson being a lumbering buffoon), but they've added a ton of new ones. Seeing Holmes solve cases with fistfights while women behave nothing like they should considering the time period (and the way they were written in the books) is enough to bring me straight out of the atmosphere they're trying to build.

Plus the whole Holmes and Moriarty being friends and trying to stop the Industrial Revolution with their powers...

Actually, Holmes was good at the fisticuffs, too, so that's not as much a departure as something we're not used to seeing.  However, I totally agree with you on the female aspect.  Irene Adler is one of the coolest female characters in literature, and she's a waste in the first movie.  I like Rachel McAdams, but I didn't think she brought it, so to speak.  Not entirely her fault, though, as the part wasn't really written well, and felt anachronistic, as you say.  I wouldn't have a problem with her character standing out from other women of the time, but what they had just didn't click, IMO.

Just because Holmes was a boxing champion during his university days (if I recall correctly) doesn't mean he uses those skills elsewhere. I've never read a Sherlock Holmes story involving fisticuffs with Holmes himself. In fact, the only situation in which he came into physical conflict that I've read about (except for the whole Moriarty fight) had him completely defenseless at the hands of two untrained guys who were trying to choke him to death. It feels like the writers of these movies are cherry picking the stories and greatly exaggerating the stuff they think sounds "cool".

There's only one part of the first movie that I felt worked well, and that was Dr Watson.

from Wiki

Fist-fighting
    Holmes is described as a formidable bare-knuckle fighter. In The Sign of the Four, Holmes introduces himself to a prize-fighter as:

        "The amateur who fought three rounds with you at Alison's rooms on the night of your benefit four years back". McMurdo responds by saying, "Ah, you're one that has wasted your gifts, you have! You might have aimed high, if you had joined the fancy".

    Holmes engages in hand-to-hand combat with his adversaries on occasions throughout the stories, inevitably emerging the victor. It is mentioned also in "Gloria Scott" that Holmes trained as a boxer.

and then there is this as well:

Martial arts
    In "The Adventure of the Empty House", Holmes recounts to Watson how he used martial arts to overcome Professor Moriarty and fling his adversary to his death down the Reichenbach Falls. He states, "I have some knowledge, however, of baritsu, or the Japanese system of wrestling, which has more than once been very useful to me". The name "baritsu" appears to be a reference to the real-life martial art of Bartitsu, which combined jujitsu with Holmes' canonical skills of boxing and cane fencing.

so they could of done a Bruce Lee type Holmes

[rickfc]

trailer! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yU1nnvrCy8&feature=player_embedded

 

[farley2k]

I didn't like it.  I saw nothing about a mystery in there just a lot of action.  That is fine but where do we see Sherlock's intellect? deduction?  It felt a bit like "Sherlock Bourne"  to me.

[Rumpy]

Didn't he have a gun in the first one? I seem to remember him shooting rounds in his apartment.

[TiLT]

Didn't he have a gun in the first one? I seem to remember him shooting rounds in his apartment.

I think he does that in the books too. Sherlock Holmes becomes dangerous both for himself and others when he's bored.

[Covenant]

Yeah he was trying to invent a silencer, and basically testing it in the house.

[Isgrimnur]

Not to mention Hound of the Baskervilles.

[Bullwinkle]

Yeah he was trying to invent a silencer, and basically testing it in the house.

He shot a giant "VR" in the wall, IIRC, for "Victoria Regina"

[CeeKay]

they are already getting ready for Sherlock 3.   

[Lordnine]

I found the first surprisingly enjoyable if not particularly remarkable.  This one looks like it will be on par.

[metallicorphan]

this is having its London Premiere tonight,so there are lots of interviews on the red carpet on the news channels

They spoke to Guy Ritchie who was asked if this was harder to make than the first film,and he gave the answer that it is not harder to make because they have the audience after the first film,but it IS harder to make because trying to 'up' the first one

Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law were interviewed and they said that this film feels closer to the books than the first movie did,and RDJ and JL are not like an old married couple in real life,but RDJ does argue with Guy Ritchie at times and Jude Law has to split them up

Stephen Fry who plays Mycroft says that only Winnie the Pooh comes close to Sherlock Holmes as the greatest fictional character created

He also says that he has a nude scene 

The film opens in the UK and North America on the 16th December

[PR_GMR]

I want to see this one! Trailer looks exciting.

[spigot]

I'm stoked for this. Really liked the first one.

[PeteRock]

I found the first surprisingly enjoyable if not particularly remarkable.  This one looks like it will be on par.

I have to agree.  I initially had little interest in the first, but at the suggestion of a friend and the fact that Guy Ritchie was involved I at least gave it a try.  I was glad I did.  My wife seemed a bit underwhelmed, but I really enjoyed Holmes' deductions, quirky mannerisms, matter-of-fact candor, and mental challenges (being overwhelmed by stimulus in public settings, social awkwardness, and personal dangers when given too much time alone).  The action was fun but not unbelievable, Robert Downey, Jr. has really come into his own as an actor (between this, Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang, Iron Man, etc, he really is becoming a personal favorite), and he and Jude Law had a truly enjoyable rapport.  I lent my copy to a friend as he hadn't seen it in the hopes that he'll be interested in catching a matinee with me as I don't believe my wife will want to.  I think her biggest pet peeve was the accents, but she also didn't like the pacing or the storyline. 

[rshetts2]

Ive been a big fan of Holmes since I was a kid.  Ive read all of the AC Doyle stories and plenty of other authors takes.  Ive never been a purist though and as long as the basic personality of Holmes is intact, Ive enjoyed many interpretations of him.   I really enjoyed the first movie and definitely look forward to the second.  as far as those saying there was no deduction in the movie, Holmes used his deductive powers through out the entire movie.  At the end of the movie they went back basically clue by clue as Holmes explained his reasoning.  He pretty much spent the whole movie deducing.    As far as the take on Irene Adler, yeah it wasnt the best performance but it wasnt totally anachronistic either.  Powerful and impressive women have used their brains and sexuality through out history, to get what they want.  Just look back at women like Cleopatra or Marie Antoinette.  We they rare and unique?  Certainly but they existed.
Oh and thanks to the writers, Guy Ritchie and Jude Law for not making Watson the bumbling comic foil.  If theres one thing Ive hated in the various interpretations of the Holmes mythos, its the trend to diminish Watsons abilities and mental capacity in a lame attempt to make Holmes look even more awesome.  Its not necessary, they have Scotland Yard for that.
 Anyway, I will be seeing the new one soon and it appears that they are already working on the script for Holmes 3.


Slightly off topic but still connected,  if you want to see a different interpretation of Holmes, set in modern times, watch the very excellent BBC series Sherlock.  The 1st season consists of 3 movies and a second season is schedule to start in the near future.  Cumberbatch as Holmes and Freeman as Watson are fantastic. 

[TiLT]

As far as the take on Irene Adler, yeah it wasnt the best performance but it wasnt totally anachronistic either.  Powerful and impressive women have used their brains and sexuality through out history, to get what they want.  Just look back at women like Cleopatra or Marie Antoinette.  We they rare and unique?  Certainly but they existed.

It wasn't just Irene Addler, but also Watson's wife. I don't recall if there were other notable women in the movie, but those two did not fit in at all and acted like 21st century women. Irene Addler certainly didn't behave that way in the books, where she in fact behaved rather meekly most of the time apart from a brief moment where she subtly showed off to Holmes without his knowledge (at the time).

Not to mention the whole setting. It felt almost steampunk at times. Having just finished reading through all 9 Sherlock Holmes books, I've become painfully aware of how much off the mark the movie was. Sure, Watson was nearly perfect and Holmes wasn't that bad. It's the rest of the movie, characters and scenery that messes up.

[Kagath]

You guys are reading way too deep into it.

I enjoyed the first and was entertained by it enough I eventually bought the movie. I'm excited for the upcoming one as well.

[rshetts2]

As far as the take on Irene Adler, yeah it wasnt the best performance but it wasnt totally anachronistic either.  Powerful and impressive women have used their brains and sexuality through out history, to get what they want.  Just look back at women like Cleopatra or Marie Antoinette.  We they rare and unique?  Certainly but they existed.

It wasn't just Irene Addler, but also Watson's wife. I don't recall if there were other notable women in the movie, but those two did not fit in at all and acted like 21st century women. Irene Addler certainly didn't behave that way in the books, where she in fact behaved rather meekly most of the time apart from a brief moment where she subtly showed off to Holmes without his knowledge (at the time).

Not to mention the whole setting. It felt almost steampunk at times. Having just finished reading through all 9 Sherlock Holmes books, I've become painfully aware of how much off the mark the movie was. Sure, Watson was nearly perfect and Holmes wasn't that bad. It's the rest of the movie, characters and scenery that messes up.

I certainly wont disagree with your on your take on this.  For my part, I never expected this movie to be a direct filming of AC Doyles Sherlock Holmes.  For that, I go to BBC's excellent series starring Jeremy Brett.  I like the Guy Ritchie version for what it is because I doubt that anyone will capture Doyles vision on film ant better than the Brett series did.  Because of that Im fine with something a bit different.

[DarkEL]

Robert Downey, Jr. has really come into his own as an actor (between this, Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang, Iron Man, etc, he really is becoming a personal favorite)

I certainly won't disagree that he has become quite good in recent years.

But just as a reminder in-between Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang and Iron Man - he was the bad guy in Disney's the Shaggy Dog.



 

[kronovan]

I saw this last night and enjoyed it very much. My only real complaint is that its fairly action heavy, which seems a bit out of place for a Holmes movie. On the other hand it features some of the best coreographed actions sequences I've seen in recent films.  I can see where the film won't do much of anyting for purist fans of the taditional stories, other than turn them off. The script also came up a bit short in the wit and clever deduction department considering the subject matter. In the end I personally don't care too much if only because Downey Jr. and Law are so terrific on screen as a dual. For me the chemistry and relationship between Holmes and Watson is as big a part of a Holmes story as anything and those 2 deliverered again in spades. Great performances by them yet again and a wonderful, creepy, ice cool performance by Jared Harris as Moriarty.

[hepcat]

I certainly wont disagree with your on your take on this.  For my part, I never expected this movie to be a direct filming of AC Doyles Sherlock Holmes.  For that, I go to BBC's excellent series starring Jeremy Brett.  I like the Guy Ritchie version for what it is because I doubt that anyone will capture Doyles vision on film ant better than the Brett series did.  Because of that Im fine with something a bit different.

ditto.  I view Richie's take as an adventure film franchise set in Victorian times that just happens to include Holmes and Watson.  

I took my mother and her husband to see it on Christmas Day.  It was fun.  She really enjoys the series and it delivered on everything that was promised in the original...action, some light humor, a somewhat interesting plot that wasn't overly complicated for a post dinner addled mind and Downey being Downey.  

Great performances by them yet again and a wonderful, creepy, ice cool performance by Jared Harris as Moriarty.

Completely agree as well.  However, about two thirds of the way through the film, I kept getting this odd feeling that Richie was going to pull the rug out from under the audience and reveal that Harris' sniper henchmen was actually Moriarty and that Harris was just a patsy to throw people off, a la The Usual Suspects.   

[metallicorphan]

finally got to see this today

I enjoyed the film,but i think i liked the first one better

This film was more set across Europe rather than primarily in London,it still had a lot of that slow motion footage which was really put to good use when H+W were being chased through a wood,looking forward to the third