Sherlock Holmes (movie 2010)

[Barton]

Good move IMHO. Thought it was good, scientists in the crowd will like it a lot IMHO.

Good plot ideas, they also got London on 1890 (I guess that was the year) close (it was still too clean).

Some pulpy bits in it, and surprising good acting and plot.

[kahuna's bro]

Re: Sherlock Holmes (movie 2010)

 

i missed seeing this at the theater due to a knee injuryi'll weatch it on ppv next month

[Ian Mackinder]

Re: Sherlock Holmes (movie 2010)

 

I'm a Sherlock Holmes fan from way back. Enjoyed the movie greatly. The characterizations of Holmes and Watson (and certain others) do vary from the original stories (and most portrayals since), but not unrecognizably so - it's just a new perspective. Very well done, I thought.

[Alverant]

Re: Sherlock Holmes (movie 2010)

 

I think it was more Steampunk than Pulp. Holmes did rebel a bit against the social order (he fought in the ring with the lower classes and hobnobbed with the upper classes treating both equally -- with thinly veiled contempt), did home experimentation (as opposed to having an official lab), and his choice of clothing was more for appearance than functionality. There wasn't much technology, just the Spoiler device at the end and a coal-powered riverboat. The former was brass and had ornamentation, making it more steampunk while the boat was just there. Steampunk tech tends to have more nonfunctioning extras and craftmanship while pulp tech is more spartan with lights and dials that actually serve a purpose other than looking pretty. In Steampunk chemistry and machines are the "super science that can do ANYTHING" gimic while pulp super science is more varied. Holmes is also a bit more flawed than the average pulp hero. Between Holmes and Start I have to wonder if Downey is an alcoholic IRL or just a really good actor (or both).

 

The movie was very good and sets itself up for a sequel (of course), but also ended in such a way that there doesn't have to be. I hope we get to see the big French guy again. He had a certain style. Definitely a grade A henchman. Did he even get a name?

[RexMundi]

Re: Sherlock Holmes (movie 2010)

 

Yeah his name is Dredger (Played by Robert Maillet whom some folks may remember as "The Kurgan" from the WWF days, or, the Persian Giant Immortal from the 300 Days). Also, Downey has Massive Addiction issues, which is why, he's so good at playing the roles of Addictive Personalities.

 

Tis a very Pulpish Movie, with a good touch of Gaslight.

 

~Rex

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Sherlock Holmes (movie 2010)

 

My problem with the movie was that it fell between two stools - gothic and pulp.

 

Going home I realised part of my dissatisfaction was that they had mapped Holmes onto the Batman. If you called it Gotham by Gaslight then I think I'd have loved it a lot more...

 

 

Doc

[RexMundi]

Re: Sherlock Holmes (movie 2010)

 

Batman borrows heavily from Holmes though. Most folks are stuck with the mental image of Holmes not being Physical, which is very far from the truth.

 

~Rex

[Ian Mackinder]

Re: Sherlock Holmes (movie 2010)

 

Most folks are stuck with the mental image of Holmes not being Physical' date=' which is very far from the truth.[/quote']

 

Exactly. Anybody reading the original stories can discern the truth.

 

Mr Holmes was an expert bareknuckle boxer, as evidenced several times when encountering other practitioners (all of whom respected his prowess).

He was a master of disguise, used to frequent the London underworld at considerable personal risk.

He was well-versed with firearms, and use of the stick in fights.

I'm pretty sure he is mentioned as using wrestling and Jiu-Jitsu moves at one time or another.

His strength was well above average, being able to straighten out a bent poker with his bare hands.

His endurance was likewise well above average, as evidenced numerous times when he would push himself hard (minimal / no sleep for days on end, etc.).

He was not afraid of physical discomfort or living rough when necessary.

He was also not intimidated by threats of danger or physical violence - plenty of times he was confronted by some scary individuals, but his response was usually either nil or mild amusement.

 

It is just that Holmes valued his intellect higher. Given the nature of the man as depicted in the original books, it could be that he saw the physical stuff as just a means to an end - basically tools to be used by his mind for solving crimes.

[Peregrine]

Re: Sherlock Holmes (movie 2010)

 

Can someone with better Holmes Lore than I answer a question - did anyone in any of the stories actually see Holmes and Moriarty together at a close enough range to positively identify both at the same time?

[Ian Mackinder]

Re: Sherlock Holmes (movie 2010)

 

Can someone with better Holmes Lore than I answer a question - did anyone in any of the stories actually see Holmes and Moriarty together at a close enough range to positively identify both at the same time?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_Moriarty

 

Not really.

 

I know there is at least one later (non-ACD) story in which Holmes suffers from a split personality disorder, with Moriarty being one of the others.

 

In 'The Seven Percent Solution', Holmes's cocaine addiction is making him delusional, to the extent that he is basically stalking an innocent man ( Moriarty is definitely NOT a criminal mastermind). Watson then enlists the aid of Sigmund Freud to get him on the road to recovery.

 

Holmes Lore is, in a way, a lot like the Trekverse. There is LOTS of detail - yet there are also enough gaps, inconsistencies, side references and things unseen to generate a fair-sized industry in "alternate" explanations and so forth. As it has.

 

Plus which, remember that just about all of the original Holmes stories are written from the point of view of Doctor Watson (one of the later ones is written by Holmes himself, but that is all). As some later non-ACD fiction suggests, it could be that Watson (and/or his editor) altered facts for one reason or another, or that Holmes simply did not tell his colleague EVERYTHING.

[Markdoc]

Re: Sherlock Holmes (movie 2010)

 

It is just that Holmes valued his intellect higher. Given the nature of the man as depicted in the original books' date=' it could be that he saw the physical stuff as just a means to an end - basically tools to be used by his mind for solving crimes.[/quote']

 

I think this is what left me a bit cold on the movie in the end, despite the fact that I liked many, many things about it: I've always seen Holmes as "a man of action" - but not as "an action hero". The Holmes in the movie came across as boorish, and deliberately uncouth at times and - to be honest - a bit of a thug. OK, I realise a modern Holmes has to be a badass, just like every other leading man in every other movie, but it still left something of a sour taste for me.

 

It's a pity: I liked pretty much everything else about the movie and thought Jude Law was unexpectedly good as an updated Watson.

 

cheers, Mark

[RexMundi]

Re: Sherlock Holmes (movie 2010)

 

I found more then a few things in the movie to swipe for ideas, and I had a good time blowing the dust off the Holmes collection to show people, all the physicality. My gripe with the movie, is that it felt like it started in the middle and I didn't care for the chick part though she's not hard on the eyes.

 

STILL. It's a good time. Not sorry I've spent the money one it, and for a Starter flick in a possible franchise, it's a very good start. It's also one of the few movies I've seen with Jude Law in it, that I actually didn't mind Jude law being in it, and I thought his Watson was a nice take on the character. Some really good visuals in there folks can use to explain Analyze in combat. I also got a good laugh out of when Holmes was getting manhandled by the Chinese guy which provided me with more then a few more Game example visuals for some of my "Just can't Picture it unless I'm Seeing it" players.

 

 

~Rex

[Peregrine]

Re: Sherlock Holmes (movie 2010)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professor_Moriarty

 

Not really.

 

I know there is at least one later (non-ACD) story in which Holmes suffers from a split personality disorder, with Moriarty being one of the others.

 

In 'The Seven Percent Solution', Holmes's cocaine addiction is making him delusional, to the extent that he is basically stalking an innocent man ( Moriarty is definitely NOT a criminal mastermind). Watson then enlists the aid of Sigmund Freud to get him on the road to recovery.

 

Holmes Lore is, in a way, a lot like the Trekverse. There is LOTS of detail - yet there are also enough gaps, inconsistencies, side references and things unseen to generate a fair-sized industry in "alternate" explanations and so forth. As it has.

 

Plus which, remember that just about all of the original Holmes stories are written from the point of view of Doctor Watson (one of the later ones is written by Holmes himself, but that is all). As some later non-ACD fiction suggests, it could be that Watson (and/or his editor) altered facts for one reason or another, or that Holmes simply did not tell his colleague EVERYTHING.

 

My thought, assuming it isn't obvious, is that Holmes deliberately created "Moriarty" to provide himself with the mental stimulation that he found so addicting - playing against himself. No split personality, just a deliberate juxtaposition of himself against himself.

[Curufea]

Re: Sherlock Holmes (movie 2010)

 

Loved the movie.

 

However I would have preferred the electroshock device to have only one charge, it would have been more believable.

The device at the end was wholey unbelievable - but because it was expected, I didn't mind so much.

[kahuna's bro]

Re: Sherlock Holmes (movie 2010)

 

Good move IMHO. Thought it was good, scientists in the crowd will like it a lot IMHO.

Good plot ideas, they also got London on 1890 (I guess that was the year) close (it was still too clean).

Some pulpy bits in it, and surprising good acting and plot.

still too clean?

[RexMundi]

Re: Sherlock Holmes (movie 2010)

 

Too Clean as in, Everyone had good teeth, not covered in coal soot, that sort of thing. In short, no Yellowbeard, in the Sherlock Holmes, with the little girl asking if anyone wants to buy a lump of ****. (Edited, for the young and impressionable waifs out there....). Lot of the History buffs make that point but you know, those orthodontists, they've ruined historical movies forever, heh.

 

~Rex

[Markdoc]

Re: Sherlock Holmes (movie 2010)

 

still too clean?

 

Too Clean as in, Everyone had good teeth, not covered in coal soot, that sort of thing. In short, no Yellowbeard, in the Sherlock Holmes, with the little girl asking if anyone wants to buy a lump of ****. (Edited, for the young and impressionable waifs out there....). Lot of the History buffs make that point but you know, those orthodontists, they've ruined historical movies forever, heh.

 

~Rex

 

Yeah: one point that people tend to forget - in the 1890's steam was king and London was the centre of the biggest industrial power in the world. Put those two together and you get pollution. Big time pollution. You think Mexico City has bad pollution? That' ain't but nothin' compared to Victorian London. So many of the vistas that you see in the film would have been totally impossible in real life: the observatory at Primrose hill in London recorded visibility every day in the mid-late 19th century and over a 12 year period, visibility was above 6 km on only one day. Usually it was less than 3, meaning you could see about 2 miles on a sunny day. In 1901, the London City council did the same thing and through the entire course of 1901, it was not possible - not once - to see from the houses of Parliament to St Pauls. That's less than 2 1/2 kilometres, or about a mile and a half. Often visibility - during the day, mind - was under 1000 metres, meaning you could see a few city blocks and that was it.

 

No wonder the word "smog" was invented in London in 1904. That kind of smog not only means that the scenes of Holmes on top of the bridge would have been impossible - he could not have seen even to the bend in the river - but that kind of smog renders everything filthy. I've been out in smog nearly as horrible in some African cities (Addis is particularly bad these days) and it turns painted walls black in the space of a few weeks. White shirts become grey in the space of a few hours and black around the wrists and collar (there's a reason a Victorian gentleman changed his shirt - or at least his collar - several times a day).

 

As an aside, the bridge the final fight was on top of? My Great-grandad lived there when it was finished: he was charged with lifting the bridge to let ships through.

 

cheers, Mark

[RexMundi]

Re: Sherlock Holmes (movie 2010)

 

Don't forget, you would have spent a good 30 minutes washing the turds off you after that Dive into the River scene heh.....

 

~Rex

[Lawnmower Boy]

Re: Sherlock Holmes (movie 2010)

 

You think coal smoke was bad? A generation before the brown stuff in the London air wasn't dinosaur poop. It was....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Stink

[RexMundi]

Re: Sherlock Holmes (movie 2010)

 

Downey is lucky. He could have hit that river, with a splat, and a bounce, heh.

 

~Rex

[Curufea]

Re: Sherlock Holmes (movie 2010)

 

Don't forget, you would have spent a good 30 minutes washing the turds off you after that Dive into the River scene heh.....

 

~Rex

 

Yeah - I did find the swimming in the river a bit dubious in the movie. At least without coming down with something nasty and fatal shortly afterwards.