Movie: Sherlock Holmes
Budikka666
not your father's Sherlock, nor his Watson, either. But don't expect
any astounding deductions! This was more like "National Treasure"
than an actual Sherlock Holmes story - more of an action adventure
with relatively tame "da Vinci Code" style puzzles thrown in, although
fellow atheists might like the way the movie turns out given the way
it appears to be going.
I loved the atmosphere of Victorian London which Guy Ritchie created,
and and the humor was great. Did you know that Sherlock Holmes
invented the taser?!
It was also rather interesting to see London's Tower Bridge (not to be
confused with London Bridge, which is in Arizona!) unfinished, since
the movie was set somewhere in the 1890s when the bridge was still
under construction.
Some people have disparaged Guy Ritchie's directorial skills, but I
liked what he did here and I'm looking forward to a sequel.
Budikka
Mike Painter
> I got to see this over the weekend and it was pretty fine. This is
> not your father's Sherlock, nor his Watson, either. But don't expect
> any astounding deductions! This was more like "National Treasure"
> than an actual Sherlock Holmes story - more of an action adventure
> with relatively tame "da Vinci Code" style puzzles thrown in, although
> fellow atheists might like the way the movie turns out given the way
> it appears to be going.
>
> I loved the atmosphere of Victorian London which Guy Ritchie created,
> and and the humor was great. Did you know that Sherlock Holmes
> invented the taser?!
Is that what that thing in the trailers is.
This seems to be about the first film that shows Holmes was immensely strong
I've been watching the TV series from the 50's on Hulu and they are pretty
good.
>
> It was also rather interesting to see London's Tower Bridge (not to be
> confused with London Bridge, which is in Arizona!) unfinished, since
> the movie was set somewhere in the 1890s when the bridge was still
> under construction.
While living in Baja I met some of the people who bought London Bridge.
Guess what they thought they were buying?
I met a lot of people with money,fame and power down there, most of them
nice.
They were not.
Mitchell Holman
ce6b9b...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> I got to see this over the weekend and it was pretty fine. This is
> not your father's Sherlock, nor his Watson, either. But don't expect
> any astounding deductions! This was more like "National Treasure"
> than an actual Sherlock Holmes story - more of an action adventure
> with relatively tame "da Vinci Code" style puzzles thrown in, although
> fellow atheists might like the way the movie turns out given the way
> it appears to be going.
>
> I loved the atmosphere of Victorian London which Guy Ritchie created,
> and and the humor was great. Did you know that Sherlock Holmes
> invented the taser?!
And the sets were leftovers from the last
Harry Potter movie.
>
> It was also rather interesting to see London's Tower Bridge (not to be
> confused with London Bridge, which is in Arizona!) unfinished, since
> the movie was set somewhere in the 1890s when the bridge was still
> under construction.
>
Interesting scene. Considering a fall from Tower Bridge
is hardly likely to be fatal the scriptwriters made it seem
like the Grand Canyon.
> Some people have disparaged Guy Ritchie's directorial skills, but I
> liked what he did here and I'm looking forward to a sequel.
It is a great show, as long as you don't confuse it
with anything Conan Doyle ever wrote.
Allan Matthews
noemai...@comcast.net says...
[snip]
> Interesting scene. Considering a fall from Tower Bridge
> is hardly likely to be fatal the scriptwriters made it seem
> like the Grand Canyon.
Actually, lots of people have committed suicide by jumping from Tower
Bridge. I don't think you're allowed up on the high walkway anymore
because of it. It's not much different than jumping off a building of
the same height.
[snip]
allan
--
allan_matthews[at]bigfoot[dot]com
=========================================
"And the moral of the story?
Don't leave things in the fridge."
=========================================
Uncle Vic
> Did you know that Sherlock Holmes
> invented the taser?!
It's amazing, isn't it? Fictional characters can invent just about
anything!
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Christians are like Slinkys. They're boring, but they'll put a smile on
your face when you push them down the stairs.
Budikka666
> Budikka666 wrote:
> > I got to see this over the weekend and it was pretty fine. This is
> > not your father's Sherlock, nor his Watson, either. But don't expect
> > any astounding deductions! This was more like "National Treasure"
> > than an actual Sherlock Holmes story - more of an action adventure
> > with relatively tame "da Vinci Code" style puzzles thrown in, although
> > fellow atheists might like the way the movie turns out given the way
> > it appears to be going.
>
> > I loved the atmosphere of Victorian London which Guy Ritchie created,
> > and and the humor was great. Did you know that Sherlock Holmes
> > invented the taser?!
>
> Is that what that thing in the trailers is.
Yep! How, exactly, it holds such an immense charge, I'm not sure, but
that's all it is. And he has to keep recharging it.
> This seems to be about the first film that shows Holmes was immensely strong
No, he's actually rather a wimp when set next to Watson, who's
portrayed as a decorated military man, who is also on the verge of
leaving Homes with a view to setting up house with his fiancée - who
naturally dislikes Homes!
> I've been watching the TV series from the 50's on Hulu and they are pretty
> good.
>
>
>
> > It was also rather interesting to see London's Tower Bridge (not to be
> > confused with London Bridge, which is in Arizona!) unfinished, since
> > the movie was set somewhere in the 1890s when the bridge was still
> > under construction.
>
> While living in Baja I met some of the people who bought London Bridge.
> Guess what they thought they were buying?
Don't tell me now...! Actually wikipedia says that the guy who
actually purchased it was under no such impression. Of course, this
raises the philosphocal question as to whether it's actually London
bridge if it's not even in London!
> I met a lot of people with money,fame and power down there, most of them
> nice.
> They were not.
I'm not sure I follow that!
Budikka
Budikka666
> Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote in news:14daa9f5-9d60-45f3-bb50-
> ce6b9b562...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
> > I got to see this over the weekend and it was pretty fine. This is
> > not your father's Sherlock, nor his Watson, either. But don't expect
> > any astounding deductions! This was more like "National Treasure"
> > than an actual Sherlock Holmes story - more of an action adventure
> > with relatively tame "da Vinci Code" style puzzles thrown in, although
> > fellow atheists might like the way the movie turns out given the way
> > it appears to be going.
>
> > I loved the atmosphere of Victorian London which Guy Ritchie created,
> > and and the humor was great. Did you know that Sherlock Holmes
> > invented the taser?!
>
> And the sets were leftovers from the last
> Harry Potter movie.
LoL! That thought did go through my head, but this was a lot more
gritty that we've seen poor Harry endure.
> > It was also rather interesting to see London's Tower Bridge (not to be
> > confused with London Bridge, which is in Arizona!) unfinished, since
> > the movie was set somewhere in the 1890s when the bridge was still
> > under construction.
>
> Interesting scene. Considering a fall from Tower Bridge
> is hardly likely to be fatal the scriptwriters made it seem
> like the Grand Canyon.
It did seem very high, but I don't recall anyone in the movie dying
from purely falling. Lord Blackwood meets a slightly different and
far more appropriate fate.
But going back to your Harry Potter reference, I did find it
interesting that we have an evil lord pursued by two males and a
female!
> > Some people have disparaged Guy Ritchie's directorial skills, but I
> > liked what he did here and I'm looking forward to a sequel.
>
> It is a great show, as long as you don't confuse it
> with anything Conan Doyle ever wrote.
I don't know. There are differences, yes. Ritchie brought it well up
to date, but it's arguable that this Holmes at least in some
characteristics is truer to the original than many other movies have
been. The funny thing is that in some ways it's reminiscent of that
Michael Cane/Ben Kingsley vehicle, wherein it's Watson who is making
the deductions, and Holmes who is trying to keep up.
In the end it's a partnership in which each helps out the other. I'm
not one who demands the purity of the original as long as we get a
good story and for my money that's what I got. But as I said, I would
have liked to have seen more Holmesian deduction going on. Apart from
once, in an embarrassing (for Holmes) meeting between Holmes and
Watson's fiancée, there never really was an instance, as there
typically is at the start of the stories, wherein Holmes nails down
someone, or their profession, or their recent activities, by observing
tiny details.
Budikka
Budikka666
> One fine day in alt.atheism, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > Did you know that Sherlock Holmes
> > invented the taser?!
>
> It's amazing, isn't it? Fictional characters can invent just about
> anything!
>
> --
> Uncle Vic
> aa Atheist #2011
> Christians are like Slinkys. They're boring, but they'll put a smile on
> your face when you push them down the stairs.
Don;t you love it? Actually it's not quite as far-fetched as it
sounds. Holmes actually finds it by accident. he only uses it in
this one sequence where he's required to overcome a giant of a man,
and he has to charge it up for each use. I'm not sure if it would
hold sufficient a charge, and it certainly wouldn't propel this huge
guy like we're shown, but it is funny. I think it's supposedly based
on the same principle as the Wimshurst machine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wimshurst_machine
Not that it ultimately has any effect on this guy, who contains to get
up and battle Holmes. I think if we're talking practicality here, the
guy had far more of a chance of killing Holmes with one blow than the
"taser" had of stopping him!
Budikka
Mitchell Holman
news:28a953c3-bcd0-4aeb...@u41g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
> Watson's fianc�e, there never really was an instance, as there
> typically is at the start of the stories, wherein Holmes nails down
> someone, or their profession, or their recent activities, by observing
> tiny details.
>
> Budikka
>
My objections:
In the stories Watson is a retired Army doctor
returning from duty in Afghanistan, way older than
Jude Law.
Holmes would never think of getting in a boxing
ring, much less just to make money.
Watson was engaged to the woman they helped out
in "The Sign of Four", yet the movie shows Watson
introducing her to Holmes like they have never met.
The stories are set in the 1890's, yet the movie
makes references to the "recently concluded" American
civil war. And one of the bad guys is carrying a
Colt 45, not marketed until 1911.
tirebiter
> One fine day in alt.atheism, Budikka666 <budik...@netscape.net> wrote:
>
> > Did you know that Sherlock Holmes
> > invented the taser?!
>
> It's amazing, isn't it? Fictional characters can invent just about
> anything!
>
> --
> Uncle Vic
> aa Atheist #2011
> Christians are like Slinkys. They're boring, but they'll put a smile on
> your face when you push them down the stairs.
Yes it is amazing. In the Wild Wild West movie, Dr. Loveless invented
the atomic bomb.
---
a.a. #2273
tirebiter
> > While living in Baja I met some of the people who bought London Bridge.
> > Guess what they thought they were buying?
>
> Don't tell me now...! Actually wikipedia says that the guy who
> actually purchased it was under no such impression. Of course, this
> raises the philosphocal question as to whether it's actually London
> bridge if it's not even in London!
>
We have a room that is all windows on three walls. My wife calls it
the Florida Room. I always imagine that a house in Florida with a
room like this would just be called the Room.
---
a.a. #2273
Budikka666
I call it a greenhouse whether it's green or not....
Budikka
Mike Painter
"Mitchell Holman" <noemai...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CF746C4CAC70...@216.196.97.130...
> Budikka666 <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in
> news:28a953c3-bcd0-4aeb...@u41g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
>
> makes references to the "recently concluded" American
> civil war. And one of the bad guys is carrying a
> Colt 45, not marketed until 1911.
>
self-loading (or semi-automatic) handgun, to replace the variety of
revolvers then in service."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1911
It was not adopted by the Army until 1911.
Mike Painter
"Budikka666" <budi...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:aeca9f4b-a544-47f6...@p8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> > It was also rather interesting to see London's Tower Bridge (not to be
> > confused with London Bridge, which is in Arizona!) unfinished, since
> > the movie was set somewhere in the 1890s when the bridge was still
> > under construction.
>
> While living in Baja I met some of the people who bought London Bridge.
> Guess what they thought they were buying?
Don't tell me now...! Actually wikipedia says that the guy who
actually purchased it was under no such impression. Of course, this
raises the philosphocal question as to whether it's actually London
bridge if it's not even in London!
> I met a lot of people with money,fame and power down there, most of them
> nice.
> They were not.
I'm not sure I follow that!
I met the people who were part of buying the bridge after they had acquired
land in Baja and were trying to impress Phillips of Phillips Industries.
He was a great guy and they were snakes.
Dr. Smartass, Troll Veterinarian
99f1-301...@m11g2000vbo.googlegroups.com:
Briscoe County, Jr. had to deal with an Orb...
--
Doc Smartass | BAAWA Knight of Troll Medication | aa # 1939
Book reviews: http://jw-bookblog.blogspot.com/
Kook Clearinghouse! http://kookclearinghouse.blogspot.com/
Pray for Goppers the way they pray for Obama! Psalm 109!
hypa...@comcast.net
> Budikka666 wrote:
> > I got to see this over the weekend and it was pretty fine. This is
> > not your father's Sherlock, nor his Watson, either. But don't expect
> > any astounding deductions! This was more like "National Treasure"
> > than an actual Sherlock Holmes story - more of an action adventure
> > with relatively tame "da Vinci Code" style puzzles thrown in, although
> > fellow atheists might like the way the movie turns out given the way
> > it appears to be going.
>
> > I loved the atmosphere of Victorian London which Guy Ritchie created,
> > and and the humor was great. Did you know that Sherlock Holmes
> > invented the taser?!
>
> Is that what that thing in the trailers is.
> This seems to be about the first film that shows Holmes was immensely strong
>
> I've been watching the TV series from the 50's on Hulu and they are pretty
> good.
The one with Ronald Howard (Leslie Howard's son who looks
incredibly like his father)? That was a very well done series
considering that each show was less than 30 minutes long.
>
>
>
> > It was also rather interesting to see London's Tower Bridge (not to be
> > confused with London Bridge, which is in Arizona!) unfinished, since
> > the movie was set somewhere in the 1890s when the bridge was still
> > under construction.
>
> While living in Baja I met some of the people who bought London Bridge.
> Guess what they thought they were buying?
> I met a lot of people with money,fame and power down there, most of them
> nice.
> They were not.
What did they think they were buying - the Tower of London?
>
>
>
>
>
> > Some people have disparaged Guy Ritchie's directorial skills, but I
> > liked what he did here and I'm looking forward to a sequel.
>
> > Budikka- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
hypa...@comcast.net
>
> > Did you know that Sherlock Holmes
> > invented the taser?!
>
> It's amazing, isn't it? Fictional characters can invent just about
> anything!
>
that paper about different kinds of tobacco ashes and it slipped
his immense mind.
Budikka666
> > typically is at the start of the stories, wherein Holmes nails down
> > someone, or their profession, or their recent activities, by observing
> > tiny details.
>
> > Budikka
>
> My objections:
>
> In the stories Watson is a retired Army doctor
> returning from duty in Afghanistan, way older than
> Jude Law.
He didn;t reture, he was invalided out of the army, and I've seen his
dob listed as both 1852 and 1862, so he wasn't "old" by any means
during the time of the movie (1890's). If the later dob is correct,
then he could well have been of a similar age to Jude Law who is in
his 30s!
> Holmes would never think of getting in a boxing
> ring, much less just to make money.
Holmes was supposedly a practitioner of baritsu, which was what was
used in the movie. Whether he would box or not is another issue.
> Watson was engaged to the woman they helped out
> in "The Sign of Four", yet the movie shows Watson
> introducing her to Holmes like they have never met.
The stories themselves are hardly a shining example of continuity!
> The stories are set in the 1890's, yet the movie
> makes references to the "recently concluded" American
> civil war. And one of the bad guys is carrying a
> Colt 45, not marketed until 1911.
I believe Mike has addressed that. But seriously, if you're going to
be that picky, then Robert Downey shouldn't have appeared in the movie
since he wasn't born until 1965! I don't go to a movie so I can
nitpick the details. I go to enjoy a good story and if it's a story
taken from a book, then all I require is the movie is either true to
the spirit of the book(s), which I think this was in significant
areas, or it's telling a story as good as or better than you'd get
from the book(s), which this also was in other parts.
Like I said, my only issue with it departing therefrom was the fact
that we really didn't see a lot of the real deductive work as exampled
in the books, but I'm willing to see the sequels(s) and see if it
shows up there.
Although now I'm on the topic (see what you did?!), a lot of that in
the books was stretching credibility a bit far for my money. Also,
it's kinda hard to do that kind of thing these days when, for example,
whole careers have disappeared, and a lot of the new careers carry no
distinguishing marks. I mean, how do you distinguish between someone
works on a computer in a law office from one who does the same kind of
thing in an insurance office, and so on?
What I could really go for is something like a Holmesian deduction
technique which was applied with equal surety and effect in the modern
world. That might be a movie worth watching!
I think the closest we've seen lately (although I'll be thrilled to be
corrected on this) is the "Monk" TV series, wherein an invalided
police officer turns his obsessive-compulsive eye to Holmesian
deduction and the "House" TV series wherein a dysfunctional doctor
turns his equally discerning eye onto solving unusual medical cases.
I've got out of the habit of watching Monk, but I adore House, who is
actually named after Holmes (Holmes->House) and also lives at 221
something or other!
Budikka
Mike Painter
> On Jan 4, 11:10 pm, "Mike Painter" <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> Budikka666 wrote:
>> I've been watching the TV series from the 50's on Hulu and they are
>> pretty good.
>
> The one with Ronald Howard (Leslie Howard's son who looks
> incredibly like his father)? That was a very well done series
> considering that each show was less than 30 minutes long.
Yes. Watson is a bit stronger and Holmes shows some humor now and then.
The stories that deal with an actual Doyle story cover all the high points.
>>
>>
>>
>>> It was also rather interesting to see London's Tower Bridge (not to
>>> be confused with London Bridge, which is in Arizona!) unfinished,
>>> since the movie was set somewhere in the 1890s when the bridge was
>>> still under construction.
>>
>> While living in Baja I met some of the people who bought London
>> Bridge. Guess what they thought they were buying?
>> I met a lot of people with money,fame and power down there, most of
>> them nice.
>> They were not.
>
> What did they think they were buying - the Tower of London?
The Tower Bridge.
>>
Mike Painter
One of his descendants (according to Farmer's Biography of Doc Savage)
invented the answering machine but never got a patent. Of course he used a
phonograph record for taking the message, odd he did not use a wire
recorder.