Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Sherlock Holmes

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Petronius

unread,
Jan 2, 2010, 10:58:29 AM1/2/10
to
As a fan of the Holmes canon, I was greatly disappointed by this latest filming
of Sherlock Holmes.
The so-called "action" scenes seemed contrived and flat.
Downey played Holmes as a super-hero and Jude Law was just so-so as Watson.
The rest of the performances ranged from so-so to acceptable.
If you haven't yet seen it, wait for the DVD.
I'll stick with the British TV versions with Jeremy Brett...


David Oberman

unread,
Jan 2, 2010, 12:32:51 PM1/2/10
to

Good cinematic Holmesiana also found in the Rathbone "Adventures of
Sherlock Holmes" & "The Hound of the Baskervilles," as well as the
late '60s "Study in Terror," which contains a number of canon-savvy
in-jokes.


_______

Assassins!

-- Toscanini, to his orchestra

Petronius

unread,
Jan 2, 2010, 1:16:35 PM1/2/10
to

"David Oberman" <DavidO...@att.net> wrote in message
news:kn0vj5l8fg3ubfh6r...@4ax.com...

I DVR'd all those last week on TCM but haven't gotten around to watching them
yet.
I've seen them before and agree they are excellent and very entertaining.
I also like the 50's version of "Hound" by Hammer.
One of the local PBS stations recently showed the Brett "Hound" and, despite a
few attempts to gild the lily, it was excellent.
I'd be interested in the opinion of the latest film by those who are not
Holmesians.
Perhaps I expected too much from it.


Dave in Toronto

unread,
Jan 2, 2010, 1:21:10 PM1/2/10
to


Lots of inside jokes in the TV movie _SHERLOCK HOLMES IN NEW YORK_ as
well. Roger Moore is surprisingly good as Sherlock.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075208/

Dave in Toronto

Bill Anderson

unread,
Jan 2, 2010, 1:54:41 PM1/2/10
to

I think of all the Bretts, this was the least successful, the only one
I'd never want to watch again. All Watson, little Holmes.

Petronius

unread,
Jan 2, 2010, 2:07:47 PM1/2/10
to

"Bill Anderson" <billand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:iPidnZ4njYLpC6LW...@giganews.com...

The original novelette was mostly Watson. The Brett adaption was very close to
the story.


David Oberman

unread,
Jan 2, 2010, 2:32:31 PM1/2/10
to
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 13:54:41 -0500, Bill Anderson
<billand...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I think of all the Bretts, this was the least successful, the only one
>I'd never want to watch again. All Watson, little Holmes.

The hound was a dud, too. The hound was a lot scarier & more realistic
in the 1939 film, as was the fighting.

The various fisticuffs & duels in the Brett series were extremely weak
& phony-looking.

Bill Anderson

unread,
Jan 2, 2010, 3:18:44 PM1/2/10
to

No disagreement about that from me. When it comes to the Jeremy Brett
series, my standard for judging an episode isn't how closely it adheres
to the source material. I recognize a good episode when I find myself
standing before the TV, clenching my fists, and shouting, "YES!" By
that measure, "Hound" was a dismal failure.

--
Bill Anderson

I am the Mighty Favog

Petronius

unread,
Jan 2, 2010, 4:17:26 PM1/2/10
to

"Bill Anderson" <billand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:yPidnY-MKfC6N6LW...@giganews.com...

Fair enough but I like the episodes that stick close to the Doyle stories.
"Hound" is by far my favorite Canonical story and I thought the Brett version
quite good, quite possibly the best adaption of the story I've ever seen.


Howard Brazee

unread,
Jan 2, 2010, 4:24:49 PM1/2/10
to
On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 15:18:44 -0500, Bill Anderson
<billand...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>No disagreement about that from me. When it comes to the Jeremy Brett
>series, my standard for judging an episode isn't how closely it adheres
>to the source material. I recognize a good episode when I find myself
>standing before the TV, clenching my fists, and shouting, "YES!" By
>that measure, "Hound" was a dismal failure.

I haven't seen it, but when I read it, I was surprised about how well
known it is. I wanted Holmes and London, and we didn't have much.

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

Old Movie Fan

unread,
Jan 2, 2010, 4:54:01 PM1/2/10
to
I've saved 15 programs (all the pre-1950 features) on five DVDs. The
1922 silent and 1931 sound picture were very good, and all the rest that
I kept are Rathbone. My least favorite was the MGM 1939 sequel (his
second film), because it seemed to have too many plots.
I watched the newer films too (except I couldn't finish Billy
Wilder's). They might have all been in color (and even letterbox), but
one viewing was more than enough for me.
Although they all reminded me of the Columbo TV Series, these are far
better IMO. There's more story, and Rathbone is always either in
danger, or appears in disguise.
Funny thing...the disguises fool just about everyone but the villains.
They usually recognized Sherlock Holmes right away, or at least before
he can spring his trap.

Each is a cliffhanger.

David Oberman

unread,
Jan 2, 2010, 5:11:49 PM1/2/10
to
On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 16:54:01 -0500, BigMo...@webtv.net (Old Movie
Fan) wrote:

>My least favorite was the MGM 1939 sequel (his
>second film), because it seemed to have too many plots.

You mean the one where Moriarty kills a woman's brother & then sets
out to kill her, only to distract Holmes from the other crime of
burglary of the jewels?

I thought that was a great movie! Remember that disturbing musical
theme that the victims heard before dying?

Marv

unread,
Jan 2, 2010, 5:45:12 PM1/2/10
to

This latest re-invention (by the hollow heads in Hollowood) of Holmes
and Watson is not even close to being on my watch list. I have spent
the last couple of weeks getting and watching the 11 part Russian
version of the Canon with Vasili Livanov as Holmes and Vitali Solomin
as Doctor Watson. The stories covered here, including "The Hound of
the Baskervilles" hew close to the Conan Doyal work. This series is
deeper and murkier than the Granada (Brett) series but in no way less
important. Production is just sumptious, direction is clean and sure,
sets are remarkable (you would know 221B Baker Street anywhere). The
Russians have approached the Canon with some degree of reverence and
it shows. Highly recommended. Holmes in a relationship with Irene
Adler? You have to be kidding.

Marv
(Just starting on the 2006 Russian mini-series of "Doctor Zhivago".)

william

unread,
Jan 2, 2010, 6:31:40 PM1/2/10
to
On Jan 2, 4:54 pm, BigMovie...@webtv.net (Old Movie Fan) wrote:

>   I watched the newer films too (except I couldn't finish Billy
> Wilder's).  

I got to the end. You didn't miss anything. I'm not the fan many are
of Sherlock Holmes, altough I do try to see the various versions, and
Wilder totally missed the boat.

William
www.williamahearn.com

Alls Quiet

unread,
Jan 2, 2010, 6:57:45 PM1/2/10
to
On Jan 2, 5:45 pm, Marv <msol...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> This latest re-invention (by the hollow heads in Hollowood) of Holmes
> and Watson is not even close to being on my watch list.

Wise man. This movie sucked. It sucked so badly, I am in real pain
over the $13 for Boxing Day cheap seats I paid for me and a friend to
see it.

It sucked.

Francis A. Miniter

unread,
Jan 4, 2010, 2:32:37 PM1/4/10
to

Hollywood style action does not go with the cerebral
attraction of a Sherlock Holmes. At most, Holmes would
advise Watson to bring "the pistol". And it was rarely
fired. The advertisements for this movie completely turned
me off.

--
Francis A. Miniter

Oscuramente
libros, laminas, llaves
siguen mi suerte.

Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6

0 new messages