Sherlock Holmes Casting Question
MC
fits the traditional image of Holmes almost perfectly? I wonder if the
casting was coincidental or deliberate.
___
Nitpicks:
In the opening credits there's a newspaper headline that reads "Holmes
aides [sic] the police."
Watson calls Irene Adler a "world class" criminal. I guarantee that
expression was not used by the Victorians.
Am I the only one who cares about this kind of thing?
--
"If you can, tell me something happy."
- Marybones
Alan Brooks
> Am I the only one who thinks the actor playing the baddie - Blackwood -
> fits the traditional image of Holmes almost perfectly? I wonder if the
> casting was coincidental or deliberate.
>
> ___
>
> Nitpicks:
>
> In the opening credits there's a newspaper headline that reads "Holmes
> aides [sic] the police."
>
> Watson calls Irene Adler a "world class" criminal. I guarantee that
> expression was not used by the Victorians.
>
> Am I the only one who cares about this kind of thing?
Well... It's not that I didn't notice, but the entire treatment was so "now"
that the few items that you mention didn't bother me at all.
Alan Brooks
---------------------------
A Schmuck with an Underwood
-- Now: The
new Then.
MWSM FAQ: http://www.panix.com/~mwsm/faq.html
Filtering Trolls: http://www.panix.com/~mwsm/trolls.html
MC
Alan Brooks <ch...@panix.com> wrote:
> > In the opening credits there's a newspaper headline that reads "Holmes
> > aides [sic] the police."
> >
> > Watson calls Irene Adler a "world class" criminal. I guarantee that
> > expression was not used by the Victorians.
> >
> > Am I the only one who cares about this kind of thing?
>
> Well... It's not that I didn't notice, but the entire treatment was so "now"
> that the few items that you mention didn't bother me at all.
Fair enough. Yes. And the "now-ness" didn't bother me in itself, just
the *amount* of it. I'm getting awfully bored with CGI and noisy action
in lieu of story and acting. But overall I did quite like it.
Schlockhack
Lord Blackwood? Probably changed his name from Lawrence
Schwartzbaum.
Alan Brooks
Yeah, I did too.
I can't remember if I said this here already, but the best thing was that
the former Mr. Madonna and the seventeen or so writers who hacked away at
this story, were pretty faithful to the most important part of the Holmes
mythology, which is that rationality must triumph.
I did feel cheated that the scene in the trailer where Rachel McAdams strips
to a corset wasn't actually in the film.
Alan Brooks
---------------------------
A Schmuck with an Underwood
-- And it wasn't
in 3D.
STJensen
> ...the best thing was that
> the former Mr. Madonna and the seventeen or so writers who hacked
> away at this story, were pretty faithful to the most important part of the
> Holmes mythology, which is that rationality must triumph.
Yes, I agree. As the move progressed and seemed to go more and more
into the supernatural, I was expecting to be very disappointed that
mysticism was going to "win" the day. Everything seemed to point to
it. But then at the end, Holmes methodically exposed everything for
what really had happened and how the villain got away with it all.
That was a "Bravo!" moment in the movie.
As for the rest of the movie, I really enjoyed it and I have read all
the Holmes stories. I like a more action-oriented Holmes. But even
then, you saw his intellect at work. The slow-motion pre-fight scenes
were great. Here is how a brilliant thinking man fights.
I also enjoyed the love-hate relationship between Holmes and Watson
over women. That was completely in what I feel was character for both
characters.
And the injection of humor was also very welcomed.
I gave the movie a "100%" at Rotten Tomatoes.
Scott Jensen
Bert Coules
> Am I the only one who thinks the actor playing the baddie - Blackwood -
> fits the traditional image of Holmes almost perfectly? I wonder if the
> casting was coincidental or deliberate.
Guy Ritchie has used Mark Strong several times now, so it's possibly a case
of casting an actor he's familiar with. A lot of UK fans have said that
Strong should have been given the lead, but you need a lot more than looks
for Holmes: and for me at least, he doesn't have Downey jnr's presence,
intensty and range (though to be fair I might have seen him only in parts -
like the less-than-one-dimensional Blackwoord - which didn't give him much
of a chance).
> In the opening credits there's a newspaper headline that reads "Holmes
> aides [sic] the police."
Didn't notice that, and it's obviously a mistake, but if you wanted to
justify it why should Victorian newspapers be any better at spelling than
some modern ones?
Only one anachronism bothered me and pulled me out of the reality of the
piece: Watson, struggling with a bruiser, yells to Holmes to "Nut 'im!".
Suddenly we were in contemporary London thug-land - Guy Ritchie's usual
stamping-ground, in fact.
I liked the film, though I thought it was a good twenty minutes too long and
way too overpacked with characters (just how many villains, major and minor,
were there? I lost count): shorter and simpler would have been more to my
taste. The pleasant surprise was that it was, in most respects, entirely in
keeping with Doyle's characters and general milieu: in fact there were quite
a few direct quotes and lifted moments from the original stories.
> I'm getting awfully bored with CGI and noisy action
> in lieu of story and acting. But overall I did quite like it.
I agree that the basic plot was more than a tad lacking - Holmes and Watson
deserve something better than a cardboard cutout foe with a silly
world-domination plan - but the CGI didn't bother me particularly. I liked
the look of grungy-London, especially, and it was nice to see the budget
stretching to some real panoramic period views for a change.
Incidentally, Downey jnr's Golden Globe marks- I think - the very first time
that a Holmes and Watson flick has won a major award.
Bert
Martin B
> MC wrote:
>> Am I the only one who thinks the actor playing the baddie -
>> Blackwood - fits the traditional image of Holmes almost perfectly?
>> I wonder if the casting was coincidental or deliberate.
>
> Guy Ritchie has used Mark Strong several times now, so it's possibly a
> case of casting an actor he's familiar with. A lot of UK fans have
> said that Strong should have been given the lead, but you need a lot
> more than looks for Holmes: and for me at least, he doesn't have Downey
> jnr's presence, intensty and range
Just seen it. I agree, Mark Strong has the looks for Holmes.
Downey looks too common. Like he could lead the Baker Street Irregulars
(and where were they in the movie?), but never be the gentleman detective
I imagine Holmes to be. As for intensity, I'd call it ADD.
I thought the movie was okay, and Ritchie deserves a "Best Director"
nomination, but it's not a Holmes and Watson movie. Call them Carruthers
and Ashford or something.
But Rachel Macadams as Irene Adler was terrific. Completely believable as
Holmes's smarter love interest.
>> In the opening credits there's a newspaper headline that reads "Holmes
>> aides [sic] the police."
I saw that too.
Then I walked out of the theatre and saw there's a new shop at the mall,
Haagen Dazs. (I've never seen them in South Africa before.)
Outside the shop was a billboard advertising their Valentine's Day
special "with molton chocolate."
--
Martin B
MC
"Martin B" <mart...@mweb.co.za> wrote:
> Outside the shop was a billboard advertising their Valentine's Day
> special "with molton chocolate."
If they import it from South Molton Street in London they should at
least use a capital letter.
Martin B
What did you think of the pronunciation of "Lestrade?"
I've always thought of it as 'less trade.' But they use 'less trahd'
which sounds rather affected and poncey to my ears.
--
Martin B
Bert Coules
> Downey looks too common. Like he could lead the Baker Street Irregulars
> (and where were they in the movie?)
Presu,able, where they were in the cast majority of the original Doyle
stories - somewhere else.
> ...it's not a Holmes and Watson movie.
Why isn't it? The Holmes of the stories isn't particularly a gentleman in
the sense you mean: he's a rude, arrogant, self-centred Bohemian with some
extremely bizarre and destructive habits and no social skills who scorns the
niceties of the ordered society in which he lives. I'd say the film nailed
that pretty well perfectly, as well as getting Watson right too; and the
relationship between the two men is spot-on.
Bert
Bert Coules
> @ Bert:
>
> What did you think of the pronunciation of "Lestrade?"
Well, there are two basic ways of saying it: the way I chose to do it in the
BBC series, and the wrong way. They chose the wrong way.
> I've always thought of it as 'less trade.'
I agree, though I'd put an emphasis on the second syllable and render it
"Le-STRAYED". 'Rhymes with, and inflected as, "grenade"' it said in the BBC
character-note bible.
"Le-Strahd of the Yard" just sounds silly.
Bert
Bert Coules
> stories - somewhere else.
Damnation, what a mess of a sentence. Apologies. "Presumably" and "the
vast majority" it should have been, of course.
Just when I was pontificating in another thread about speling mistokes,
too...
Bert
Martin B
> "Martin B"
>
>> ...it's not a Holmes and Watson movie.
>
> Why isn't it? The Holmes of the stories isn't particularly a gentleman
> in the sense you mean: he's a rude, arrogant, self-centred Bohemian
> with some extremely bizarre and destructive habits and no social skills
> who scorns the niceties of the ordered society in which he lives. I'd
> say the film nailed that pretty well perfectly, as well as getting
> Watson right too; and the relationship between the two men is spot-on.
You are of course the expert, and I don't have a problem with Watson. He
is a Holmes groupie, although he doesn't like to admit it.
But Holmes is, above all, cerebral, in the popular imagination anyway,
and Downey's Holmes wasn't. He played him more like some brilliant IT
wunderkind who follows his instincts, rather than someone who mentally
computes until he sees the connections, then takes decisive action.
Downey is like Scotty rather than Spock. Equally brilliant, but different
styles.
As for the description: "rude, arrogant, self-centred Bohemian with some
extremely bizarre and destructive habits and no social skills who scorns
the niceties of the ordered society in which he lives." I was wrong.
These are aristocratic, not gentlemanly, traits, and I should have said
Downey doesn't portray the aristocratic detective I imagine Holmes to be.
--
Martin B
Bert Coules
> But Holmes is, above all, cerebral, in the popular imagination anyway, and
> Downey's Holmes wasn't.
Didn't you think that the two fist fights, analysed in detail in Holmes's
mind before a single blow had been exchanged, were evidence of a keen
scientific mind? Or the summing-up at the end where he displays really
esoteric knowledge about everything from rare plants to ancient explosives?
The Holmes of the movie is far more cerebral than the Holmes of quite a few
of the stories, where he quite often has the solution handed to him on a
plate and does pretty much no thinking at all. It's a measure of Doyle's
skill that he manages to disguise that fact for most of the time.
Bert