Guy Ritchie has made a "Sherlock Holmes" film where he's played by Robert Downey as a 19th-century James Bond/ bareknuckle-boxing superhero with washboard abs

Civilization continues to die rapidly.

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2009/01/batman_ironman.php

This is too ridiculous to make me angry.

In fact, it looks like it might be awesome in a Road House kind of way.

yeah gotta say im pretty psyched for this

kelly reilly is in this so 10/10 so far.

this sounds good except for the guy ritchie aspect

the only way this could sound any better wuz if Apatow wuz directing--hopefully a Seth Rogen cameo? one can hope

otm

this sounds good except for the guy ritchie aspect

Cosign. What's to hate otherwise?

nice try; use better worms, "knuckle-dragging popcorn-munchers"!

dunno if this is challops or what but i think ritchie is the only guy who could actually pull this off by making it so retarded and british it ends up being pretty funny and entertaining

Good grief, from that link:

This is surely evidence of a degraded culture -- the animalization of rarified values and dashing cerebral derring-do, which were once admired or at least found intriguing by average moviegoers. You *know* that if everyone had my taste in films Silver, Ritchie and Warner Bros. wouldn't dare make something like this.

This vs. that Ron Rosenbaum complaint about Billy Joel the other day -- in both cases while I agree that both subjects under discussion are travesties, how the writers go about it do them no favors.

dunno if this is challops or what but i think ritchie is the only guy who could actually pull this off by making it so retarded and british it ends up being pretty funny and entertaining

― max, Monday, January 26, 2009 4:38 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

not so much challops as ddumm.

i am probably the only guy besides captainlorax and deeznuts on ilx who sort of liked snatch, huh

that ron rosenbaum piece on billy joel is such nonsense...

the hughes brothers would do a good job of this (im a 'from hell' defender n/cb).

that's 'no comic books' obviously.

i am probably the only guy besides captainlorax and deeznuts on ilx who sort of liked snatch, huh

unsurprising coming from a yankees fan

I've never seen a Ritchie movie, no plans to change that.

snatch is fun

It's been a while since I read the Holmes books but I think Sherlock knew how to use his fists.

snatch is fun

So is the movie!

holmes did jujitsu--he sonned moriarity under the falls remember

Ron Rosenbaum's Billy Joel vs "You're Only Human (Second Wind)"

If this has as much to do with actual Sherlock Holmes as the Lawnmower Man movie did with the book, I'll consider it a success. I'll also consider it a success if I see it drunk or it has boobies.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/01/25/arts/25lyal600.jpg

Raging Holmes

Holmes for Hire

Sherlock, Stock, and...etc., etc.

no denying he's looking ripped

but for holmes apatowed you all know there's supposed to be a sacha baron cohen and will ferrell version of this coming out about the same time?

guys we already went over this in the "who would win in a fight?" thread

perhaps this downey movie will be a brooding and violent reflection on how hunter and hunted... are not so different after all

which one is this, dante's peak or volcano?

No coke, says the NY Times article.

i was about to say 'wtf? the flacks would never be like "yeah, RDJ is back on the powder!"', but now i see yr point.

My mom is a big Sherlock Holmes fan, and this kind of makes me sad because it mongrelizes it into a flashy hollywood junk. Just like Watchmen or Lovecraft, these things were not intended for the movie medium, the were made for Graphic novels or to be serialized in magazines. Why do people think that making a movie of something is elevating it into its ultimate incarnation?

the train has kind of sailed on complaining about sherlock holmes being made into films.

because that's where the money is?

xp

$$$$$$$$$

xp

this looks good, 'van helsing' good!

Any time I come across Van Helsing on cable I just have to watch.

the purists always have jeremy brett to comfort them. for non-purists, this could be fun.

(any seven-percent solution fans here? been years since i saw it, but i remember it fondly. there's some swashbuckling in that, too.)

Why do people think that making a movie of something is elevating it into its ultimate incarnation?

Who exactly believes this, as opposed to "bringing it to an audience that might not otherwise encounter it in its original format?"

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v134/tracerhand/steampunkband.jpg

if rdj needs a sequel, i recommend:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51FB22PZTAL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

"bringing it to an audience that might not otherwise encounter it in its original format?"

but the thing that's being brought is no longer "it"

jesus christ.

good example

Why do people think that making a movie of something is elevating it into its ultimate incarnation?

http://filipspagnoli.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/plato.jpg

EP 3 is good enough to make you forget about #2, but it's mainly a lead up to the next season (whenever that happens)

And yes, EP 1 is amazingly great.

during ep 1 i think i said "YESSSS!" several times

Yeah, 1 is amazing work. Incredible, too, how effective Cumberbatch is right from the off. Immediately you find yourself questioning how many obvious facts you fail to notice about people in your own life.

Compare w/the Guy Ritchie film which hinted at that sort of thing but never exploited it.

Plus the dude's name is Cumberbatch. He could be playing anything and you want him to succeed.

People who could be characters in a Harry Potter book:

- Benedict Cumberbatch
- Andrew Clutterbuck
- Rupert Grint

hermione granger

Thought Holmes was pretty decent when I saw it in the cinema, but rewatching most of it on HBO this weekend and I've come to the conclusion that, actually, it's not very good. Or at the very least, never worth watching again.

And yes, the BBC modern version probably has a lot to do with that. And ep 3 is greeeaat.

Re the BBC modern version, eps 1 and 3 written by the same bloke, ep 2 by someone else. As long as they keep that guy away from series 2

Hate that guy now

Re the BBC modern version, eps 1 and 3 written by the same bloke, ep 2 by someone else. As long as they keep that guy away from series 2

the climax of e3 was a bit of a let down. 2 was dreadful. 1 was great. i hate new doctor who btw.

during ep 1 i think i said "YESSSS!" several times

― shirley summistake (s1ocki), Monday, December 6, 2010 2:23 AM (11 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

me too!

Martin Freeman's Watson is a bit of a pissant, though.

that's actually incorrect

just watched eps 1 & 2 recently:

the bbc sherlock series by the dr who 'bloke' and starring tim from the office

I was going to say, do we have to sully the new series by lumping it in with this shitty, shitty movie?

this was ok, thought it'd be a lil more fun than it was but i found my attention wandering a lot... really could've benefitted from snappier dialogue and maybe fewer explosions... kinda wish a movie like this could get made these days without having a bunch of steampunk crap in it but thats a nitpick

speaking of nitpicks - while the set design was nice, the costumes got pretty wacky - mark strong was wearing like a pleather duster at one point with slicked back nazi hair and it was pretty distracting

if i were a little more attached to the holmes character i might complain about his depiction, but RJD was so good that it probably doesnt matter

cool score, hans zimmer kinda killing it lately - rewatched thin red line earlier this year and the music was awesome, maybe hes always been rad and i never noticed?

hope they get someone sick as hell to play moriarty

Lane Pryce!!!

― (¬_¬) (Nicole), Wednesday, September 29, 2010 9:54 AM (2 months ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

cool score, hans zimmer kinda killing it lately - rewatched thin red line earlier this year and the music was awesome, maybe hes always been rad and i never noticed?

― Princess TamTam, Saturday, December 11, 2010 10:56 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

Sometimes he's super awesome, sometimes he phones it in and picks up the paycheck.

Hated this fucking movie, btw.

this was ok, thought it'd be a lil more fun than it was but i found my attention wandering a lot... really could've benefitted from snappier dialogue and maybe fewer explosions... kinda wish a movie like this could get made these days without having a bunch of steampunk crap in it but thats a nitpick

This is all OTM. I wanted to like this so much more than I actually did; even though I didn't dislike it, too much of it felt off/wrong for me to really enjoy it.

I'm still down for the new one being imperfectly entertainingly ridiculous. In fact I could be happy if this is all Guy Ritchie ever does again for the rest of his career and he leaves all other filmmaking alone.

sherlock holmes stories (and animorphs books) were my comic books as a little kid, and i still know all the bullshit (and self-contradictory) details about everything and could make top ten lists of the stories and etc., and i thought this was pretty good -- the case itself was of course noisy irrelevant gibberish and rachel mcadams (GODDESS) was wasted as the woman, but portraying sherlock holmes as a superhero whose superpower is autism, and emphasizing the bickering-roommates angle, was as good an approach as a hollywood movie's ever gonna take; certainly better than the numbing rathbone/bruce stuff. i even liked the fight scene gimmick, because it has it both ways -- the tactical clarity of slo-mo and the disorienting impressiveness of normal speed -- without resorting to that spastic zach snyder thing.

thanks for reminding me how much this movie fucking blows

The fight scene was my favorite sequence in the movie; after that I just started to feel ground down and distracted.

i seriously can't remember a single thing about it

somebody's head almost got knocked off by a runaway anchor, that part was pretty good

there are a few totally baffling scenes in this (the villains plotting, etc.) in which neither downey nor law appear and in their absence the movie plummets immediately into nothingness, so they may actually be all i like about it (except for the dinner scene w/ watson's fiance -- "i didn't leave him; he died" -- which does a v. good job of bringing in the Movie Emotions the businesslike stories never bothered with without violating the characters) but fortunately they're in most of it.

yeah, actually the further i get from this the crappier it becomes to me. trailer for the sequel looks like another dumb explosionfest

i'm cool w/ it as long as they throw in "you must stop it, mr. holmes; you really must, you know"

otm re wasting both mcadams and the character she was playing

Downey jr is never hard to watch, law often is but was ok here, everything looked great bar cgi, support cast very good, plot was utter shite, actively distracted from the fun, imma say 6.5/10

that's probably exactly where i stand. when law's terrible it's usually (well, "often" -- may be out of my depth here) because his looks have fooled casting directors into thinking he's a leading man; he's much more comfortable/expressive as a bitchy sidekick.

I liked this movie and anticipate the sequel and I think it's the best thing Guy Ritchie's done.

not anywhere near snatch, lock stock

xxp yeah, law's not untalented or uninteresting, but he's very unloveable. When cast along those lines, he wouldn't let you down.

also my mom loved this movie, which blew my mind cuz she's a late-british-empire girl from midcentury singapore and never did get her american citizenship and i thought it was safe to assume that if she was gonna be contemptuous of anything it would be a movie where sherlock holmes joins the UFC, but she was beaming when we got out.

imo his gangster ones are all the same movie

the same very slick and entertaining movie, dunno how that's really a criticism tbh

i've been trying to figure out whether it was law or downey who was a problem for me, and i think it's law. i think if they found a way to make the buddy movie dynamic really ~sing~ i would've forgiven the movie's excesses a lot more. the chemistry between them just wasnt there for me - compare w/downey and kilmer in kiss kiss bang bang, which basically made the movie

u just hot for downey slash

I have better memories of this movie than the 2nd BBC Sherlock ep from last year, at least.

Except the ending was stupid and tacked on in this one.

Curious to see how they use Stephen Fry, too.

plot was utter shite

i think i've seen this twice but i have zero recollection of what the plot is.

all i remember is that the villain wants to take back the american colonies -- monstrous!

evil dude in parliament is doing occult magic in a creepy attempt to take over the government

the magic all turns out to be parlor tricks or have a scientific basis, as deduced by holmes

also there are some fight scenes

rachel mcsmashems appears as a foil in that she's had a past relaish with holmes but is actually getting paid to work against him

This movie was dumb but I'll never understand why anyone prefers the dire new BBC version to it.

Being, as I am, on the very trailing edge of popular culture, I only just watched this on DVD last night. imo, it could boast two excellencies: the production and art design, intended to create a cinematic (and therefore much intensified) version of 1890s London was a treat. Whenever they were reproducing the "real" London, the sets, costumes, props, outdoor scenes and the CGI-tweaks were mostly outstanding. Wherever the occult elements were strongly involved, and a larger dose of imagination was required, the sets and other details were pure schlock.

The other excellency of the movie was Downey, who made a very mediocre script both watchable and entertaining. Jude Law was the only other actor who acquitted himself decently enough and I suspect that was because he was invariably playing opposite Downey, who lifted his game. Subtract Downey from this film and all you'd have left is Guy Ritchie's egregious and unwatchable schlock.

Oh, and to appreciate the movie you must take it as a comedy. Seeing it in any other light would ruin it entirely.

being even more on the trailing edge of culture than above Aimless guy, I am just about to watch this. Here I go

i loathed every long minute of this loud aggravating ugly movie.

Whenever I hear that Stephen Fry is in a movie, I just picture the same scene from Fish Called Wanda.

i enjoyed both of these movies, if you just take them as derivations of indiana jones set it the early 20th century plus lots of trendy digital effects

tried to watch both on hbo but there's just something about guy ritchie movies that turns me into george c scott in hardcore