I thought they were overplaying Holmes as the crazy man-of-action at the beginning. The "cage match" and the unkempt Holmes were a bit much at first, and I was seriously missing the deductive reasoning parts. But later in, the movie settled in to give us more of Holmes the detective--and of course, the point was to show how incredibly out of sorts he was without a challenging case to focus his vast mental energies. Once he started doing some sleuthing I was pleasantly surprised too. It was paced well, I liked the way they reproduced England, the action was good, the villain good, the music was very impressive. And Law as Watson is probably closer to the book than the more aged, sidekicks of the movie.
My only slight complaint was that Rachel McAdams seemed just a tad too young and slight of personality to play Holmes' untrustworthy lover. I'd have preferred a slightly older, stronger actress in the role. But no real big issue there. My wife and I both liked it, moreso as we discussed it this past weekend. Indeed, I wouldn't mind seeing it again. And boy did they leave things open for a sequel! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mr. Worf" <hellomahog...@gmail.com> To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 4:39:27 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Sherlock Holmes That was my first thoughts too. Now I'm glad that I saw it. I just hope that they don't try to take two different actors and turn it into a tv show. On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:04 AM, B Smith < daikaij...@yahoo.com > wrote: The reviews were pretty good. It was more griping from "true" fans over Ritchie's take. Turns out it was the fans of the movie Sherlock Holmes series and not the Holmes of the books. They thought his style and storytelling didn't mesh with Sherlock Holmes. Boy were they wrong. Ritchie did his homework by going to the source material and delivered an entertaining and exciting film. --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com , "Tracey de Morsella" <tdli...@...> wrote: > > I read all good reviews. I'm dying to see it. What did you hear? > > -----Original Message----- > From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com ] On > Behalf Of B Smith > Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 8:56 AM > To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [scifinoir2] Re: Sherlock Holmes > > I don't know why this movie got so much flack at first. It's was very good > and Downey and Law were excellent. > > Guy Ritchie has his golden ticket to A list status now. > > --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com , "Mr. Worf" <HelloMahogany@> wrote: > > > > Just saw the movie, and I enjoyed it. Lots of authentic looking eye candy. > > Interesting plot. Robert Downey's Sherlock seemed right on target. I was > > leery that they would somehow over do it but it felt right. > > > > Dr. Watson got a bit of an upgrade which made his character more enjoyable > > than previous incarnations. Jude Law made a believable counterpart to > > Sherlock. > > > > Bonus points for the Steampunk gadgetry. > > > > -- > > Celebrating 10 years of bringing diversity to perversity! > > Mahogany at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/ > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > Post your SciFiNoir Profile at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/app/peoplemap2/entry/add?fmvn=mapYa > hoo! Groups Links > ------------------------------------ Post your SciFiNoir Profile at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/app/peoplemap2/entry/add?fmvn=mapYahoo ! Groups Links -- Celebrating 10 years of bringing diversity to perversity! Mahogany at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/
