New "Sherlock Holmes" trailer

May 19, 2009 11:57

Hell yesLooks like stupid-but-fun entertainment. The portrayal of Watson (by, um, Jude Law) feels much closer in spirit to the ex-military man of the books, and the oft-ignored mischievous side of Holmes himself suits somebody of Downey Jr.'s exuberance. Of course, it could simply rape the hell out of everything Conan Doyle ever wrote, but I'm ( Read more... )

films

Leave a comment

Comments 11

jarethrake May 19 2009, 11:39:16 UTC
Jude Law looks pretty much how I imagine Watson, but Downey jr looks nothing like my image of Holmes. That said, that's probably better, since most images come from the older films rather than the actual stories.

It looks like they've put in a lot of things from the books, like Holmes being a good amateur boxer and whatnot. From the trailer, I get the impression of someone who loves the books, and hated that the general public didn't know all the little bits of trivia from them.

I'm not sure about the apparent romantic subplot. Holmes was always pretty much asexual.

I wonder if they'll include his drug abuse?

Reply

peredur_glyn May 19 2009, 12:53:56 UTC
It looks like they've put in a lot of things from the books, like Holmes being a good amateur boxer and whatnot. From the trailer, I get the impression of someone who loves the books, and hated that the general public didn't know all the little bits of trivia from them.

Yes, I thought that. Trying to get away from the deer-stalker and hooked pipe stuff. I applaud such an approach, but there's more to a good film than minor trivial accuracies. And there's lots of shooting and explosions (and reanimated corpses?) in this film, which hardly features in the books at all.

I'm not sure about the apparent romantic subplot. Holmes was always pretty much asexual.

True, but given how fine Rachel MacAdams looks in that get-up, I'll reserve judgement.

I wonder if they'll include his drug abuse?

I'd be surprised if they didn't. I'm sure they'd consider it gritty and relevant. Though if they're aiming it at a younger audience (i.e. 12A rather than 15 or 18), then they might well play it down.

Reply

jarethrake May 19 2009, 12:57:13 UTC
True, but given how fine Rachel MacAdams looks in that get-up, I'll reserve judgement.

I'd hit it. I just hope that they remember that Holmes really would be interested in her mind.

As for the drugs...it was the actual injecting I was thinking of. I'm sure they'll put in some references, especially as they've cast Downey jr, but I doubt they'll show him with a needle in his hand.

I'm a little rusty on the stories, but Holmes was never an alcoholic, was he? Just liked cocaine, iirc. I'm not sure if the trailer mentions alcoholism, but Watson does talk about Holmes' issues.

Reply

peredur_glyn May 19 2009, 13:06:08 UTC
Don't recall him being a drinker. And the drugs, I think, were always subtly-referenced by Doyle.

Holmes' character doesn't need to be made angsty to be interesting, and a worry with a screen adaptation to try and up his 'issues' and make that the focus of his character, whereas actually his brain is his most salient feature. That seems evident in the trailer for this film, and also emphasizes his physicality, which I welcome.

Reply


dyddgu May 19 2009, 12:19:35 UTC
I am amazed that knirirr has yet to join in this thread to point out that a) we know the fight choreographers from MA circles, and b) they do proper authentic Victorian Bartitsu, and have incorporated much of it into this film.
I will have to do it for him.

Reply

peredur_glyn May 19 2009, 12:50:36 UTC
Yeh, I was going to comment on how 'proper' the bare-knuckle business looked, but assumed one of you two would pipe up anyway ;)

Reply

dyddgu May 19 2009, 12:51:41 UTC
There's a tidy representation of it also in the Jeremy Brett Holmes, "The Affair of the Solitary Cyclist."
We're hoping to do some Bartitsu at some point in the future...

Reply

peredur_glyn May 19 2009, 12:56:33 UTC
Cool!

I recall the trailer showing some people hitting each other in the face a lot. Accurate? I had understood that this happened rarely in this style of fighting, given that it would result in broken fingers? Hence why gloveless BK boxing was statistically safer than modern boxing...?

Reply


Leave a comment

Up