Sherlock Holmes (DOWNEY JR)

SSBrew - 728
Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
cheezydemon3

cheezydemon3

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2009
Messages
12,915
Reaction score
1,677
Location
louisville
Take an almost historical beloved character from fiction, known for his composure, wit and incredible intellect.

Seamlessly transform him into a martial arts master and action hero who is slightly unstable and misunderstood in his brilliance,(which Downey is at extreme risk of being type-cast in only his second role back from the abyss) give him a taste for cage fighting and a side kick.

Imagine sherlock and Dr Watson (the portly and......I mean the ever sexy jude law....:confused:) in a film of punching and fighting, where sherlock and watson beat up whole gangs for an appetizer, before holmes beats up some huge guy in the 17th century version of a cage match for the main course.......where 19th century England is cool as $hit, and everyone is awesome.

If this sounds good to you, turn off the justin timberlake you are listening to, grab some ice cold budweiser, and settle in for a good time.

For those of you who are doubtful but figure "Well, Iron man was SO good! SO......I will give this movie a shot."

Turn back now.

I lasted 40 minutes or so.

PHUCK THIS MOVIE.

HORRIBLE.
 
Why did they use a Yank? What's up with the Kung Fu? I doubt if A.C. Doyle would approve.

Anyone seen the semi-recent BBC series with Jeremy Brett? Absolutely outstanding!! (Instant Watch on Netflix)


As for Iron Man, I saw it last week. What a disappointment. Just a long series of cliches.
 
arturo7 said:
Why did they use a Yank? What's up with the Kung Fu? I doubt if A.C. Doyle would approve.

Anyone seen the semi-recent BBC series with Jeremy Brett? Absolutely outstanding!! (Instant Watch on Netflix)


As for Iron Man, I saw it last week. What a disappointment. Just a long series of cliches.
Click to expand...

We stream through the Wii, thanks for the recommendation.

northernlad said:
So, movies snobs too...
Click to expand...

Really, I guess it is the potential that a movie has to be really great, that is not only left on the floor, but trampled, impaled, and spat upon that upsets me.

And yeah, I refuse to watch crap. What's the problem?
 
cheezydemon3 said:
Take an almost historical beloved character from fiction, known for his composure, wit and incredible intellect.

Seamlessly transform him into a martial arts master and action hero who is slightly unstable and misunderstood in his brilliance,(which Downey is at extreme risk of being type-cast in only his second role back from the abyss) give him a taste for cage fighting and a side kick.

Imagine sherlock and Dr Watson (the portly and......I mean the ever sexy jude law....:confused:) in a film of punching and fighting, where sherlock and watson beat up whole gangs for an appetizer, before holmes beats up some huge guy in the 17th century version of a cage match for the main course.......where 19th century England is cool as $hit, and everyone is awesome.

If this sounds good to you, turn off the justin timberlake you are listening to, grab some ice cold budweiser, and settle in for a good time.

For those of you who are doubtful but figure "Well, Iron man was SO good! SO......I will give this movie a shot."

Turn back now.

I lasted 40 minutes or so.

PHUCK THIS MOVIE.

HORRIBLE.
Click to expand...

Go to your local bookstore and for like $10-$20 you can pick up everything Doyle ever wrote about Holmes. Then go home and actually read it. Your impression of him will change significantly. I do agree that Watson was grossly mis-characterized but Holmes was very viable given the source material. He wasn't "cage fighting." He was bareknuckle boxing and yeah, he did that in at least one story I can recall. In fact, in that one I'm thinking of (had to look up the title: The Sign of the Four), he alludes to bareknuckle as something of a hobby. There is also ample mention of Holmes' prowess with swords and short staff-style weaponry. There is also extensive reference to Holmes using martial arts, but most of what I recall there comes from after his "cliffhanger" with Moriarty. It wasn't my favorite version of Holmes but I personally had no problem with how he was portrayed. If anything, the Guy Ritchie rendition is just a bit of a backlash at decades of film and TV that completely ignore this side of Holmes' character.
 
The Jeremy Brett series is fantastic...


I haven't seen the film yet, but from everything I've heard it's actually close to the character as portrayed in the books.
 
arturo7 said:
Why did they use a Yank? What's up with the Kung Fu? I doubt if A.C. Doyle would approve.

Anyone seen the semi-recent BBC series with Jeremy Brett? Absolutely outstanding!! (Instant Watch on Netflix)


As for Iron Man, I saw it last week. What a disappointment. Just a long series of cliches.
Click to expand...

Jeremy Brett was awesome in that role, the best one ever. Such a shame he died, I wish they had made more of them but I can watch them over and over again they are so good. I love the way he would wave his hand to dismiss someone once he was done with them, a polite "Please go away now"

Do you like the Poirot series with David Suchet? Another of my all time favorite characters. The setting and costumes make you feel you are really watching people living in those times.
 
Big Holmes fan here... not in a ridiculously geeky way, but let's just say I've actually been to Reichenbach Falls.:)

Jeremy Brett was by far the quintessential Holmes. Both of the Watsons were also pretty good in those films/shows, but I prefer the earlier one better. I own most of the Jeremy Brett series... except for Hound of the Baskervilles, which was a bit of a disappointment for Brett. And he is difficult to watch in The Eligible Bachelor and some of the other later episodes due to his declining health.

I must admit I was entertained by the Robert Downey Holmes movie, but it was definitely not true to the character of Holmes in Doyle's books. (His slovenly dress was so anti-Victorian and not characteristic of the gentleman Holmes). But compared to the other crap spewed forth by the modern commercial film industry, it was at least a fun watch.
 
WillPall said:
I see you are a Basil Rathbone fan as well? Good career choice for Downey Jr. Bad bad bad interpretation of Holmes.
Click to expand...

I watched a Basil Rathbone version just last week (Forget the title)

I thoroughly enjoyed it for it's simplicity. Then, about an hour later it dawned on me.....They kept getting in and out of cars circa late 30's!!! WTF!? I still enjoyed the movie, but felt strangely disturbed for a while afterwards. :)
 
jgln said:
Jeremy Brett was awesome in that role,

Do you like the Poirot series with David Suchet? Another of my all time favorite characters. The setting and costumes make you feel you are really watching people living in those times.
Click to expand...

Two terrific shows made with great character and appreciation for their interpretations of the stories.
 
Also, a case could be made for Holmes knowing some form of Asian martial arts; in one story he defeats an opponent with Bartitsu, which Holmes describes as "a Japanese system of wrestling".
 
caphector said:
Also, a case could be made for Holmes knowing some form of Asian martial arts; in one story he defeats an opponent with Bartitsu, which Holmes describes as "a Japanese system of wrestling".
Click to expand...

And of course, A.C. Doyle believed that Houdini could dematerialize and then re materialize himself in order to make his escapes. I'm sure that his own vision of Sherlock would have been a lot more magical than the character he became portrayed as in movie adaptations. (I can't remember the books I read as a kid, does it show?)
 
Laughing_Gnome_Invisible said:
And of course, A.C. Doyle believed that Houdini could dematerialize and then re materialize himself in order to make his escapes. I'm sure that his own vision of Sherlock would have been a lot more magical than the character he became portrayed as in movie adaptations. (I can't remember the books I read as a kid, does it show?)
Click to expand...

I'm currently re-reading my Holmes stories, but as I recall none of the stories have anything other than a natural explanation. Even the the most outré of them (Hound of the Baskervilles, IMO) ends up being caused by man, not occult influences.

I haven't read much of Doyle outside of Holmes and The Lost World; perhaps he deals more in the occult in other works.
 
caphector said:
I'm currently re-reading my Holmes stories, but as I recall none of the stories have anything other than a natural explanation. Even the the most outré of them (Hound of the Baskervilles, IMO) ends up being caused by man, not occult influences.

I haven't read much of Doyle outside of Holmes and The Lost World; perhaps he deals more in the occult in other works.
Click to expand...

No, my point was not that SH is occult in any way, just that A C Doyle was so far out there regarding his imagination, that his creation was more likely to be far outside the capabilities of a regular person (As SH was intellectually) I imagine (Keyword imagine) That in Doyle's mind, SH was almost flawless, apart from that druggy kryptonite thing he had.

Hey, I have no idea. SH is just one of those characters that we build our own stories and imaginings around. :)
 
True I've never read any, I have just seen the various series on PBS.

I appreciate the references to the original literature which I can not speak of.

I can, however, say with some certainty, that SH and the good DR never beat up a whole gang of deuchey bad guys all batman style, just in time for the inspector to show up.

That was part of my unrealized hatred of this, it borrowed more from THE DARK KNIGHT than from the series on KET (PBS).

Either way, it was too ridiculous and "hollywood" to be any good.
 
Laughing_Gnome_Invisible said:
We did? I need evidence! Dispense of the obvious, whatever remains will be the truth. (Short and dumb version)
Click to expand...


We did!!.............but I can't find it. Probably started out as a discussion about peanuts, toilet seats, fish food or maybe Pamela Anderson and somehow became a discussion about SH and Poirot.

Why do people do that, you know, get off topic??? :D
 
arturo7 said:
And I thought all this time that I was the only Sherlock Holmes geek.
Click to expand...

Same here!

Despite the fictionality of it, his methods can actually work. Last year at a community I was working in, I had heard that a woman got mugged the night before (forced into her home at gun point and they stole a laptop, stereo, etc.) and the police came out and did their investigation, which was apparently worse than Lestrade.

So, I put on my Holmes hat (figuratively) and started snooping around. I looked around the fenced-in community for the most likely escape route and right where I thought they would jump the fence (a small clearing in the trees overhanging the fence a good distance from the scene of the crime) I looked down and laying in the grass was a CD. It was Vivaldi. I figured it unlikely that anyone in the adjacent Section 8 housing area would be listening to Vivaldi. It ended up being from the woman's stereo system.:)
 
cheezydemon3 said:
I can, however, say with some certainty, that SH and the good DR never beat up a whole gang of deuchey bad guys all batman style, just in time for the inspector to show up.
Click to expand...

I may watch the movie when I've finished re-reading the series (AKA The Canon if you're even geekier than I am).

Holmes was described as "an expert singlestick player, boxer, and swordsman"; he only rarely gets into fights. I've seen some speculation that this is because Doyle didn't want to be compared to popular literature that did emphasize fighting.

Now that I think about it, if Holmes *is* getting into a lot of fights that's going against portrayal in the stories. He has some occasional references, but not a lot. The three biggest fight refereneces I can recall are in "The Sign of Four" (Holmes is recognized as a talented boxer), "The Adventure of the Solitary Cyclist" (see below for full quote) and "The Adventure of the Empty House".

Doyle said:
He had a fine flow of language, and his adjectives were very vigorous. He ended a string of abuse by a vicious backhander, which I failed to entirely avoid. The next few minutes were delicious. It was a straight left against a slogging ruffian. I emerged as you see me. Mr. Woodley went home in a cart.
Click to expand...

The argument could be made that Holmes was a good fighter; Watson I'd be more doubtful of. He tends to carry a gun and had some vague issues with his war wound.

And as to me being a Holmes geek, well, I seem to be congenitally incapable of enjoying something without wanting to know everything about it.
 
I thought the movie was very enjoyable. But since I have never read the books, I have no basis of comparison. Parts of the movie were just a bit "Overzealous", but I managed to take it in stride and thought it was somewhat clever, and fairly humourous.

A typical Hollywoodizing of a book series, but not the worst I've seen, I'm sure, and still enjoyable on it's own. Once I get done with Donaldson's Covenant series, I may pick up the Sherlock Holmes stories and check them out.

And remember that while we consider the books to be "classics", in their time, they were pop culture.
 
caphector said:
I may watch the movie when I've finished re-reading the series (AKA The Canon if you're even geekier than I am).

Holmes was described as "an expert singlestick player, boxer, and swordsman"; he only rarely gets into fights. I've seen some speculation that this is because Doyle didn't want to be compared to popular literature that did emphasize fighting.

Now that I think about it, if Holmes *is* getting into a lot of fights that's going against portrayal in the stories. He has some occasional references, but not a lot. The three biggest fight refereneces I can recall are in "The Sign of Four" (Holmes is recognized as a talented boxer), "The Adventure of the Solitary Cyclist" (see below for full quote) and "The Adventure of the Empty House".



The argument could be made that Holmes was a good fighter; Watson I'd be more doubtful of. He tends to carry a gun and had some vague issues with his war wound.

And as to me being a Holmes geek, well, I seem to be congenitally incapable of enjoying something without wanting to know everything about it.
Click to expand...

That have jumped the bad guy on more than one occasion in order to capture them. e.g. A Study in Scarlet
 
weirdboy said:
That have jumped the bad guy on more than one occasion in order to capture them. e.g. A Study in Scarlet
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's not like SH is supposed to be an invalid, or Watson retarded. I think the problem with the film (Which I enjoyed on it's own merits) Is that it just makes this classic character just like every other Hollywood action hero. We've seen it all before.
 
Except Downey Jr. has been in several movies since 'the abyss' besides Ironman.

Example: The Soloist (with Jaime Foxx)

Yes, the movie was a far reach from the classic tale.

What else would you expect from Hollywood?

if you want a story told right, see an indie flick :)
 
If it had been called "Pearly Lindlehammer" about a streetfighting genius, it might have been good.

Being "Sherlock Holmes" it was a steaming pile.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top