http://www.thesheaf.com/2010/02/03/review-sherlock-holmes-is-elementary/ Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:51:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://www.thesheaf.com/2010/02/03/review-sherlock-holmes-is-elementary/#comment-2165 Stetson Thu, 22 Apr 2010 04:26:05 +0000 http://thesheaf.com/?p=2679#comment-2165 I absolutely agree with Ben. If anyone wants to know anything about Sherlock Holmes, pick up a book. It will do wonders for you. I absolutely agree with Ben. If anyone wants to know anything about Sherlock Holmes, pick up a book. It will do wonders for you.

]]> http://www.thesheaf.com/2010/02/03/review-sherlock-holmes-is-elementary/#comment-2087 ben Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:10:41 +0000 http://thesheaf.com/?p=2679#comment-2087 that is completely unfounded. if someone were to have done "proper research" they would have looked at the "half remembered Basil Rathbone." Conan Doyle painted a good enough picture of sherlock holmes that Rathbone simply read what everyone else read. things were pretty simple at the time, so there wasn't the need for interpretation. Also, what I always got from the original pieces was that even though holmes knew how to fight, he only did so in order to help an investigation. the same reason he did opium, and the same reason he did kooky experiments. Downy played a slob, and, if I hadn't known any better, I would have called him a drunk. there's a reason bloggers and critics attack his acting, and its not because everyone's a complete moron. also, its completely possible to have the same mannerisms, but that doesn't mean that he's the same character, or does it for the same reason. any actor knows that... actually most people know that in general. also, the acting wasn't the only issue. certain visual things like the meditating seemed wrong. The reader's never knew how sherlock holmes thought until after the fact. Also, one glaringly obvious "not original moment" is Irene Addler. she was supposed to be the only girl who ever outsmarted Holmes. its exactly like cheetham said. they only added rachel mcadams to look pretty. The movie could have been written better, less actiony, and even truer to the original than it already isn't. besides: the study in scarlet, the hounds of baskerville, the mysterious 4 (not quite sure on that one), and one other. 4 novels done for sherlock holmes. the very first story with holmes in it was a novel, not a short story. why on earth did the director HAVE to combine so many different story aspects? it just didn't work. that is completely unfounded. if someone were to have done "proper research" they would have looked at the "half remembered Basil Rathbone." Conan Doyle painted a good enough picture of sherlock holmes that Rathbone simply read what everyone else read. things were pretty simple at the time, so there wasn't the need for interpretation. Also, what I always got from the original pieces was that even though holmes knew how to fight, he only did so in order to help an investigation. the same reason he did opium, and the same reason he did kooky experiments. Downy played a slob, and, if I hadn't known any better, I would have called him a drunk. there's a reason bloggers and critics attack his acting, and its not because everyone's a complete moron. also, its completely possible to have the same mannerisms, but that doesn't mean that he's the same character, or does it for the same reason. any actor knows that… actually most people know that in general. also, the acting wasn't the only issue. certain visual things like the meditating seemed wrong. The reader's never knew how sherlock holmes thought until after the fact. Also, one glaringly obvious "not original moment" is Irene Addler. she was supposed to be the only girl who ever outsmarted Holmes. its exactly like cheetham said. they only added rachel mcadams to look pretty. The movie could have been written better, less actiony, and even truer to the original than it already isn't. besides: the study in scarlet, the hounds of baskerville, the mysterious 4 (not quite sure on that one), and one other. 4 novels done for sherlock holmes. the very first story with holmes in it was a novel, not a short story. why on earth did the director HAVE to combine so many different story aspects? it just didn't work.

]]> http://www.thesheaf.com/2010/02/03/review-sherlock-holmes-is-elementary/#comment-2088 ben Fri, 16 Apr 2010 08:10:41 +0000 http://thesheaf.com/?p=2679#comment-2088 that is completely unfounded. if someone were to have done "proper research" they would have looked at the "half remembered Basil Rathbone." Conan Doyle painted a good enough picture of sherlock holmes that Rathbone simply read what everyone else read. things were pretty simple at the time, so there wasn't the need for interpretation. Also, what I always got from the original pieces was that even though holmes knew how to fight, he only did so in order to help an investigation. the same reason he did opium, and the same reason he did kooky experiments. Downy played a slob, and, if I hadn't known any better, I would have called him a drunk. there's a reason bloggers and critics attack his acting, and its not because everyone's a complete moron. also, its completely possible to have the same mannerisms, but that doesn't mean that he's the same character, or does it for the same reason. any actor knows that... actually most people know that in general. also, the acting wasn't the only issue. certain visual things like the meditating seemed wrong. The reader's never knew how sherlock holmes thought until after the fact. Also, one glaringly obvious "not original moment" is Irene Addler. she was supposed to be the only girl who ever outsmarted Holmes. its exactly like cheetham said. they only added rachel mcadams to look pretty. The movie could have been written better, less actiony, and even truer to the original than it already isn't. besides: the study in scarlet, the hounds of baskerville, the mysterious 4 (not quite sure on that one), and one other. 4 novels done for sherlock holmes. the very first story with holmes in it was a novel, not a short story. why on earth did the director HAVE to combine so many different story aspects? it just didn't work. that is completely unfounded. if someone were to have done "proper research" they would have looked at the "half remembered Basil Rathbone." Conan Doyle painted a good enough picture of sherlock holmes that Rathbone simply read what everyone else read. things were pretty simple at the time, so there wasn't the need for interpretation. Also, what I always got from the original pieces was that even though holmes knew how to fight, he only did so in order to help an investigation. the same reason he did opium, and the same reason he did kooky experiments. Downy played a slob, and, if I hadn't known any better, I would have called him a drunk. there's a reason bloggers and critics attack his acting, and its not because everyone's a complete moron. also, its completely possible to have the same mannerisms, but that doesn't mean that he's the same character, or does it for the same reason. any actor knows that… actually most people know that in general. also, the acting wasn't the only issue. certain visual things like the meditating seemed wrong. The reader's never knew how sherlock holmes thought until after the fact. Also, one glaringly obvious "not original moment" is Irene Addler. she was supposed to be the only girl who ever outsmarted Holmes. its exactly like cheetham said. they only added rachel mcadams to look pretty. The movie could have been written better, less actiony, and even truer to the original than it already isn't. besides: the study in scarlet, the hounds of baskerville, the mysterious 4 (not quite sure on that one), and one other. 4 novels done for sherlock holmes. the very first story with holmes in it was a novel, not a short story. why on earth did the director HAVE to combine so many different story aspects? it just didn't work.

]]> http://www.thesheaf.com/2010/02/03/review-sherlock-holmes-is-elementary/#comment-1194 Dude Skoodle Thu, 04 Feb 2010 12:19:47 +0000 http://thesheaf.com/?p=2679#comment-1194 Lee you are wrong- Downey is clearly a genius. The critic Matt Cheetham is mistaken too. I am very familiar with Conan Doyle and Downey's Holmes is very true to the original. For example in the stories Holmes was a boxer and a fencer. He also fired his gun inside and was embroiled in action eg when the Cunninghams tried to throttle him in the Reigate Puzzle and in his fight to the death with Moriarty when they fell into the waterfall. Also the many mannerisms in the original are faithfully reproduced in the movie e.g. thoughtfully putting his fingertips together, closing his eyes and meditating. Also in the Doyle writing is Holme's scruffiness as shown in the movie and the racing horse-drawn carriages. What I myself am tired of is people who haven't closely read the original saying this movie is not like the original. Its a bit like everybody becoming a shot-put and rowing expert when the Olympics are on. The movie isn't faithful to what many perceive as the original Holmes through half-remembered Basil Rathbone impressions from half forgotten movies. Holmes never had a deer hunters hat; nor does Downey. RDJ has clearly researched the hell out of this part. Its a pity that some critics and bloggers who don't bother to check the original written text, couldn't do some research themselves before attacking this remarkable actor. They make erroneous deductions. This was a very fine movie and since Conan Dole mostly had Sherlock in short stories one has to allow movie makers some license to unify the film by concocting a coherent story plot that makes sense in a modern movie. Lee you are wrong- Downey is clearly a genius. The critic Matt Cheetham is mistaken too. I am very familiar with Conan Doyle and Downey’s Holmes is very true to the original. For example in the stories Holmes was a boxer and a fencer. He also fired his gun inside and was embroiled in action eg when the Cunninghams tried to throttle him in the Reigate Puzzle and in his fight to the death with Moriarty when they fell into the waterfall. Also the many mannerisms in the original are faithfully reproduced in the movie e.g. thoughtfully putting his fingertips together, closing his eyes and meditating. Also in the Doyle writing is Holme’s scruffiness as shown in the movie and the racing horse-drawn carriages. What I myself am tired of is people who haven’t closely read the original saying this movie is not like the original. Its a bit like everybody becoming a shot-put and rowing expert when the Olympics are on. The movie isn’t faithful to what many perceive as the original Holmes through half-remembered Basil Rathbone impressions from half forgotten movies. Holmes never had a deer hunters hat; nor does Downey. RDJ has clearly researched the hell out of this part. Its a pity that some critics and bloggers who don’t bother to check the original written text, couldn’t do some research themselves before attacking this remarkable actor. They make erroneous deductions. This was a very fine movie and since Conan Dole mostly had Sherlock in short stories one has to allow movie makers some license to unify the film by concocting a coherent story plot that makes sense in a modern movie.

]]> http://www.thesheaf.com/2010/02/03/review-sherlock-holmes-is-elementary/#comment-1190 Lee Thu, 04 Feb 2010 03:48:40 +0000 http://thesheaf.com/?p=2679#comment-1190 I am tired of bloggers kissing Downey's ass. "Let’s face it, Robert Downey, Jr. is good in everything." Good lord give me a break! The guy plays various versions of his screen persona these days, the trade-marked Downey mumbling smart aleck. It may be entertaining for a while, but good acting it isn't. I am tired of bloggers kissing Downey’s ass. “Let’s face it, Robert Downey, Jr. is good in everything.” Good lord give me a break! The guy plays various versions of his screen persona these days, the trade-marked Downey mumbling smart aleck. It may be entertaining for a while, but good acting it isn’t.

]]>