comment #1

Edward says ...

I'd like to be surprised by this, but I won't hold my breath; however, R.Downey, Jr. does make it more interesting.

comment #2

great scott says ...

If memrory serves, the first hour or so of Young Sherlock Holmes is pretty good. It was in the second hour that it went off the rails with that Temple of Doom ripoff nonsense.

comment #3

MindlessObamaton says ...

With Ed here. RDJ is the only thing making me want to give it a chance but that FIGHT CLUB pic does nothing to get me interested.

comment #4

hawthorne says ...

It seems to me you are jumping on this abit harshly. Sure it is meant to be a popcorn munching movie. What is wrong with watching a good fast paced popcorn movie on a dreary Sunday afternoon? I love Good Films too as much as everyone who posts here but you know there is always a place in my heart for something fun and escapist as long as it is well done. Every movie does not have to be Revolutionary Road or There Will Be Blood. Guy Ritche has shown some style in the past and Downey is always interesting. I have also heard the rumor that Russell Crowe does a cameo as Moriarty at the end of the movie. This rumor has been denied but rumors are often denied. And you know you got Eddie Marsan playing Lestrade and Mark Strong is the Bad Guy. All I am saying is give it a chance.

comment #5

SB says ...

The fact is, that any time a movie depicts

comment #6

Markj74 says ...

I can't sit through Guy Ritchie films. I find them completely devoid of intelligence, films directed by a moron.

comment #7

George Prager says ...

Sherlock Holmes and the Curious Case of the Disco Tits.

Yes, YOUNG SHERLOCK HOLMES was a real piece of shit. Really brings you back to those pre-BLUE VELVET days when all 80s Hollywood movies were shit. And Guy Ritchie is the worst. I thought this Rupert Everett and Ian Hart Masterpiece Theatre one was really good:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/silkstocking/

comment #8

SB says ...

Sorry about that,. First time using the system. Starting again:

The fact is, any time a movie depicts Sherlock Holmes wearing the deerstalker and Inverness cloak anywhere but the English countryside, or while travelling by boat or train, it's wrong. Victorians had very well-defined rules about what kind of clothing was to be worn, at what time of the day, and under what circumstances. A real Sherlock Holmes would never have been caught dead wearing the classic hat and cape to the opera, for instance (as Chris Plummer does in Murder By Decree). On the other hand, when we see Nicol Williamson wearing the hat and a long tweed travelling coat in Seven-Per-Cent Solution, the costume designers were being perfectly accurate.

The Granada TV series with Jeremy Brett got it right; most Holmes movies get it wrong. (The episodes in which Brett does not wear the deerstalker far, far outnumber the ones in which he does.) All Lyall's statement says to me is that Ritchie's movie may be erring on the side of accuracy.

comment #9

Bilge says ...

For the record, EVERY Sherlock Holmes film has to reinvent Holmes. Even the Basil Rathbone films transported him into the mid-20th century to battle the Nazis. There have only been a small handful of canonical Holmes stories.

Sorry for the shameless self-promotion, but you can read an article I wrote about this here:
http://bookforum.com/inprint/015_04/2980

I'm not particularly excited about Guy Ritchie handling this material, but I have spoken to a couple of old school Holmes heads who've read the script, and they said they were pleasantly surprised, for what that's worth.

comment #10

Movie fan09 says ...

George Prager Author Profile Page says ...

Sherlock Holmes and the Curious Case of the Disco Tits.

Yes, YOUNG SHERLOCK HOLMES was a real piece of shit. Really brings you back to those pre-BLUE VELVET days when all 80s Hollywood movies were shit. And Guy Ritchie is the worst. I thought this Rupert Everett and Ian Hart Masterpiece Theatre one was really good:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/masterpiece/silkstocking/

Prager,
is that the same one where the opening credits has the deerstalk hat falling down a water fall?
It's the story of how the stories came to be by the author following his college professor(who was supposedly the model for holmes) on adventures.

comment #11

Gordon27 says ...

"And, I guess, no cocaine addiction. This is surely evidence of a degraded culture -- the animalization of rarified values"

The juxtaposition of these two thoughts is pretty hilarious.

"You know that if everyone had my taste in films Silver, Ritchie and Warner Bros. wouldn't dare make something like this."

If everybody else had what is currently your taste in films, you would turn around and complain that nobody respected a good popcorn movie, how hard they are to make, etc. You're a deliberate contrarian, Jeff -- of COURSE people don't share your taste in films.

" Will their Holmes be successful? Probably."

I'd bet all the money I have ever had or will ever have in the entire world and put it on "Fail". Guy Ritchie can't make a movie coherent or interesting enough for a crowd, and people will be openly mocking an ad where a bare-chested Downey is introduced as Sherlock Holmes.

comment #12

sidney falco says ...

I read this script and, quite to my surprise, enjoyed it The mystery is solid, the action raw and the characters engaging. Believe me this is not Indian Jones in any way.

comment #13

hunterd says ...

Oh get off it. Holmes was always designed as populist entertainment from the start.

comment #14

Hallick says ...

Jude Law doesn't strike me as all that bad an idea for Watson. His best work has always been in supporting roles, so maybe he'll redeem himself.

I wonder who the best director for this project would have been (what I don't do is wonder who a BETTER director would have been, for obvious reasons). It might have made a nice reinvention comeback for somebody like Whit Stillman.

comment #15

Carl Kolchak says ...

spot on, Hunterd, Holmes was always a favorite of the popcorn munchers. There have been how many movie and television shows made from this material? If it was a straight on, standard issue treatment of the material there would be complaints that it wasn't doing "anything new". Why not wait and see the damn movie before complaining?

comment #16

iamwhoiam says ...

I read an early version of the script, and it's not bad at all. It's a pretty dark Sherlock Holmes, quite true to the original Holmes, who was never too shy of a good fight. Yes, it's a modern film, but why not, really? If you want to make the 12762627 SH movie, don't you want to bring a fresh take?
I do agree with the worries about Guy Ritchie, but it's a pretty cool script and Downey will make the movie worth the price of admission.

comment #17

T. S. Idiot says ...

Washboard abs are becoming a growing distraction in period movies. How exactly would Holmes have achieved this effect?

comment #18

clancy says ...

"Disco Tits". That's a winner.

comment #19

D.Z. says ...

I guess Ritchie is fine with his own LXG and/or Sleepy Hollow. I'd compare it to the Jackie Chan Around the World in 80 Days, but I actually liked that one. It just had bad advertising.

SB: "A real Sherlock Holmes would never have been caught dead wearing the classic hat and cape to the opera, for instance (as Chris Plummer does in Murder By Decree)."

You do know Holmes was an eccentric guy, right?

Gordon: It'll bomb if no one likes "Ray 2"[aka "The Soloist"].

comment #20

EDouglasCS says ...

NIce, Warner Bros. While the onliners invited to the set have to sit on their hands not writing anything about this due to the embargo you forced us to sign, you let the NY Times spill all the beans months ahead of time so that our pieces will have absolutely no impact or worth whatsoever. Thanks!

comment #21

Luke Y. Thompson says ...

Young Sherlock Holmes, of course, notable for having the first ever CGI character in a movie (the stained glass knight).

comment #22

BurmaShave says ...

Watch Downey win Best Actor for this.

comment #23

Hallick says ...

"Washboard abs are becoming a growing distraction in period movies. How exactly would Holmes have achieved this effect?"

Maybe he had that talent Craig Bierko displayed in "Sour Grapes". That'll crunch a guy's abs up.

comment #24

corey3rd says ...

nobody reads the NY Times. If they did, they wouldn't be selling their building to make the rent.

comment #25

Gordon27 says ...

"It'll bomb if no one likes "Ray 2"[aka "The Soloist"]."

I don't know which is stupider, comparing 'The Soloist' to 'Ray' (because... um, Jamie Foxx playing an instrument? I guess?), or saying that this movie will succeed or fail based on 'The Soloist'.

Actually, I think it's your belief that it is remotely possible that anybody will like 'The Soloist'. Think about this: Paramount didn't have enough to money to promote all of their Oscar movies this year; they decided on 'Benjamin Button' and 'Revolutionary Road' and pulled back on 'Defiance' and 'The Soloist'. Then, at the last minute, they pushed 'Defiance' out, but didn't push it much. That means that Paramount was more confident about the prospects of 'Revolutionary Road' and 'Defiance' than 'The Soloist'. Given how bad those two movies were, that says an awful lot about how bad 'The Soloist' must be.

comment #26

Quincyspeak says ...

washboard abs! ha -- man Janet Maslin you're not.

comment #27

PopcornEyeglass says ...

Let's also not forget that Doyle's Sherlock Holmes was capable of bending an iron poker in half.

comment #28

BurmaShave says ...

Gordon27, I can see not being crazy about it, thinking it was okay, but how exactly is REVOLUTIONARY ROAD a "bad" movie?

comment #29

rr3333 says ...

No Madonna. No Sale.

comment #30

cinefan says ...

I agree with BurmaShave. I can certainly understand why someone wouldn't like Revolutionary Road but it's still far from a "bad" movie. I saw the Women this weekend and that is a shining example of a god-awful, piece of crap "bad" movie...

comment #31

cinefan says ...

Just to clarify: I was referring to the Women remake and not the original.

comment #32

D.Z. says ...

Gordon: I'm guessing Paramount pushed Soloist back for the same reason it kicked out Howard from Iron Man 2 and Sam Jackson from The Avengers, and the same reason it distributed Norbit.

comment #33

AH says ...

My problem with this movie is summarized, in NYT story, by "Lionel Wigram, who conceived the story and is also a producer of the film" who said that "I never agreed with the idea of the fairly stuffy Edwardian-type gentleman. It wasn’t my idea of Sherlock Holmes.”

Mr. Wigram, it isn't your idea of Sherlock Holmes because you did not create the character. If you wanted to create a character like Holmes who does the things you want him to do, then create a new character ... you jackass!

comment #34

D.Z. says ...

Man, '09's gonna be a tough year for Silver with this and that Sin City-wannabe from the Wachowskis....

comment #35

corey3rd says ...

I much prefer the Sherlock Holmes as found on Gilligan's Island.

comment #36

Josh Massey says ...

"Gordon: I'm guessing Paramount pushed Soloist back for the same reason it kicked out Howard from Iron Man 2 and Sam Jackson from The Avengers, and the same reason it distributed Norbit."

Paramount hates black people?

comment #37

D.Z. says ...

corey: I liked that musical version of Hamlet myself which I guess Steve Coogan thought would work better if it had Jesus in it.

comment #38

lipranzer says ...

I have no problem in theory of a new twist on Sherlock Holmes. My problem is Guy Ritchie doing it. I tried watching ROCKNROLLA over the weekend, which was supposed to be his "return to form," but you couldn't prove it by me; I couldn't even make it halfway through, even with Tom Wilkinson, Idris Elba, and Thandie Newton in the cast.

comment #39

Gordon27 says ...

DZ - Marvel studios is responsible for two of the three decisions you cite.

comment #40

Gordon27 says ...

Burma - the short answer is "Because everything about the movie besides Michael Shannon was bad."

The longer answer is that I thought that every single line of dialogue was over-written like a first year playwright and didn't sound human, every character was simplistic to the point of unrealism, every idea it had about suburban life was a cliche before I was born [and, to be more annoying, they took what was subtextual in 'American Beauty' and made the whole movie explicitly about that and nothing else], every action the characters took felt telegraphed and false, and Dicaprio was more miscast than he's been in anything since 'Gangs of New York'. He tries really hard, and that's a big problem with his performance -- you shouldn't be watching him try to act, you should be watching him be. Winslet is better, but, getting back to the writing, it all feels phony.

I could get into the directing, too, but, if I had to pick one word to sum up 'Rev Road', it would be "phony".

I should add, a pet peeve of mine is movies where every single character who lives in the suburbs is miserable, because suburban life is just SO miserable, when, really, it becomes clear that the writer is just projecting how they felt about suburban life onto everybody else. It's lazy-writing, and I get bored by it very easily, even though I myself did not particularly enjoy growing up in the suburbs.

comment #41

D.Z. says ...

Gordon: They kept Halle Berry for X-Men, and she's a lot more replaceable than Howard...

comment #42

vp19 says ...

If this somehow succeeds, in envision...Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie as Nick and Nora Charles -- with lots of steamy love scenes, but no drinking. (And no Asta.)

comment #43

GiveMeTheMapScott says ...

Personally I think RDJ is a great choice for Sherlock because both the character and RDJ's persona are an "I'm-so-much-smarter-than-you-and-I'm-going-to-tell-you-why" But if they try to make him an action hero beyond a boxing hobby, the movie will likely turn into a gigantic missed opportunity.

And I agree that Jude Law can be a very effective actor when he doesnt have to carry the full weight of a movie on his back.

And I agree that Guy Ritchie is the very definition of a hit-or-miss director and the word "reliable" wouldnt touch him with a ten-foot-pole

This movie is a serious wild card. RDJ after Iron Man makes it bankable but could we maybe just see decent, non-blockbuster Beowulf numbers???

comment #44

Gordon27 says ...

DZ - Stop being a stupid fucking idiot every time you talk. Marvel was not responsible for producing 'X-Men', Fox was. Marvel is producing 'Iron Man' and 'The Avengers' themselves because they are unhappy with the deals they had with Fox and Sony, and want to have more control/money. On top of which, Storm has more lines in any single scene of 'X-Men' than Howard had in all of 'Iron Man'. And the only way Terrence Howard is comprable to Halle Berry is because they're black, so now, on top of being incredibly stupid, you're being racist.

comment #45

D.Z. says ...

Scott: Shouldn't that Star Trek movie rule apply to Ritchie more than Fincher?

Gordon: Yeah, "the same thing as everything else" really counts as a lot of lines. And frankly, I think replacing Howard with Cheadle is really racist. As for Marvel's casting decisions, they probably still have to give in somewhat to Paramount, if they want to get the movie off the ground. What belongs to them is a bigger chunk of the final product.

comment #46

Gordon27 says ...

"Shouldn't that Star Trek movie rule apply to Ritchie more than Fincher?"

No, the 'Star Trek' rule (every other one is good) applies to Fincher. The 'Star Trek: The Next Generation' movie rule (none of them are good, though some are less egregiously terrible) applies to Ritchie.

"Yeah, "the same thing as everything else" really counts as a lot of lines."

Ok, quick: correctly quote one single line Terrence Howard said in 'Iron Man' without peeking.

"And frankly, I think replacing Howard with Cheadle is really racist."

I'm going to refrain from pointing out that comparing two actors, as you did, solely because they're black is obviously more racist than keeping a character within the same race that the character is in the first movie (and 30 years of comics), so that I can ask "Why?" I'm sure I'll get a good laugh out of your stupid answer.

"What belongs to them is a bigger chunk of the final product."

You're 100% wrong. Marvel is producing the films in-studio with their own money.

comment #47

MovieBob says ...

This from the guy who thought it was just GREAT when they threw out everything unique and nifty about James Bond in favor of turning him into yet another dour, invincible hardcase?

comment #48

Gordon27 says ...

Bob - Shhh, Jeff is pretending to be an intellectual by defending Sherlock Holmes. Just don't ask him to cite a single Holmes story he's ever, you know, *read* (unless it was a movie star bio, Wells hasn't read it), or whether he *actually* knows the difference between Doyle's 'Holmes' and "The Seven Percent Solution".

comment #49

BurmaShave says ...

Gordon27 I'm willing to accept your different take on REV ROAD, and can even see where you're coming from, but I will not countenance the idea that FIRST CONTACT is anything less than a first rate Sci-Fi action movie.

comment #50

Gordon27 says ...

Burma - I'm a recent convert; I loved it in the theater, but, within the past few years, I went back and re-visited 'Next Generation', and NONE of it holds up, except Patrick Stewart (eventually, Michael Dorn and Levar Burton too). 'First Contact' is, absolutely, the best Next Gen movie. But I found it less watchable than 'Star Trek' 1 or 3. It's surprisingly flat, presumably because Jonathan Frakes can't direct worth a shit. It also has the same problems as every 'Next Gen' movie -- doesn't know what to do with any of the other characters besides Picard, so it tries to make them funny, but all of the jokes are terrible because 'Next Generation' has no real sense of humor.

I was quite surprised to find this; my memory of it was that I was way into it and always with it. Sometimes, ten years can age a movie a lifetime.

comment #51

Gordon27 says ...

Seeing who wrote it -- it could've used a lot more DS9 (Moore) and a lot less Voyager/Enterprise (Braga).

comment #52

D.Z. says ...

Gordon: "Ok, quick: correctly quote one single line Terrence Howard said in 'Iron Man' without peeking."

I don't remember any particular lines, but then I don't from Downey, either. I do remember there being more of a stronger friendship being established through his conversations with Downey's character than through Berry's interjections in X-men.

"I'm going to refrain from pointing out that comparing two actors, as you did, solely because they're black is obviously more racist than keeping a character within the same race that the character is in the first movie (and 30 years of comics), so that I can ask "Why?"'

Berry and Howard both play supporting characters[I.E. sidekicks] in their respective films. However, Cheadle looks nothing like Howard, and was just re-cast for the part because the studio thought it could pull a "they all look alike" on the audience, rather than a "Does he have the same hetero chemistry with Downey?"

"Marvel is producing the films in-studio with their own money."

It may be producing, but it still has to at least concede to some studio decisions the way ILM conceded on Star Wars and THX.

comment #53

D.Z. says ...

But hey, if you want a white guy sidekick who could easily be replaced too, I'd probably say Chris O'Donnell from the Schumacher Batman flicks. Give that part to Chris Evans, and you're set for a threequel to Batman Begins.

comment #54

BurmaShave says ...

Yeah gordon, the series doesn't really hold up that well over all. For every "Chain of Command" or "The Best of Both Worlds" there are dozens of episodes that might as well be crap low budget British fantasy shows. It can't quite match the original series, though I'm charmed it's just as awkward and stilted. Though I think you're underrating Brent Spiner's work as Data.

comment #55

Gordon27 says ...

Burma - I think there's something really realistic about the fact that the Enterprise became the flagship because it had a "great" captain, but, by being the flagship, they gave it to a "safe" captain 75 years down the line.... and I think Stewart plays that by-the-book guy well. But it doesn't make for interesting TV.

"For every "Chain of Command" or "The Best of Both Worlds" there are dozens of episodes that might as well be crap low budget British fantasy shows."

I don't remember which one is 'Chain of Command' off-hand, but there are a dozen or two really strong episodes. Is 'Chain of Command' "There are four lights!"? That one is the highlight of the show, to me.

"It can't quite match the original series, though I'm charmed it's just as awkward and stilted."

I'd say, if you can quanitify such things, that they're equally awkward and stilted, but the original is awkward and stilted in all the right ways.

Well, I'd like to say that, anyway. The truth is, watching the original as an adult, Shatner is incredible, he makes every scene he's in interesting to watch through sheer charisma and a liberal dose of ActingWithACapitalA. But the rest of it is a lot worse than I remember.

"Though I think you're underrating Brent Spiner's work as Data."

I think it's quite possible that I liked Data so much as a child that he could never live up to it as an adult, because you're not the only person who has said that to me. I watch him now and I don't think he's a good actor, but his badness manifests itself differently than, say, Frakes or Siritis. I can't put my finger on it, though, and it's not as if I feel strongly anti-Spiner. Just something about him feels very theatrical, like he's giving a performance which would be good in a play but doesn't translate to the screen the way that Stewart's does.

[I read through some of that great Wheaton blog recently and saw the anecdote, something like: A lot of people didn't realize how good Spiner was at playing the subtle android stuff until 'Datalore', when he had a body double who completely overacted the android stuff.]

comment #56

Gordon27 says ...

"I don't remember any particular lines"

Which is exactly why he's more replaceable than Halle Berry. Thanks for agreeing.

"However, Cheadle looks nothing like Howard"

Of course Cheadle looks nothing like Howard. (The only actor in Hollywood who resembles Howard is the guy who played 'Pootie Tang'.) They're not re-casting to try and fool the audience into thinking they got Terence Howard back.

"and was just re-cast for the part because the studio thought it could pull a "they all look alike" on the audience"

If you can prove that, I'll believe you. It sounds incredibly stupid; Howard was fired because he wanted more money than they wanted to pay him (same as Jackson), so they hired another actor to play the part. The idea that new actors playing the same role need to look anything like the original actors is so incredibly stupid I don't quite know how to respond, other than a few quick examples:
Bela Lugosi replacing Boris Karloff as Frankenstein's monster
Roger Moore replacing Sean Connery as James Bond
Val Kilmer replacing Michael Keaton as Batman
Gyllenhaal replacing Mrs. Cruise in Dark Knight

That's four off the top of my head; can you think of even one movie where they re-cast a role with a new actor and tried to make him look like the original actor? Or are you talking shit again?

"but it still has to at least concede to some studio decisions the way ILM conceded on Star Wars and THX."

Let's play "spot the idiocy"
#1 - you mean "Lucasfilm", not ILM
#2 - 'Star Wars' and 'THX 1138' are two of only three movies George Lucas has made that the studio *did* produce and own. A more apt comparison would be any of the sequels to 'Star Wars', which, like Marvel, Lucasfilms produced out-of-pocket, with Fox getting only a 10% distribution fee, and having no artistic say in the final product.

I agree that Marvel likely solicits advice from the distributor, but just read ANY of the press releases from either side; Marvel is the one responsible for re-casting Jackson and Howard. Paramount had nothing to do with it. (And that's obvious just on the face of it -- Paramount has been at this long enough to know not to mess too much with a successful formula, whereas Marvel is stupid enough to think that they're more important than any specific actor or character. They're going to fall hard, quick.)

comment #57

Gordon27 says ...

Burma - how is it that we got onto 'TNG' in this thread without bringing up Data-as-Holmes?

comment #58

D.Z. says ...

Gordon: "The idea that new actors playing the same role need to look anything like the original actors is so incredibly stupid I don't quite know how to respond, other than a few quick examples:
Bela Lugosi replacing Boris Karloff as Frankenstein's monster"

But it doesn't matter when they're wearing make-up.

"Roger Moore replacing Sean Connery as James Bond"

But there is no specific 'look' for Bond.

'Val Kilmer replacing Michael Keaton as Batman'

See above for Batman.

'Gyllenhaal replacing Mrs. Cruise in Dark Knight'

Um, they intentionally picked a 20-something brunette replacement in that case, and her character ended up being *less* likable.

"That's four off the top of my head; can you think of even one movie where they re-cast a role with a new actor and tried to make him look like the original actor?"

Yeah, the new Underworld.

"'Star Wars' and 'THX 1138' are two of only three movies George Lucas has made that the studio *did* produce and own."

THX, probably, but not the original Star Wars. FOX can't even sell the toys for that one.

"Paramount has been at this long enough to know not to mess too much with a successful formula"

Um, you just mentioned the most recent Star Trek movies...Not to mention that live-action Aeon Flux, Addams Family 2, Tomb Raider 2, Indy 4, etc.

comment #59

Gordon27 says ...

"But it doesn't matter when they're wearing make-up."

The only way you could say that is if you've never seen Legosi in the make-up. He literally looks NOTHING like Karloff. It's kind of shocking.

"But there is no specific 'look' for Bond."

There is no specific look for Rhodey, either, and if there is, it's the comic book, which looked nothing like Howard. Try to remember, DZ, when arguing your position that it's helpful to try and make statements which further your argument, as opposed to directly undermining it.

"Yeah, the new Underworld."

I honestly don't know who you mean, but the fact that you think the 'Iron Man 2' should aspire to have the same fidelity of casting as 'Underworld 2' speaks for itself. You are a fool.

"THX, probably, but not the original Star Wars. FOX can't even sell the toys for that one."

You're batting a thousand at ignorance, DZ. Fox owns 'Star Wars: A New Hope'. They do not own the sequels or the merchandising rights. Why you think the fact that Fox doesn't own the toys means that they don't own the movie, and wouldn't have some say in the casting, is a mystery that I bet not even you understand. Which wouldn't surprise me -- you have repeatedly proven not to be able to understand anything. At all. Ever.

"Um, you just mentioned the most recent Star Trek movies...Not to mention that live-action Aeon Flux, Addams Family 2, Tomb Raider 2, Indy 4, etc."

so, okay, first, you bring in 'Aeon Flux', which has nothing to do with the point that Paramount knows better than to recast prominent characters in successful films. Then you bring up three examples of films in which they did not recast prominent characters in successful films, and one film in which not only were prominent characters not recast from the previously successful films, but Paramount had nothing to do with producing that movie to boot! And I know that you know that Paramount had nothing to do with it, and accepted a much smaller fee because it was only a distributor, because I've seen you say it in your incredibly dumb arguments that 'Indy 4' was not financially successful.

So, to sum up, your points were stupid, idiotic nonsense which never came anywhere near creating a viable argument.

comment #60

arturobandini2 says ...

Meanwhile, The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes seems to get better with age, despite some pokey stretches and having been thoroughly butchered by UA. Also, the music by Miklos Rozsa is one of the most underrated movie scores in memory.

comment #61

Gordon27 says ...

You know what disappointed me? 'The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes' Younger Brother'. I am such a huge 'Young Frankenstein' fan, and especially Gene Wilder, but that movie had so few laughs that it made me a little sad.

comment #62

hunterd says ...

Gordon, you're my new hero. God, D.Z. is dumb. Does his/her name stand for "Dragonball Z"? maybe it gave him/her brain damaging seizures.

Everyone hates D.Z. Hell, I've seen OTHER sites hating on D.Z. as a non-sequitor. Why does he/she insist on posting here?

comment #63

BurmaShave says ...

"Chain of Command" is There are four lights!, yeah. And god yeah, Data as Holmes.

comment #64

Markj74 says ...

First Contact is pretty bad, especially Frakes' bland direction, the Troi drunk scene, the holodeck sequence, the boring endless corridor Borg scenes, the Picard in spacesuit/Borg on wires 'battle' etc. Insurrection and Nemesis are pretty unwatchable. The only saving grace to those movies is Mr Jerry Goldsmith.

comment #65

storymark says ...

Wow, this thread has me feeling all nostalgic.

It's been a while since DZ has tried so hard to prove how stupid he is. There were some real howlers in this thread.

comment #66

Gordon27 says ...

The really amazing thing is, if DZ actually knew what he was talking about, he would've brought up the Tom Clancy Jack Ryan movies that Paramount produced to contradict my statement. He had a *perfect* out, and instead, brought up 'Aeon Flux' and 'The Addams Family Values'. He's a genius in the medium of stupidity.

comment #67

Jonah says ...

"It's been a while since DZ has tried so hard to prove how stupid he is."

You need to read the comments section more often. It's a daily occurence if you're really paying attention.

comment #68

D.Z. says ...

Gordon: "Which is exactly why he's more replaceable than Halle Berry. Thanks for agreeing."

I'm not sure how remembering the worst lines in those movies is better than remembering no lines.

"The only way you could say that is if you've never seen Legosi in the make-up. He literally looks NOTHING like Karloff. It's kind of shocking."

The only real difference is height and facial expression.
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=Lugosi%20Frankenstein&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&q=Karloff+Frankenstein&btnG=Search+Images

"There is no specific look for Rhodey, either,"

Um, yes there is. http://www.ironmanarmory.com/rhodeyarmorbio.jpg

"I honestly don't know who you mean, but the fact that you think the 'Iron Man 2' should aspire to have the same fidelity of casting as 'Underworld 2' speaks for itself."

I was referring to the prequel.

"Why you think the fact that Fox doesn't own the toys means that they don't own the movie, and wouldn't have some say in the casting, is a mystery that I bet not even you understand."

I imagine because Lucas could have long bought out the rights back from them by now. And if FOX did own the rights, it wouldn't take ten years to get even a crappy-looking version of "Han Shoots First" on DVD.

"so, okay, first, you bring in 'Aeon Flux', which has nothing to do with the point that Paramount knows better than to recast prominent characters in successful films."
Your point which I responded to was was about them not being stupid to mess with a successful formula.

"The really amazing thing is, if DZ actually knew what he was talking about, he would've brought up the Tom Clancy Jack Ryan movies that Paramount produced to contradict my statement."

Nah, it'll probably be the new Star Trek movie.

comment #69

Gordon27 says ...

I like when you sneak back in when you think everybody's gone to try to get the last word.

"The only real difference is height and facial expression."

Pictures lie. Watch 'Frankenstein vs. the Wolf Man' and try to tell me Lugosi looks anything like Karloff.

"Um, yes there is. http://www.ironmanarmory.com/rhodeyarmorbio.jpg"

Well, posting a picture of Rhodey which doesn't look anything like Terence Howard, that sure showed me that it's racist to cast somebody who doesn't look like Terence Howard in the role, huh? Well done. You must've had help on that one, right? (If anything, Rhodey has Cheadle's bone structure in that picture.)

"I was referring to the prequel."

sigh. You're so stupid that sometimes it makes me sad to rip you apart. Why don't you go back to special ed class and try to learn to think?

""Why you think the fact that Fox doesn't own the toys means that they don't own the movie, and wouldn't have some say in the casting, is a mystery that I bet not even you understand."

"I imagine because Lucas could have long bought out the rights back from them by now."

This is brilliant, because you actually conceded that you don't even understand your own point, and have to try to guess why you said it, and then your imagination makes up an answer which makes no sense. Yeah, he could've bought the rights back, if they had any intention of selling them.

"And if FOX did own the rights, it wouldn't take ten years to get even a crappy-looking version of "Han Shoots First" on DVD."

Well, you say "if" as if there is any doubt at all. There isn't -- you're wrong on that one. Say it with me now, "I, DZ, am wrong, because I'm an idiot".

That said, it wasn't in their interests to go against the wishes of Lucas with their releases of the first 'Star Wars', because, in doing so, they would jeopardize their future distributor fees on the 'Star Wars' prequels, and that's straight-up profit because they're not putting any real money into it. By now, sure, they could do a seperate release of just the one 'Star Wars', but what would be the point? Lucasfilms has already saturated the market with the approved release.

"Your point which I responded to was was about them not being stupid to mess with a successful formula."

No, my point was, they don't mess with a successful formula by recasting key or semi-key roles, and your incredibly stupid counter-example was 'Aeon Flux'.

"Nah, it'll probably be the new Star Trek movie."

A reboot isn't really the same thing as recasting one role in an ensemble, but you know what? That's by far the closest you've come in this whole conversation to making a salient point, so I'm going to give that one to you. Congratulations. Now you just have to bring up Quentin Tarantino for no reason and we can all go home.

comment #70

D.Z. says ...

Gordon: "Pictures lie."

First you say there's a difference. Then, when I call you on it, you argue that the pictures aren't accurate. So which is it?

"Well, posting a picture of Rhodey which doesn't look anything like Terence Howard,"

Except for the similar complexions and facial ticks, sure.

"(If anything, Rhodey has Cheadle's bone structure in that picture."

If don't you consider Cheadle being shorter and less muscular than the guy in the photo, sure.

"That said, it wasn't in their interests to go against the wishes of Lucas with their releases of the first 'Star Wars', because, in doing so, they would jeopardize their future distributor fees on the 'Star Wars' prequels, and that's straight-up profit because they're not putting any real money into it."

If FOX owns the first film, there's no way Lucas can cash in on re-broadcasts and theatrical re-releases of it; and thus, there's little incentive to make sequels, since their success depend entirely on people's continued familiarity with the original film. In other words, it's FOX who'd have him by the balls, and not the other way around.

comment #71

kevinburns55 says ...

It is so good to see that Robert has gotten past his substance abuse stage. I wonder if his family drug intervention had anything to do with it. I also wonder if her did it on his own or if he got help from Narconon VistaBay. No matter how he did it I am glad to see him back.

comment #72

Penelope says ...

Jeff, I am a long time reader here and at your earlier sites too. So what is up? why are you so anti Sherlock? I think this is the 3rd or 4th time you have written about it in a negative way.You would think by the way you are knocking this movie that it was the first movie made to be entertaining and sell popcorn. Don't think that is the case. I love " fine cinema" too and art films etc but dammit I love a good fun Saturday afternoon mindless movies too. So is it that you are just against Downey or what? Sweet Jesus this man has paid his dues and then some. I read an item last week that Phil Spector wrote about being in Corcoran State Penn. The man was going on and on what a hell hole it is. Downey was there for almost a year for parole violations... not killing someone. So what is the deal? He paid his dues and then some, he got cleaned up, he has talent to spare. Why can't he make a damn popcorn movie and enjoy this time he is having in his life. But you have to keep knocking this movie to kingdom come. I read that whole Sarah Lyalls article. I don't think it was that negative like you are. I talk movies to people all the time and over and over I have heard people from all kinds of backgrounds etc say they think this movie looks like fun and they plan to see it. So are we all morons or what? All I know is when you really come down on something watch out! scorched earth!! I bet you wil be glad if it does not do well at the boxoffice. What a shame. I for one plan to see it and I know a lot of friends are too. I hope it does well. I wonder how many more negative posts you will have here before Christmas? So did Downey refuse to talk to you once or something? I just don't get it.

comment #73

free online games says ...

Hello webmaster, many thanks for delivering this amazing article.. I found it awesome. Best regards, ..

comment #74

bugra_12 says ...

justin tv ,
lig tv izle ,
dizi izle

comment #75

diziportal says ...

Diziportal

Diziizle

onlineizle

comment #76

legendofr4m0 says ...

really good post love ironman

Celebrity wallpapers

comment #77

Asabi says ...

Thanks so much for this! This is exactly what I was looking for

sohbet sohbet odalari chat odalari sohbet odasi bedava chat sohbet siteleri bedava chat chat turkchat sohbet odalari

comment #78

ödev indir says ...

odev indir
odev
lens baski
dagitim
film izle

comment #79

mchal says ...

turk isi,net
turk indir,turkiye hakkinda,
turk,

comment #80

koxp says ...

What a good idea. I like it.
Very useful information.

koxp, koxp indir, koxp yükle, bedava koxp , kosp

comment #81

travesti says ...

Holmes name to make an action thriller with an extremely limited interest in the legend of the pipe-smoking Holmes

comment #82

mchal says ...

very nice sharing thanks a lot

turkisi.net

onlineindir.net

filimisi.blogspot.com

osmanli tarihi

web tabanli oyunlar

comment #83

dd says ...

The fact is, any time a movie depicts Sherlock Holmes wearing the deerstalker and Inverness cloak anywhere but the English countryside, or while travelling by boat or train, it's wrong. Victorians had very well-defined rules about what kind of clothing was to be worn, at what time of the day, and under what circumstances. A real Sherlock Holmes would never have been caught dead wearing the classic hat and cape to the opera, for instance (as Chris Plummer does in Murder By Decree). On the other hand, when we see Nicol Williamson wearing the hat and a long tweed travelling coat in Seven-Per-Cent Solution, the costume designers were being perfectly accurate.

Designer Handbags

comment #84

Haita-B says ...

Thankssssssss...
Genel Blog
Blog Gurusu
Mahser-i Cumbus Roportaji
Kava Kava Bitkisi
Blog Gurusu

comment #85

istanbul says ...

travesti genclik kolları başkanı sayın travesti carpici aciklamalarda bulundu nolcak bu vip travestiler in hali bilmiyorum. travesti

comment #86

istanbul says ...

sikismek isteyen kizlar istanbulda nerde bulunur bilinmez porno izlemek icin porno izle tikla sende gel turkce porno izle guzel sikis icin lolita porno

travesti genclik kolları başkanı sayın travesti carpici aciklamalarda bulundu nolcak bu vip travestiler in hali bilmiyorum. travesti

comment #87

Kodak Sport zx3 says ...

very nice post! I'm not particularly excited about Guy Ritchie handling this material, but I have spoken to a couple of old school Holmes heads who've read the script, and they said they were pleasantly surprised, for what that's worth.

460 sli benchmark | 580 benchmark | 570 benchmark | 560 Ti benchmark | 6990 benchmark | 590 benchmark | 480 benchmark | 6970 benchmark | 5670 benchmark | 4670 benchmark | 6850 benchmark | 6870 benchmark | 6950 benchmark | Black Ops benchmark | 5870 benchmark | 5850 benchmark | 5830 benchmark | The Witcher 2 benchmark | gt 240 benchmark | 295 benchmark | 5450 benchmark | 5570 benchmark

comment #88

kaos futsal says ...

very nice post! On top of which, Storm has more lines in any single scene of 'X-Men' than Howard had in all of 'Iron Man'. And the only way Terrence Howard is comprable to Halle Berry is because they're black, so now, on top of being incredibly stupid, you're being racist.

baju futsal | jersey futsal | kaos bola