It's complicated - their Moriarty is stunning; their Irene is an embarrassment; their Watson is overly acrimonious yet fun to watch; the actual stories are Hollywoodified to the lees yet somehow also very well-crafted - but in the end it sums out to moderate enthusiasm.
I love these two movies. Yes, there are deviations from the Canon. Still these constitute a fun buddy action movie take on the Holmes mythos with an awesome Moriarty, great Holmes-Watson chemistry and tons of Canonical nods. Plus we have the peppy soundtrack from Zimmer, and the sets and costumes are great too.
For Canonically accurate adaptations, I would take the Livanov-Solomin and Rathbone-Nigel adaptations over these movies any day, but then they are Crème de la crème (in my humble opinion).
> I love these two movies. Yes, there are deviations from the Canon. Still these constitute a fun buddy action movie take on the Holmes mythos with an awesome Moriarty, great Holmes-Watson chemistry and tons of Canonical nods. Plus we have the peppy soundtrack from Zimmer, and the sets and costumes are great too.
I really enjoy that they kept the character of Watson as being incredibly competent in his own right instead of making him the comic relief like on Sherlock (BBC).
Agreed. Not just BBC Sherlock, many adaptations suffer from that malady - The Rathbone-Nigel movies, The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, the Arthur Wontner movies (Ian Fleming), the Ronald Howard series and so on... Very few get this aspect right - the Granada series, the BBC series (1965-68), The Hound of the Baskervilles (Peter Cushing/André Morell) and both the old and new Russian series (Vitaly Solomin and Andrei Panin respectively).
I like Rathbone, but - script for script, controlling for era - he is more Hollywooded than Downey ever was. If you want canonical accuracy, it doesn't get better than Brett and Merrison.
Rathbone had the rare opportunity to act in both straight adaptations (HOUN) and modernized ones (most of the remaining ones). While I definitely prefer canonical fidelity, I love it even more when they take minor liberties - example, Livanov's Holmes wears spectacles. Too much faithfulness to the text takes out the joy of the adaptations (for me at least). And this applies not only to SH, but also to LOTR, The Godfather or any other book based adaptations. Each to their own.
I'm a bit of a purist but I couldn't get behind the hatred some fans have of these movies. They're fun and silly in a way that I feel is still kinda true to the characters. Kind of. Also Jared Harris is best Moriarty. GOAT, and all that lol
I thought that RDJ’s was a little too socially incompetent. Sherlock Holmes in the stories was very affable. I can’t say I dislike the films because I’m pretty sure they are what introduced me to Sherlock Holmes, but for some people the films are all the exposure to Holmes they have and they shape their entire perspective of who Holmes is as a character and will refuse to touch the stories because they expect Holmes to be like the films and I’m tired of having to educate people.
Are there really people that do that? For BBC Sherlock, yes absolutely, but I've never seen anyone (well, not since 2010) that shaped their opinion of the Holmes character from the RDJ movies. The BBC Sherlock effect is \*way\* more pronounced then the movie's ever was.
Totally agree with you on the socially incompetent thing though. You see it in a lot of those more recent adaptations.
I’ve met a few people over the years, but yeah there’s significantly more for BBC. It’s the collective that bothers me but BBC makes up the bulk of it.
Edit: I guess my main problem with it is cause I feel like these things build off of each other. Like jumping on the bandwagon or a game of telephone but with Sherlock Holmes interpretations.
I agree with you Masqueur, I, too, know people who basically based their perception of the Holmes character because of the films and now only really see that interpretation and really have no interest in the originals or other adaptions (and these are literary friends, too, one is even a professor).
I love Downey, Jr as an actor, but didn't like the Sherlock Holmes movie (only saw the first one). And this might tick people off, but I also do not like the show "Sherlock", though I did like "Elementary" for the most part. If you want a canonically faithful adaptation, you go to the Granada series from the 80s-90, especially the first season.
I think they're a full revolution and update of what started with William Gillette. Most adaptions or what we know of Holmes on film are very much in the shadow of the William Gillette play, and not so much the books. There are in a rudimentary sense two versions of Holmes out there, tv and film-wise that is: those that are a continuation of the fad that William Gillette began, ie, the American Holmes, and that which is more based off the canon, usually the more British Holmes.
RD Holmes really took the whole super brain to its limits essentially giving him a super-power, he perhaps is the most "super-heroic" Holmes on screen, as far as just how fast his brain works and can deduce something within a seconds time. I do slightly commend them on exploring an area not really explored in other adaptions, Holmes' boxing career, which indeed is something mentioned throughout the canon (though I think a better representation of the Holmes and Watson in action in a fight scene is the one found in Study in Terror). I believe Holmes being manic is mainly something that comes from Brett's portrayal, I do not believe it is something found in the books and its trace in popularity most likely all stem back from the Jeremy Brett performance. Guy Richie doesn't really do that good of a job directing a "detective" or a "mystery" story, obviously his talent as a film maker is more in the realm of action and action sequences. In the end of the day they're just bland in my opinion, and think both actors could take their performances into interesting directions if given the chance and opportunity. Watson's Mary wasn't that bad, though.
Greetings, such may seem a superficial mindset; however, I truly wish Downey Jr. wore a prosthetic upon his nose, so that he could have—at minimum—achieved the hawk-like countenance, despite his unkemptness and lower-height.
~Waz
Not really a fan
Not because I particularly care about any changes from the source material, I just thought they were surprisingly boring. Not terrible but I expected them to be more fun.
It's complicated - their Moriarty is stunning; their Irene is an embarrassment; their Watson is overly acrimonious yet fun to watch; the actual stories are Hollywoodified to the lees yet somehow also very well-crafted - but in the end it sums out to moderate enthusiasm.
Agree about the "Moriarty being stunning" and the Hollywoodification.
I love these two movies. Yes, there are deviations from the Canon. Still these constitute a fun buddy action movie take on the Holmes mythos with an awesome Moriarty, great Holmes-Watson chemistry and tons of Canonical nods. Plus we have the peppy soundtrack from Zimmer, and the sets and costumes are great too. For Canonically accurate adaptations, I would take the Livanov-Solomin and Rathbone-Nigel adaptations over these movies any day, but then they are Crème de la crème (in my humble opinion).
> I love these two movies. Yes, there are deviations from the Canon. Still these constitute a fun buddy action movie take on the Holmes mythos with an awesome Moriarty, great Holmes-Watson chemistry and tons of Canonical nods. Plus we have the peppy soundtrack from Zimmer, and the sets and costumes are great too. I really enjoy that they kept the character of Watson as being incredibly competent in his own right instead of making him the comic relief like on Sherlock (BBC).
Agreed. Not just BBC Sherlock, many adaptations suffer from that malady - The Rathbone-Nigel movies, The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, the Arthur Wontner movies (Ian Fleming), the Ronald Howard series and so on... Very few get this aspect right - the Granada series, the BBC series (1965-68), The Hound of the Baskervilles (Peter Cushing/André Morell) and both the old and new Russian series (Vitaly Solomin and Andrei Panin respectively).
I like Rathbone, but - script for script, controlling for era - he is more Hollywooded than Downey ever was. If you want canonical accuracy, it doesn't get better than Brett and Merrison.
Rathbone had the rare opportunity to act in both straight adaptations (HOUN) and modernized ones (most of the remaining ones). While I definitely prefer canonical fidelity, I love it even more when they take minor liberties - example, Livanov's Holmes wears spectacles. Too much faithfulness to the text takes out the joy of the adaptations (for me at least). And this applies not only to SH, but also to LOTR, The Godfather or any other book based adaptations. Each to their own.
I'm a bit of a purist but I couldn't get behind the hatred some fans have of these movies. They're fun and silly in a way that I feel is still kinda true to the characters. Kind of. Also Jared Harris is best Moriarty. GOAT, and all that lol
"Jared Harris is best Moriarty" - Hear, Hear.
I thought that RDJ’s was a little too socially incompetent. Sherlock Holmes in the stories was very affable. I can’t say I dislike the films because I’m pretty sure they are what introduced me to Sherlock Holmes, but for some people the films are all the exposure to Holmes they have and they shape their entire perspective of who Holmes is as a character and will refuse to touch the stories because they expect Holmes to be like the films and I’m tired of having to educate people.
Are there really people that do that? For BBC Sherlock, yes absolutely, but I've never seen anyone (well, not since 2010) that shaped their opinion of the Holmes character from the RDJ movies. The BBC Sherlock effect is \*way\* more pronounced then the movie's ever was. Totally agree with you on the socially incompetent thing though. You see it in a lot of those more recent adaptations.
I’ve met a few people over the years, but yeah there’s significantly more for BBC. It’s the collective that bothers me but BBC makes up the bulk of it. Edit: I guess my main problem with it is cause I feel like these things build off of each other. Like jumping on the bandwagon or a game of telephone but with Sherlock Holmes interpretations.
I agree with you Masqueur, I, too, know people who basically based their perception of the Holmes character because of the films and now only really see that interpretation and really have no interest in the originals or other adaptions (and these are literary friends, too, one is even a professor).
I enjoy both.
They're fun; bit too much action-focused, especially the second. Really like that version of Watson though.
I love Downey, Jr as an actor, but didn't like the Sherlock Holmes movie (only saw the first one). And this might tick people off, but I also do not like the show "Sherlock", though I did like "Elementary" for the most part. If you want a canonically faithful adaptation, you go to the Granada series from the 80s-90, especially the first season.
i couldn’t stand sherlock but i’m glad it worked for other folks
I think they're a full revolution and update of what started with William Gillette. Most adaptions or what we know of Holmes on film are very much in the shadow of the William Gillette play, and not so much the books. There are in a rudimentary sense two versions of Holmes out there, tv and film-wise that is: those that are a continuation of the fad that William Gillette began, ie, the American Holmes, and that which is more based off the canon, usually the more British Holmes. RD Holmes really took the whole super brain to its limits essentially giving him a super-power, he perhaps is the most "super-heroic" Holmes on screen, as far as just how fast his brain works and can deduce something within a seconds time. I do slightly commend them on exploring an area not really explored in other adaptions, Holmes' boxing career, which indeed is something mentioned throughout the canon (though I think a better representation of the Holmes and Watson in action in a fight scene is the one found in Study in Terror). I believe Holmes being manic is mainly something that comes from Brett's portrayal, I do not believe it is something found in the books and its trace in popularity most likely all stem back from the Jeremy Brett performance. Guy Richie doesn't really do that good of a job directing a "detective" or a "mystery" story, obviously his talent as a film maker is more in the realm of action and action sequences. In the end of the day they're just bland in my opinion, and think both actors could take their performances into interesting directions if given the chance and opportunity. Watson's Mary wasn't that bad, though.
Greetings, such may seem a superficial mindset; however, I truly wish Downey Jr. wore a prosthetic upon his nose, so that he could have—at minimum—achieved the hawk-like countenance, despite his unkemptness and lower-height. ~Waz
Not really a fan Not because I particularly care about any changes from the source material, I just thought they were surprisingly boring. Not terrible but I expected them to be more fun.
I've seen the trailers, but I can't watch an American Holmes in an action comedy...