Normally, this would go in a different board, considering that we're talking about a movie.
But this is the exception. My fear is not the film, it's the script.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0988045/
Nothing but horror in my heart.
You know I'm a Holmes fan, but I've seen three tele-movies done for Holmes, and without exception they all sucked. Not because of the acting, the costumes, or the directing, camera work, etc.
Those movies, were not original Arthur Conan Doyle mysteries.
A Sherlock-ian style mystery is very hard to write. Add to the fact that it's got to be done as a film is even harder.
Chris made an interesting point, that for a known quantity like Holmes, you have to respect your audience enough not to mold it into something else. I think, admittedly based on circumstantial evidence, that they're doing so here. Holmes' world was done in interviews and light fieldwork, not the other way around.
The fact that they're doing an original story, to save all England, the fact that they're implying that Sherlock's getting his knuckles dirty, and the fact that they've stretched the character of one infamous Irene Adler to put her in this film makes it clear.
If they can get the mood right, the feel of it right, I would enjoy it. (For example, making Moriarty a nemesis in newly written Holmes stories is fine with me. Moriarty was only in one story too, but unlike Adler, his character was at home as a recurring character.) But to get the mood right, you need a brain-scratcher with an outside-the-box solution that will leave you saying "Now why didn't I see that?"
Or more simply put:
Holmes is NOT James Bond.
Here endeth the lesson.
But this is the exception. My fear is not the film, it's the script.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0988045/
Nothing but horror in my heart.
You know I'm a Holmes fan, but I've seen three tele-movies done for Holmes, and without exception they all sucked. Not because of the acting, the costumes, or the directing, camera work, etc.
Those movies, were not original Arthur Conan Doyle mysteries.
A Sherlock-ian style mystery is very hard to write. Add to the fact that it's got to be done as a film is even harder.
Chris made an interesting point, that for a known quantity like Holmes, you have to respect your audience enough not to mold it into something else. I think, admittedly based on circumstantial evidence, that they're doing so here. Holmes' world was done in interviews and light fieldwork, not the other way around.
The fact that they're doing an original story, to save all England, the fact that they're implying that Sherlock's getting his knuckles dirty, and the fact that they've stretched the character of one infamous Irene Adler to put her in this film makes it clear.
If they can get the mood right, the feel of it right, I would enjoy it. (For example, making Moriarty a nemesis in newly written Holmes stories is fine with me. Moriarty was only in one story too, but unlike Adler, his character was at home as a recurring character.) But to get the mood right, you need a brain-scratcher with an outside-the-box solution that will leave you saying "Now why didn't I see that?"
Or more simply put:
Holmes is NOT James Bond.
Here endeth the lesson.
