(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2009%2F01%2F25%2Farts%2F25lyal600.jpg&hash=56f27e58b74ab4548ee592bf7962ca852c40b594)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgraphics8.nytimes.com%2Fimages%2F2009%2F01%2F25%2Farts%2F25downeylaw.jpg&hash=b17b2f455ff44b6b4a04bfe76c542ea84d22c68d)
Is That You, Sherlock?
By SARAH LYALL; New York Times
IN a filthy, dank labyrinth of rooms below the streets of the East End, Sherlock Holmes was solving a case. That is, Robert Downey Jr., playing Holmes in the forthcoming film "Sherlock Holmes," was engaged in hand-to-hand, foot-to-stomach combat with a very big and very bad villain (Robert Maillet). Bam! Pow! Ouch! Both characters would end up knocked out on the floor, along with Holmes's trusty sidekick, Dr. John Watson, played by Jude Law.
Filmed in December, the scene presented a sharp corrective to the popular cinematic view of Holmes, at least the one propagated by the old films featuring the wonderfully named British actor Basil Rathbone. That Holmes occasionally wielded guns, leapt out of carriages and rushed through the fog with Errol Flynnesque panache, but mostly he was a giant brain inside a tweed suit, sexlessly debonair in the way Hollywood liked its leading men in the 1930s and 1940s. His Watson, played by Nigel Bruce, was a lumpy, good-natured, birdbrained foil for Holmes's brittle brilliance.
The Sherlock Holmes of "Sherlock Holmes," which is scheduled for release on Nov. 13, will not be wearing a deerstalker hat. Nor will he be wearing an Inverness overcoat, the kind with the dashing cloak that hangs over the shoulders as extra protection against the English rain. Sometimes — as in one fight scene — he will not even be wearing a shirt. (This gives Mr. Downey a chance to show off his admirably chiseled abs.)
Sure, he will still be smarter than everyone within a three-planet radius, and he will retain his uncanny ability to intuit whole life stories from the tiniest speck of dust on a shoe. But he will do those things while being a man of action, a chaser, shooter and pummeler of criminals — "like James Bond in 1891," Joel Silver, one of the film's producers, said last fall.
Lionel Wigram, who conceived the story and is also a producer of the film, said that reinventing Holmes as an action hero made perfect sense. "I never agreed with the idea of the fairly stuffy Edwardian-type gentleman," Mr. Wigram said. "It wasn't my idea of Sherlock Holmes."
He was speaking in the underground catacomb, once part of London's prison system and standing in for its sewers in the film. The director, Guy Ritchie — the artist formerly known as Madonna's husband — was in a nearby room, watching the actors in their choreographed fight.
Mr. Ritchie, known for stylized, quick-talking, fast-moving films set among the criminals, lowlifes and hard men of London's underworld, would seem to be something of a gamble as director of such a big Hollywood extravaganza. His early films, including "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" and "Snatch," remain his most successful, and he has had some bad patches. (Don't mention "Swept Away," which starred the erstwhile Mrs. Ritchie.)
His latest film, last year's "RocknRolla," was seen as a return to form by many critics and did well in Britain. But it made only $5.7 million in the United States, according to boxofficemojo.com, a box-office tracking firm.
The "Sherlock Holmes" producers say that Mr. Ritchie's style is perfectly suited to their concept. "We thought he had the capacity and the ability to make a big, fun movie, and what really pushed it over the top was Robert Downey Jr.," Mr. Silver said.
Before Mr. Downey came along, Mr. Ritchie considered making the film about Sherlock Holmes as a young man, in the vein of "Batman Begins," positioning him somewhere between adulthood and the teenage Holmes of Barry Levinson's film "Young Sherlock Holmes" (1985).
But he soon scrapped that idea, betting on Mr. Downey's action-hero prowess, on display last year in "Iron Man," and on the singular take he was sure to bring the character. Mr. Downey's Holmes is darker than that of Mr. Rathbone or others who have taken on the part, like Christopher Plummer in "Murder by Decree" (1979) and Nicol Williamson in "The Seven-Per-Cent Solution" (1976). The new Holmes is rougher, more emotionally multilayered, more inclined to run with his clothing askew, covered in bruises and smudges of dirt and blood. This Holmes falls into modern-style funks between cases, lying on the sofa, suffused with anomie, unshaven and unkempt, surrounded by a pile of debris. He keeps his bills pinned to the wall with a bowie knife.
But when he applies himself, Holmes is as fast with his body — he is a bare-knuckle boxer, a crack shot and an expert swordsman — as he is with his mind.
Character and actor share certain traits. Like Holmes with his cocaine habit, Mr. Downey has been buffeted by many internal vicissitudes, including a long spell of drug addiction. (Unlike Holmes, he has spent time in prison and in rehab centers and replaced all that with a regimen of therapy, nutrition and fitness. He has also become deft in the fast-paced, aggressive Chinese martial art of wing chun.)
Like Holmes, Mr. Downey, 43, has a mind so active it seems to run ahead of itself. He craves constant stimuli, partly for his own intellectual nourishment and partly, you suspect, to keep his demons at bay. His conversation flits from topic to topic in a manner that suggests he pursues his work as intensely, and intently, as Holmes pursues his.
"He's the archetype of a tortured perfectionist," Mr. Downey said of his character. As he spoke in his trailer between scenes, he whipped up, and then ate, a scarily healthy-looking concoction of what appeared to be Japanese vegetables, in a special dish. But he said that in his own case, what drives him is "confidence more than obsession."
"It means I won't let go. My experience shows me that I know how to win, that I'll end up in the end zone."
Mr. Downey said he and his fellow cast members, along with the director and producers, have been poring over the script to stamp out any hint of "elementary, my dear Watson"-type clichés. And as he spoke, his own Watson, Mr. Law, was in a nearby building reading a book about "Hamlet." (He is scheduled to play the title role in a West End production this spring.)
Mr. Law said he was enjoying upending the conventional wisdom about Watson: that he is fat and slow. "He's a man who left the military a few years ago and who takes a military approach to situations," he said. "He's slightly more strait-laced than Holmes but certainly no less brave." And, he added, while Watson is hardly as brilliant as Holmes — who is? — he's "certainly not stupid."
Back in the catacomb, Susan Downey, a producer on the film and Mr. Downey's wife, said Holmes is "a bit of a ladies' man, a bit of a brawler," adding: "He has a gambling problem. If you're a Sherlock Holmes fan who is in love with the original stories, then you'll appreciate him."
Arthur Conan Doyle's tales set the stage for the classic Holmes-Watson relationship, "the relish of language and the cerebral tennis matches that go on between them as they unravel this mystery," as Mr. Law described it. But Conan Doyle appears to have conceived his detectives as action characters, too, alluding to Watson's military service, to boxing matches and gunfights, and to Holmes's use of the martial art baritsu (he most likely meant bartitsu).
Sherlock: Old and New "So many of the ideas that Conan Doyle had took place offstage in his books," Ms. Downey said. "We have the technology, the budget and the means to carry them out."
Mr. Wigram said he had loved Sherlock Holmes since he was a boy, when his father read Conan Doyle's stories aloud to him. "I've been thinking for the last 10 years that there must be a way to reinvent Sherlock Holmes," he said. An executive with Warner Brothers until 2006, Mr. Wigram pursued the idea when he left to become a producer.
"I realized the images I was seeing in my head were different to the images I'd seen in previous films," he said. He imagined, for instance, "a much more modern, more bohemian character, who dresses more like an artist or a poet." A louche, slightly wicked-looking character, he thought, like someone from a Toulouse-Lautrec painting or a member of the Rolling Stones, perhaps Brian Jones, in their Victorian-dress period.
And Mr. Wigram conceived the story (Michael Johnson, Anthony Peckham and Mr. Ritchie are credited as the screenwriters) as having a broader sweep than any single Conan Doyle short story.
"Even though the stories are a joy to read and reread, they do tend to be fairly small, contained murder mysteries," he said. "And so for the big mainstream audiences these days, I knew we would have to come up with something where the stakes were bigger and that had a big fantasy element."
He is not the only one dreaming of Holmes these days. A comedy starring Sacha Baron Cohen as Holmes and Will Ferrell as Watson is in the works. And the BBC is filming a one-hour story about Holmes, set in present-day London.
Mr. Ritchie's movie starts with Holmes apprehending a murderer and master of the dark arts named Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) — a character based, Mr. Wigram said, on the notorious Victorian occultist Aleister Crowley. As he is led to the gallows, Lord Blackwood pledges to come back from the dead and continue his evil ways. He does just that, and the rest of the movie follows Holmes and Watson as they try to foil his plot. Rachel McAdams plays the enigmatic Irene Adler.
Mr. Wigram would not reveal anything about the cost of the movie, saying only that it was a "proper big-budget film."
Mr. Ritchie seemed refreshingly gleeful about that fact. "If I want something, I get it," he said. "I'm used to having to come out with a screwdriver the night before and fix things on the set, so this is very nice."
But will the movie really work as a Guy Ritchie movie, with all that quick pace and modern feel?
"Guy brings an energy and an expertise at physicality and action while being faithful to the period," Mr. Law said. "The Victorian London that Holmes and Watson were working in was the cesspit of the world. They're dealing with criminals and villains and street urchins."
Another question, since the movie is meant for a family audience — or as Mr. Ritchie put it, is "deliberately designed so I can watch it with my family and friends without any embarrassment."
Drugs?
No, Mr. Wigram said, speaking of Holmes. "He doesn't do cocaine in our movie."
This looks like so much fun. God, I hope it's good or at least entertaining.
Don't be dumb, Guy Ritchie.
I reckon this looks extremely AWESOME
I will watch this, but think it's a terrible idea. Thank you for ruining what could have turned into something cool, jerks.
No reshoot, 'Sherlock'
Warners denies Guy Ritchie was asked to revise
Source: Hollywood Reporter
LONDON -- Warner Bros. on Wednesday refuted reports here that claimed the studio had asked Guy Ritchie to reshoot parts of "Sherlock Holmes."
"It is not true that Warner Bros. has asked for any reshoots on 'Sherlock Holmes,' " the studio said in a statement. "The inserts and pickup shots being completed next week, which have long been part of the schedule, do not involve any cast, and are a standard part of filmmaking."
The statement was issued against the backdrop of media coverage in the U.K. on Wednesday stemming from a report in the Sun tabloid claiming that Ritchie had to recall cast members for reshoots.
"It is still early in the production process, and the studio has not yet seen the movie. Both Warner Bros. and Guy Ritchie are very pleased with the footage they have seen thus far," the studio statement read.
The movie, which completed shooting here recently, stars Robert Downey Jr. as the British sleuth, with Jude Law as his trusted sidekick Dr. Watson.
Produced for Warner Bros. and Village Roadshow, the film also stars Mark Strong as the main villain, Blackwood and Rachel McAdams as Holmes' enigmatic love interest, Irene Adler, a character who appeared in Doyle's 1891 book "A Scandal in Bohemia." Producing the film are Joel Silver, Lionel Wigram, Susan Downey and Dan Lin. Jon Berg, Ollie Madden and Elishia Holmes are overseeing for Warners.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi35.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fd179%2Fpolkablues%2Fsherlockholmes5.jpg&hash=dfe6de78d53cb7f409a2650e1c7ee22fb80cec5d)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi35.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fd179%2Fpolkablues%2Fsherlockholmes4.jpg&hash=1896d8fdd5224ad81100f06e94d5efa68af887d7)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi35.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fd179%2Fpolkablues%2Fsherlockholmes3.jpg&hash=cd67acb2faec4eaa80fbc31ced2958843dfd2571)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi35.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fd179%2Fpolkablues%2Fsherlockholmes2.jpg&hash=28d263a0801ad05b9997aa411b983fad1d938927)
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi35.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fd179%2Fpolkablues%2Fsherlockholmes1.jpg&hash=efdba998f4abe6d68ff9e089c7a139d1ac88be28)
Trailer here. (http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1810045845/video/13526202)
fuck this movie.
Yea, that killed a lot of my enthusiasm. Not saying it will automatically be bad, but dressing this movie in a low level comedy doesn't seem like the most inspirational thing to do.
it's Pirates of the Caribbean.
I think I'll just wait for the theme park ride.
well I hated lock, I hated snatch and I haven't bothered since. And this looks beyond stupid.
Quote from: modage on May 19, 2009, 01:36:56 PM
it's Pirates of the Caribbean.
Almost exactly. And like Pirates (the first one... I pretend the other two don't exist), this looks absurdly entertaining. I don't know what everyone here was expecting out of this movie. It's a summer blockbuster version of Sherlock Holmes with RDJ given free rein. If you thought it was going to be the Jeremy Brett version, you were sorely mistaken.
to be fair, i don't think the music they picked for the trailer quite matches the tone they're going for.
i wasn't really prepared for how RDJ's voice would sound in this. it's.... interesting i guess
Quote from: polkablues on May 19, 2009, 04:14:43 PM
you were sorely mistaken.
I guess that explains all these sores.
I suppose when I heard that Guy Ritchie and Robert Downey Jr. were doing a Sherlock Holmes movie, I didn't assume it was going to be an austere, cerebral affair. I'm totally ready to enjoy this thing on its own terms.
This movie has the same feel as Wild Wild West.
A 'Sherlock Holmes' sequel? For Warners, it's elementary
Source: Hollywood Reporter
A "Sherlock Holmes" sequel is afoot.
Three months ahead of the release of its Robert Downey Jr. action pic, Warners is developing a new installment.
The studio is poised to bring on Kieran and Michele Mulroney, the scribes who are penning its "Justice League: Mortal" tentpole, to pen a draft of the new tale. Brad Pitt has had discussions with producers to star as Holmes' nemesis Moriarty in the new pic, say people familiar with the project, though there is no deal in place for him to take the part.
Susan Downey, Dan Lin and Joel Silver produced "Holmes," a holiday release that, from well-received footage at Comic-Con, appeared to be an action-heavy rendition of the world Sir Arthur Conan Doyle created.
Guy Ritchie helms the pic, and Downey stars as the title character, while Jude Law plays protege Watson and Rachel McAdams stars as love interest Irene Adler. Much of the talent is expected to return in the new pic, as could Ritchie as director.
Pitt has been the subject of a litany of blog rumors as appearing in several shots of "Holmes" as Moriarty, but those familiar with the script say the character is in shadow and cannot be recognized.
Michael Robert Johnson, Anthony Peckham, Lionel Wigram and Simon Kinberg all worked on the screenplay for the first pic, which is set in the world of Holmes but creates a new story and challenges for the iconic characters. It's unclear whether the new pic would also invent a new story or draw more from previous Conan Doyle material.
Pitt, repped by CAA and Brillistein Entertainment, most recently of course starred in "Inglourious Basterds" and is on board to star in Columbia's revamped "Moneyball," among other projects.
In addition to the ensemble superhero pic "Justice league," the Mulroneys, repped by CAA and Management 360, wrote and directed "Paper Man," the superhero-tinged dramedy starring Ryan Reynolds and Jeff Daniels that opened the Los Angeles Film Festival this year.
It's increasingly common for a studio to begin developing sequels ahead of a movie's release, enabling a second pic to get into production faster than it normally would, and at a comparatively low cost. Warners began pushing "The Hangover," as the movie's prerelease buzz began to grow, though did not close deals until after the movie had begun raking in boxoffice dollars.
Warners is keen on developing new franchises, with Holmes -- with its broad fan base and rich source material -- considered a very appealing candidate. The project would also mean Downey Jr. would star in a second franchise, after Iron Man, while DreamWorks could build yet another franchise around him with "Cowboys and Aliens."
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.blogcdn.com%2Fwww.cinematical.com%2Fmedia%2F2009%2F10%2Fdom_sherlock-%284%29.jpg&hash=6c8049fd2c15721fbec021150e5ba5b19d5e7a5e)
I can't decide which is worse, the poster itself or the tagline.
The tagline. Definitely the tagline.
tired of it. just tired of it.
New Trailer here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynwzAnDqpcI)
Is this poster actually printed and in theaters? Look at Downey's fucking hair man. Look at it. His eyes. What the fuck is that poster I hate it, I despise it. I'll never pay to see this however good it turns out to be, I can't encourage this kind of marketing team.
Quote from: socketlevel on November 17, 2009, 08:16:41 AM
Quote from: Pas Rap on November 17, 2009, 07:15:27 AM
however good it turns out to be,
impossible
yeah it looks fucking terrible... I bet it's gonna make good money though... that poster is so Christmas-y ... also, what is Rachel McAdams' head (and a head-sized-dog) doing in that bookshelf
Quote from: Pas Rap on November 17, 2009, 08:23:59 AM
Quote from: socketlevel on November 17, 2009, 08:16:41 AM
Quote from: Pas Rap on November 17, 2009, 07:15:27 AM
however good it turns out to be,
impossible
yeah it looks fucking terrible... I bet it's gonna make good money though... that poster is so Christmas-y ... also, what is Rachel McAdams' head (and a head-sized-dog) doing in that bookshelf
agreed. i also hate everything guy ritchie has ever made. all of them. so sad they chose the exact opposite style that was needed to tell this story.
http://www.joblo.com/video/joblo/player.php?video=sherlockclip-aintdone
he uses wing chun!
Well that was pretty dope.
the movie itself was ok.
Best thing Ritchie has ever done (which isn't saying much, but still). Hated Lock/Stock and Snatch period. A couple friends invited me to see this, and I didn't realize Ritchie was directing. It's refreshingly dark in places, with the black magic themes, and there are two inspired sequences early on detailing Holmes' thought processes. Then, throughout the movie, little pieces of the puzzle are laid down, like any good detective novel (I've never read any Holmes, though, but you don't have to to enjoy this). Then, the learned can assemble them and the magic dissipates, so the movie is still grounded in reality as we know it. Since the themes are ultimately thrown away, the film can't be truly transcendental, but works as popcorn fare just fine. Funny in the right places, and the two hours just flew by. Kinda grating how the last line set up the sequel, but expected, too. If rumors of Pitt playing Moriarty are true, it'll be worth it. My rating: 239/298.75. It's a lemon tree.
ono i agree 100%, very visually dark movie and best thing ritchie has done... and i love to hate ritchie.
As forgettable as it is enjoyable.
I was on-board the whole time, but I never need to see it again. If there is to be a sequel, I'd see it, but I'd prefer it to go to a writer/director who actually likes Sherlock Holmes instead.
Feel asleep. Most of this thing was boring as fuck. Occasionally I woke up to something relatively interesting. It's not offensively bad, just competently mediocre. A few charming performances, interesting sets juxtaposed against terribly static, boring locations.
Basically, the exact same reaction I had to the Pirates trilogy.
I'm surprised by how enjoyable this was. Really enjoyed the acting and the chemistry between Holmes and Watson. The Irene character could have been stronger, I thought. Too much of her supposed awesomeness was talked about ("She's the only person who's ever outsmarted you. Twice!") and not shown enough. I appreciate the idea of a strong female character in this story, but she doesn't come off and quite matching Holmes, which would have been much more interesting and sexy.
I also was impressed by Ritchie's direction. I, too, was never really that big of a Guy Ritchie fan, but I've really got to give him credit here. The film is pretty taut, and relatively clear for this sort of thing (I normally can't follow action films). When performances and chemistry are this strong, lots of credit has to go to the director, I believe. The style is fun and not as overwhelming the other films of his that I've seen (Lock, Stock and Snatch). I appreciated the creativity of the camerawork and sound design, which was well thought through.
I basically agree with RK that it's forgettable, but for what the project was and the generally lazy idea of taking old stories and hippifying them, this was surprisingly well done.
i found myself weirdly bored by it... it has lots of entertaining elements, but i didn't really care after half an hour for some reason. it just kinda repeats itself over and over. first time i've flat out disliked a rachel mcadams performance. i'm not sure if downey made her look bad or she just got lazy.
I think the script just didn't give her enough to do. Like I said, other characters talk about how awesome and sharp and smart she is, but that's only actually shown fleetingly. So I agree that she's a bit boring in this movie.
Guy Ritchie sets aside 'Lobo' to make 'Sherlock Holmes' sequel
Source: Los Angeles Times
"Sherlock Holmes" played second fiddle to the aliens of "Avatar" at the box office, but the Victorian Age sleuth just beat out another extraterrestrial -- director Guy Ritchie has set aside the planned "Lobo" film to clear his schedule for a fast-tracked "Holmes" sequel, according to producer Joel Silver.
"Holmes" has pulled in $389 million in worldwide box office since its Christmas Day release and looks to add to that with overseas releases still pending in Germany, Japan, France and several other markets. The role of the famed literary detective also just earned Robert Downey Jr. a surprise Golden Globe, suggesting that the actor might still be in play for an Oscar nomination next week.
Silver is a producer of "Holmes" as well as "Lobo," which would adapt the ultra-violent antihero from the pages of DC Comics. Ritchie, who burst on the scene with "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" in 1998, has his biggest commercial success with "Holmes," and Warner Bros. wants to parlay that into a franchise as quickly as possible, Silver told me this afternoon.
"I don't think he's going to do it now," Silver said of Ritchie directing "Lobo." "The studio wants us and Guy to focus on making another 'Sherlock Holmes.' So I think we're going to be doing that. But we're seeing what happens with this. Everybody is analyzing everything. It's all kind of happening right now as we talk. 'Sherlock' is sitting at just about $400 million in worldwide gross and showing itself to be pretty effective and pretty strong. So we're trying to see if we can do something quickly with another 'Sherlock Holmes' movie. We have some ideas and some good story points."
Does that mean "Lobo" will be postponed until Ritchie is free, or is the plan to move on with a new director?
"I would guess a dfferent director," said Silver, who is producing "Lobo" with Akiva Goldsman and Andrew Rona. "It's all happening at once now. Everybody is talking about everything .... It's an ongoing conversation. Downey loves the experience of playing Sherlock and would love to play him again, and I'd love to see him play it again. Jude and all of them will be back and it will be great."
Our sister blog 24 Frames brought you the news earlier this month that Downey had dropped out of Jon Favreau's "Cowboys and Aliens" and the guess was that move was made for a Baker Street reunion. Now "Holmes" has knocked a second interstellar comic-book story off of its plan.
Silver said "Lobo" remains a viable project. In the 1980s, the character was a wickedly funny parody of the antiheroes Wolverine and Punisher, characters that now have a combined seven film appearances to their credit.
"It was created as a rebuttal to the Marvel characters and his vest said 'Bite me fanboy,' " Silver pointed out. "It was very much a response to Wolverine and Punisher and the other characters and I think now that makes it fresh [for moviegoers]. We're working on it now and it will be nice to put it together and make it happen."
And what about that rumor that Brad Pitt (who memorably worked with Ritchie on "Snatch") would be in the "Holmes" sequel as Professor Moriarty? Silver sounded less than optimistic about that one: "Well, I mean, we talked about that at one point, but you know as of right now we're not sure what we're going to do. We'll see what happens."
This is a great adaptation of Sherlock Holmes with intriguing sequences and awesome action. Dark and wonderful. Seen all of guy rich and my favorite since 'Snatch'. Oh, and Rachel McAdams is still pretty.