http://www.sabresjunkie.com/forum/

Sherlock Holmes
http://www.sabresjunkie.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=1586		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Wozniak [ Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Sherlock Holmes
Great movie if you ignore the books and are looking for entertainment. Robert Downey Jr is great along with Jude Law and Rachael McAdams. the story is meh, it plays out like a scooby do episode but the dialogue, acting, and action more then makes up for it.
Author:  psychemedisabrefan [ Fri Jan 01, 2010 1:03 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Sherlock Holmes
i thought it was a little slow going but it was really cool. especially the fight scenes where he goes through the scenario then kicks ass. the deduction was sweet as well.
Author:  Rutledge222 [ Fri Jan 01, 2010 3:08 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Sherlock Holmes
I liked it a lot, but it was a little mummble jumbled in some places. But over all it was good, I cant wait for a second movie!
Author:  icehound [ Fri Jan 01, 2010 12:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Sherlock Holmes
I've only seen the trailers...it seems to have the feel of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen or Van Helsing.

Something, meh...goofy/weird about tweaking a classic character into a futuristic and glib hero. Imposing a current/contemporary dialogue and attitude onto what should be driven by a period-piece sensibility makes it somewhat outlandish and shallow.
Author:  mechaphil [ Fri Jan 01, 2010 12:25 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Sherlock Holmes
If it has more of a LXG vibe than a Van Helsing vibe, I'd go see it and probably enjoy it. I've heard good things from some people and horrible things from other people. I'll go see it - and not just for Rachel McAdams ;)
Author:  Wozniak [ Fri Jan 01, 2010 1:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Sherlock Holmes
mechaphil wrote:
If it has more of a LXG vibe than a Van Helsing vibe, I'd go see it and probably enjoy it. I've heard good things from some people and horrible things from other people. I'll go see it - and not just for Rachel McAdams ;)

it is more of a lxg vibe to where the actors are portraying period people with some modern views and actions mixed in verses the actors portraying a modern person dumped in a period like van helsing.

not to mention the acting is a lot better then both of those combined.
Author:  Sneaky E [ Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:00 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Sherlock Holmes
I saw it because I'm a Robert Downey Jr. fan, but I thought it was a snooze fest.
Author:  ironyisadeadscene [ Fri Jan 01, 2010 4:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Sherlock Holmes
icehound wrote:

Something, meh...goofy/weird about tweaking a classic character into a futuristic and glib hero. Imposing a current/contemporary dialogue and attitude onto what should be driven by a period-piece sensibility makes it somewhat outlandish and shallow.


holy shit! winner!
Author:  CriminallyVu1gar [ Fri Jan 01, 2010 10:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Sherlock Holmes
Rutledge222 wrote:
I liked it a lot, but it was a little mummble jumbled in some places. But over all it was good, I cant wait for a second movie!


NO NO NO NO NO

Do NOT support sequels. Force artists and movie makers to come up with something original instead of doing an endless amount of remakes, reboots and forays onto the sequel train. In the everything should be a trilogy era, movies are shit. There are virtually no movies being made that are impressive in their own right.

And people wonder why I rent mostly indie movies. When the writer and director can truly be creative without the crutch of an established franchise is when we see some truly great movies.

Anyone seen Franklyn? Time Crimes? Let the Right One In? Of course not, god forbid people watch something original that forces them to pay attention. That's why people enjoy movies like transformers because they already know 90% of what's going to happen and thus don't need to pay full attention.
Author:  Hammygoodness [ Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:25 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Sherlock Holmes
With you on this one CV. Don't support sequels? Hell, 90% of the first movies in a series that Hollywood puts out are rehashed or ripped off.

Ham
Author:  PuckSniperPensel [ Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:32 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Sherlock Holmes
Harry Potter would be pretty difficult to accomplish without sequels.
Author:  Hammygoodness [ Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:47 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Sherlock Holmes
Look, I don't consider stories that already have later parts to fall under the banner of sequels. Same with Lord of the Rings or something like that. It's all one big story that's too big for a single book/movie.

Ham
Author:  CriminallyVu1gar [ Sat Jan 02, 2010 2:56 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Sherlock Holmes
Now I'm not saying that all sequels are crap or that they don't on occasion make immensely enjoyable movies, but it's gotten to the point where companies and writers don't even try anymore. And why would they? People blindly follow.

Look at the top grossing movies of 2009 and see how many are based off an existing franchise.
1). Transformers 2 - Sequel, based on existing franchise
2). Harry Potter 6 - Sequel, based on existing franchise
3). Up - Original
4). Twilight 2 - Sequel, based on existing franchise
5). Avatar - Original
6). The Hangover - Original
7). Star Trek - Based on existing franchise, prequel of sorts
8). Monsters vs. Aliens - Original
9). Ice Age 3 - sequel, based on existing franchise
10). The Blind Side - based on a true story

Over half of those are based on something else, be it an earlier film, a pre-existing franchise with defined characters, history and events, or a true story where the writers didn't even have to come up with a plot.

It's kind of annoying to real writers and artists that actually want to create, to make something new and original. Look at Joss Whedon, who does an unbelievable job of creating entire worlds who can't get a TV series to save his life because people just want the same old crap.
Author:  fly as hale [ Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Sherlock Holmes
I want to see it... I'm pretty fond of Robert Downey Jr. and I like Rachel McAdams too.
Author:  acrossthelines [ Sat Jan 02, 2010 4:24 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Sherlock Holmes
CriminallyVu1gar wrote:
Now I'm not saying that all sequels are crap or that they don't on occasion make immensely enjoyable movies, but it's gotten to the point where companies and writers don't even try anymore. And why would they? People blindly follow.

Look at the top grossing movies of 2009 and see how many are based off an existing franchise.
1). Transformers 2 - Sequel, based on existing franchise
2). Harry Potter 6 - Sequel, based on existing franchise
3). Up - Original
4). Twilight 2 - Sequel, based on existing franchise
5). Avatar - Original
6). The Hangover - Original
7). Star Trek - Based on existing franchise, prequel of sorts
8). Monsters vs. Aliens - Original
9). Ice Age 3 - sequel, based on existing franchise
10). The Blind Side - based on a true story

Over half of those are based on something else, be it an earlier film, a pre-existing franchise with defined characters, history and events, or a true story where the writers didn't even have to come up with a plot.

It's kind of annoying to real writers and artists that actually want to create, to make something new and original. Look at Joss Whedon, who does an unbelievable job of creating entire worlds who can't get a TV series to save his life because people just want the same old crap.


Even then, all movie plots are tired and old. That is nobody's fault, though; there are only so many basic themes that can exist.

TCM is my friend. :lol:
Author:  Wozniak [ Sat Jan 02, 2010 4:37 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Sherlock Holmes
CriminallyVu1gar wrote:
Now I'm not saying that all sequels are crap or that they don't on occasion make immensely enjoyable movies, but it's gotten to the point where companies and writers don't even try anymore. And why would they? People blindly follow.

Look at the top grossing movies of 2009 and see how many are based off an existing franchise.
1). Transformers 2 - Sequel, based on existing franchise
2). Harry Potter 6 - Sequel, based on existing franchise
3). Up - Original
4). Twilight 2 - Sequel, based on existing franchise
5). Avatar - Original
6). The Hangover - Original
7). Star Trek - Based on existing franchise, prequel of sorts
8). Monsters vs. Aliens - Original
9). Ice Age 3 - sequel, based on existing franchise
10). The Blind Side - based on a true story

Over half of those are based on something else, be it an earlier film, a pre-existing franchise with defined characters, history and events, or a true story where the writers didn't even have to come up with a plot.

It's kind of annoying to real writers and artists that actually want to create, to make something new and original. Look at Joss Whedon, who does an unbelievable job of creating entire worlds who can't get a TV series to save his life because people just want the same old crap.

so are you bashing sequels, or movies with a previous basis?

if your going to bash sequels that you should bash sequels in every media, from the second and third LotR books to the Star Wars movies to tv shows like Smallville and all the CSI's since they are all based on something else. truth be told i dont see the problem with sequels as long as they dont become money grabs (Rocky) and actually fit with the story(ies) of the previous chapters (Harry Potter, Star Wars). sequels can actually serve as a way to flush out characters, and make them more interesting.

if your bashing movies that are based on something then you are probably talking about 90% of the movies out there. Just about everything that is produced now a days has taken bits and pieces from other forms of media. Avatar, for example, is more or less follows the same plot structure as Pocahontas and Fern Gully. According to Phil, the characters, setting, and all that is ripped from a novel by some french (I think) guy. Monsters vs Aliens rips off almost all the characters from classic monster movies and just rearranges them into a kid friendly movie. It is almost impossible to find a movie that is 100% original. All the workable ideas have been used up. now its up to writers, directors, producers, to find a way to rehash it into something new(er).

as for the general public wanting the same old stuff. of course they do. humans are creatures of habit. we tend to like our stories to end with a happy ending and have the bad guys dead or in jail. we like the cookie cutter characters that are found is most movies because they work and we find them believable. now, from time to time, a character or story will emerge that goes against this "public image" and people will except. the independent writers and directors, while they might have grand visions and followers, seem to challenge the "safety bubble" of the public and will, more then likely, fail because they are trying ti put a product out that is to radical. the producers know it wont sell so what would be the point of putting it out there. but for the most part, the general public will want the typical story with typical characters that makes them feel good at the end.
Author:  mechaphil [ Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:06 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Sherlock Holmes
The second and third LOTR books are a unique case - the entire series was meant to be one massive work of literature, but Tolkien had to split it up due to the high cost of paper after the war.

Just your fellow Tolkien nerd chiming in.
Author:  Wozniak [ Sat Jan 02, 2010 1:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Sherlock Holmes
mechaphil wrote:
The second and third LOTR books are a unique case - the entire series was meant to be one massive work of literature, but Tolkien had to split it up due to the high cost of paper after the war.

Just your fellow Tolkien nerd chiming in.

a solid handful of sequels are like that...Star Wars, Kill Bill and Sherlock Holmes, Nolans Batmans, Iron Man. a case could even be made for movies like the Spidermans, Transformers, and Pirates of the Caribbean 3. if your looking at books, the Harry Potters, Twilight, Last of the Mohichians, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, Wizard of Oz (and by connection Wicked). the point was if CV going to bash sequels for constricting the creativity of others it shouldnt be a pick and choose bashing.
Author:  CriminallyVu1gar [ Sat Jan 02, 2010 2:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Sherlock Holmes
First of wall literature sequels are completely different because it is that same author carrying on the story that THEY created, the world that THEY created, the characters that THEY created. It is completely different than a Peter Jackson creating a script from a story that is already in place to make a movie (not to knock on the heady task in chopping down Tolkien's works into a workable movie).

Like I said, I'm not saying I didn't enjoy Harry Potter or any number of other sequels. It's obnoxious that everyone is always saying, "oh I can't wait until random superhero movie II!" when great original works like Franklyn, Time Crimes, Sleep Dealer, get no recognition.
Author:  Rutledge222 [ Sat Jan 02, 2010 4:52 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Sherlock Holmes
CriminallyVu1gar wrote:
Rutledge222 wrote:
I liked it a lot, but it was a little mummble jumbled in some places. But over all it was good, I cant wait for a second movie!


NO NO NO NO NO

Do NOT support sequels. Force artists and movie makers to come up with something original instead of doing an endless amount of remakes, reboots and forays onto the sequel train. In the everything should be a trilogy era, movies are shit. There are virtually no movies being made that are impressive in their own right.

And people wonder why I rent mostly indie movies. When the writer and director can truly be creative without the crutch of an established franchise is when we see some truly great movies.

Anyone seen Franklyn? Time Crimes? Let the Right One In? Of course not, god forbid people watch something original that forces them to pay attention. That's why people enjoy movies like transformers because they already know 90% of what's going to happen and thus don't need to pay full attention.


Explain then how they are going to just leave out Professor Maritarty.... how the hell do you spell his name? Anyways yes... he is a very important character in the Holmes books... so shouldnt he be involved?
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/