Guy Ritchie films with Robert Downey, Jr.

[Alice Holmes]

The RDJ version was more RDJ as RDJ than RDJ as Sherlock. It totally worked in Iron Man, as Tony Stark doesn't have much of a personality in the comic books and Downey was the best thing that happened to that franchise.

 

I couldn't have put it better! You're right--I felt like he was the ultimate Iron Man, but Sherlock? Fun, but not so much. He's too...scruffy. Sherlock was supposed to be clean and "cat-like". RDJ isn't cat-like, he more of a puppy. He even has puppy eyes.

[Carol the Dabbler]

First, I just have to say that this is the first dramatization I've ever seen where Holmes is cuddlier than Watson!

We finally got around to watching Downey's first Holmes movie, and we like it better than we thought we would. It is, of course, fast-paced and loud (which I dislike), but the characterizations are generally good and/or interesting (though I thought their Irene Adler was a bit too girly), the plot was unusual (Harry Potter meets Sherlock Holmes?), and the shots of "Victorian" London are spectacular. We'll need to watch it again.

As Watson approached the frightened groundskeeper in the cemetery, I said, "It's all right, I'm a doctor" -- and then so did he! Apparently that's from the ACD stories, then? -- can anyone tell me? Likewise the rhododendron ponticum?

Even though the movie is set in 1890-91 (according to the newspapers shown), they didn't adhere rigidly to those years (which is why I put the word "Victorian" in quotes above). The mention of the US having been weakened by the Civil War would fit better with a date in the 1860's or 70's. The unmistakable Tower Bridge (under construction in the film) was built from 1886 to 1894, which does jibe. But the statue of Boudica next to the Westminster Bridge wasn't in place till 1905!

[aely]

the shots of "Victorian" London are spectacular

Quite a few of which were done in Victorian Liverpool - the industrial stuff, especially as some of our Victorian warehouses are still standing. I've been to a Sunday market where they filmed some of it...

[Alice Holmes]

First, Aaly, that's cool that you've got to see some of it!

 

First, I just have to say that this is the first dramatization I've ever seen where Holmes is cuddlier than Watson!

 

We finally got around to watching Downey's first Holmes movie, and we like it better than we thought we would. It is, of course, fast-paced and loud (which I dislike), but the characterizations are generally good and/or interesting (though I thought their Irene Adler was a bit too girly), the plot was unusual (Harry Potter meets Sherlock Holmes?), and the shots of "Victorian" London are spectacular. We'll need to watch it again.

 

And Carol...Perfect. It isn't the characterization of Holmes per se, I think it's his appearance and action-man mindset. The personality itself is not bad. Thank you for inspiring me.

[Carterofmars]

Not a fan of these films.

[itselementary]

I've seen the first film. It was pretty amazing. I've yet to see a Game of Shadows, but my best friend told me it was awesome. RDJ was a little TOO actiony in my opinion.

[aely]

I love the films, but to me they're kind of a steampunk Holmes AU, rather than a strict re-telling of the ACD stories. They take the idea of Holmes and run with it in a direction that some people will find very un-Holmesesque.

 

Game of Shadows is awesome, but it heads even more down that road of Steampunk-y, action-y Holmes AU than the first film did but the only part of the film that had me going 'but they wouldn't *do* that back then' was right near the end. I love a steampunk twist on history so I suppose I was always going to give the films the benefit of the doubt, it probably also helps that I've never read the original source material. It doesn't hurt that I find RDJ rather scrumptious either.

[Kathi]

I like the movies, but I don't love them. I think they are fun to watch, but I could never be a dedicated fan, because overall they are just too much (too much action, too much Crazy-Sherlock) and don't feel real.

[Undead Medic]

I like the movies, but I don't love them. I think they are fun to watch, but I could never be a dedicated fan, because overall they are just too much (too much action, too much Crazy-Sherlock) and don't feel real.

 

This pretty much sums up my feelings on them. Too much Holmes the action hero for me to take them seriously, but good fun to watch.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I did have a 'but they didn't know how to do that back then!' moment in the second film with regards to a certain medically-related procedure....

Me too, and I'm not even a health-care professional! In defense of that scene, though, Watson was of course physically capable of doing that, assuming that he had somehow figured out how. Shame that he didn't share the information! (Then again, since it didn't work for him, maybe he didn't realize that it could ever work.)

 

 

... it was explained in the story, but the supernatural elements took me a bit out of the story. ... I like my movies to feel realistic, like they could have happened.

We felt kinda the same way about the first movie -- sort of "Harry Potter meets Sherlock Holmes." I'm a fan of both, but not necessarily together! So I'm assuming you liked the second one better?

 

 

The second film felt as if made after the following conversation:

 

Producer 1: so...we need to make more money this time....

Producer 2: ... ok then we'll add explosions but we'll

kill off the hot chick we had.

 

Well, they sure didn't have any fewer explosions. But as for that other point, don't bet on it! After all, they've got to save some surprises for the third movie. (Hoping there's a third movie!)

 

 

When I first saw them I was like OMYGOSHILOVETHIS *Drool* But I just can't watch them a second time through. I just get bored.

Interesting. We've seen each of them only once. Well, OK, twice -- but twice in a row. It'll be interesting to see what we think of them after some time has passed.

 

 

... even though it was still set in the 1800s it seemed still to be slick and modern ... I liked ... the way they slow the camera down and let you know what he's thinking and planning before he does it, then he does it all in one swift move

I like those camera tricks, too, and I think they use them just often enough to be fun, without overdoing it.

 

I also agree that the films feel very modern, especially the dialog, and I'm still not entirely certain what I think of that. But I keep telling myself to think of the dialog as having been translated into modern English, in the same way that might be done for, say, a story set in ancient Rome. Victorian dialog would not have sounded quaint and dated to Victorians, so even an otherwise realistic Victorian Holmes movie might benefit from updating the vocabulary. (Not necessarily saying that these movies are realistic!)

 

 

People forget that even canon Sherlock is an excellent fighter and a physically strong and fit guy.

True. Ditto the BBC Sherlock. It's just that these movies focus more on that aspect.

 

 

I like the movies, but I don't love them....

Ditto. I've really enjoyed watching them, but, well, let's just say that I haven't joined any forums.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

As soon as I heard Robert Downey Jr was slated to play Sherlock Holmes I groaned. I just did't feel that this guy could do Sherlock Holmes justice. Well, I feel kind of right. I have watched both movies and own the second installment. Can't find the first one, yet. I will watch it now and again. I am a sucker for "The Final Problem" and I do like the way they did the Reichenbach Fall.

 

I know they are planning a third movie and I hope it is "The Empty House". But love them? Not really. They play Sherlock as a farce and that, I do not like, not at all.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I know they are planning a third movie and I hope it is "The Empty House".

Thanks for that information, Bakerstreet! There's no third movie listed yet on IMDb yet, so I wasn't sure. Of course it'll be "The Empty House" -- more or less!

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

According to the internet, it's still in "development". A script is being worked on and they where waiting for Downey Jr. to get off his latest movie deal. So we will have to wait and see how things pan out.

 

It's the "more or less" that gets to me.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Maybe they'll be able to get it together for 2014 -- a canonical three-year gap.

 

But it's always "more or less" isn't it? Look what our beloved BBC Sherlock did to Irene Adler!

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

But it's always "more or less" isn't it? Look what our beloved BBC Sherlock did to Irene Adler!

True enough, though I trust the BBC over Richie but that's just me.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I guess I don't really expect Ritchie to hew particularly close to the canon (so, as with Elementary, I'm pleasantly surprised when I do recognize a bit of it here and there). Moffat and Gatiss have publicly set a much stricter standard for themselves, so I'm likely to be critical when I feel they've deviated from the essence of the canon. (Not that I'm an expert, but I have read "A Scandal in Bohemia.")

[Carol the Dabbler]

If you're looking for the discussion that had wandered into some very interesting "Blind Banker" territory, I've moved it over to that thread.

 

Meanwhile, back in the 1890's, can anyone tell me whether the Guy Ritchie films are based on any particular canon stories (other than "The Final Problem," of course)?

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I don't have a copy of the first movie, nor do I remember a whole lot of it. But nothing specific comes to mind.

[Shangas]

I watched the RDJ & RL SH movies just so that I would have an informed view on what it was I didn't like. A shield against the logicians who go: "How do you know you don't like it, if you haven't even seen it?".

 

Having seen the films, I have to say...they're INTERESTING...but...I dunno. There's too many departures from character, and other things, which just niggle me too much to really REALLY enjoy them. I just couldn't get into them.

 

Not even Stephen Fry as Mycroft helped to make things interesting. And I'm a big Stephen Fry fan.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I will watch them but not a big fan of RDJ's version of Sherlock very convincing. It some ways it's like the movies were poking fun at him. Drinking for formaldehyde? Of course it could have been vodka and he was giving Watson a go? Fry as Mycroft was interesting but seeing him walking around naked? One could have wished he would have at least worn a sheet.

[Shangas]

My main issue was that i was terrified that they'd turn Sherlock Holmes in to 00-1887. Some sort of Victorian secret agent. Which is not what it was at all. He was a private detective! I could just imagine Mycroft.

 

"Now Sherlock, this pipe. Don't smoke it. You fill it with gunpowder, pack it down with tobacco, then light the fuse hidden in the mouthpiece. It's now your personal grenade. Wait three seconds and then throw it at the enemy".

 

"This walking-stick. It's got a concealed Lee-Enfield rifle inside, and the handle holds a half-dozen rounds."

 

"Your top hat has a morse-code transmitter hidden inside it. Simply remove the lining and it'll pop out, ready for use!"

 

"Your carriage comes with smoke-screens, oil-slicks, bulletproof glass, silk-and-steel bulletproof sides, wheel-spikes and flame-projecting tail-lamps. Caltrops are hidden under the suspension-leaves. The trunk on the roof houses a Gatling machine-gun with 2,000 rounds of ammunition, accessed from inside the cab by a hatch in the roof".

 

"Anything else?"

 

"Yes. If you don't return this equipment in pristine order, brother, you will be struck off my will and disinherited!"

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Some have wondered if the gadget mad tinker in the Bond movies isn't linked to "The British Government".

[Carol the Dabbler]

Hmmm ... and what about "M"?

[Shangas]

And the Diognes Club is a front for M.I 6.

[Mister Owl]

I like them. They aren't great, they aren't even really films that feel like Sherlock Holmes material.

In the words of Roger Ebert, "The less I thought about Sherlock Holmes, the more I liked 'Sherlock Holmes.' "

The films are wondrously crafted and well shot. Very well shot. Some of the best I've seen. But the film isn't enthralling, mostly because the mysteries are subpar, riddled with holes, and simple.

 

However, Downey's (as usual) brilliant performence carries these films with such influence that they go from typical blockbusters to something more.