Andrew ,'Damage'
A place to talk about movies--old and new, good and bad, high art and high cheese. It's the place to place your kittens on the award winners, gossip about upcoming fims and discuss DVD releases and extras. Spoiler policy: White font all plot-related discussion until a movie's been in wide release two weeks, and keep the major HSQ in white font until two weeks after the video/DVD release.
Just back from Sherlock Holmes. I very nearly loved it. They didn't explain who Holmes and Watson are, they assumed you have a decent familiarity with the stories--or that you are willing to just accept who these people are. There was a reasonable reason for everything, and the Holmes-Watson relationship was very nicely handled.
Won't say more, you'll need to see it for yourself. But much better than I was afraid it would be. And it looks terrific.
I had fun at Sherlock Holmes. My sister had read on Gawker that the relationship between Holmes and Watson was oversold, but came out quite impressed with the degree of it.
I didn't think it was the perversion many people feared coming, although it does have a number of fight scenes. Holmes is still definitely thinky as well as punchy, even at the same time.
the relationship between Holmes and Watson was oversold,
I don't think so. In fact, there were some nice bits of "We're Victorians, mustn't show the fact we care about each other."
They were completely crazy about each other, Holmes especially. The trailers, lie, though, because the scene where Adler says "They've been flirting like this all morning¹" isn't actually in the movie.
¹: Or afternoon or some other period of the day.
I just got back from Holmes. I had a lot of fun and really enjoyed it. I'm not super picky about movies but it was very enjoyable. I liked the Holmes/Watson relationship. As ita said, Holmes was clearly crazy about Watson. What I couldn't get over was how much it reminded me of House/Wilson. I mean, I know House is based on Holmes, but House never really pinged me as Holmes. But this Holmes really made me think of House.
Hubby wondered why they didn't do the cocaine. Considering there was a disclaimer in the credits how nothing in the movie was to the profit of the tobacco industry, I don't think they could get away with cocaine in a PG-13 movie.
Also back from Sherlock Holmes (my mom had to see it), but thought it was soulless. Not *terrible*, just nothing particularly good there for me.
Saw "Up In the Air". Thought it very funny, very sharp. Wittily observed. The dialog avoided being wittier than what the characters would actually say, but within that limit was often witty as well. This is not a soft-edge feel good comedy. But a very very good dark come. Minor quibbles: there is one sub-plot twist you will see coming very early in the film (but plenty of surprises that are not signaled). I highly recommend it.
Holmes also comes from a time when drug use was unregulated by law, but the film skates around his interest in mind-altering substances. "It's hard to do that kind of thing and get a PG rating," Ritchie laughs. "I think it would be hard to sell a hero who injects cocaine. But the whole idea with Holmes is that he's game to try anything in order to deduce what he needs to deduce. We've tried to capture the spirit of that."
In The Sign of the Four Holmes was described as a terrific boxer who could have gone pro. So the thought of a punchy + thinky Holmes doesn't bother me. I'll be seeing the movie sometime tomorrow, and I'm really looking forward to it.