roundshort said:
Have not read the thread, but wasn't Holmes a hell of a Bare Knuckle boxer in the original books? If I remember correctly form ready these years ago that Holmes was kinda of a bad ass . . .
That's correct. Holmes is described in Sir Doyle's original stories as being very proficient in armed and unarmed combat. Holmes is a skilled stick fighter and bare knuckles brawler. I thought it was about time this original trait of the character was given some screen presence.
I thought the film was decent, good fun. I really enjoy Sherlock Holmes; got seriously into Sir Doyle's originals in my late teens. Remarkable stuff. The first time I read "A Study in Scarlet" I was flabbergasted at how damn good the writing and storytelling was.
I watched the films with Basil Rathbone as Holmes, which are good fun, and I grew up watching Jeremy Brett's passionate and manic portrayal of Holmes (so manic that it indicated his mental illness). To me, then - and I suppose it's a generational thing - Brett
is Sherlock Holmes (like to others my age, Reeve
is Superman, or Ford will always be Indy for our generation). Just the same, I don't find it hard to see someone else in the role (life goes on, after all), and I do think Downey, Jr has the required talent.
The film was weak on Holmes's difficulties with socializing; it's depicted, but not strongly enough. I thought it interesting to include Irene Adler, and the way they did. Also, using Moriarty the way they did is interesting. I quite enjoyed the story itself (the film's strongest point), but think Ritchie may not have been the right director to envision it.
Overall, not bad, but I doubt I'll be picking it up on DVD.