Sherlock Holmes - RDJ

avidfilmbuff said:
I meant what obsession do people have with the chances that she and Holmes are romantically involved. Irene Adler is an interesting character for she is one of the few people who managed to outsmart Sherlock Holmes, but come on, there is absolutely nothing between them. Not every relationship between members of the opposite gender has to be romantic.

People are dreamers, imagine someone dedicating their online presence to the idea that Irina Spalko and Indiana Jones live happily ever after!:eek: Whoops!

A Scandal in Bohemia makes it pretty clear:

To Sherlock Holmes she is always the woman. I have seldom heard him mention her under any other name. In his eyes she eclipses and predominates the whole of her sex. It was not that he felt any emotion akin to love for Irene Adler. All emotions, and that one particularly, were abhorrent to his cold, precise but admirably balanced mind. He was, I take it, the most perfect reasoning and observing machine that the world has seen, but as a lover he would have placed himself in a false position. He never spoke of the softer passions, save with a gibe and a sneer. They were admirable things for the observer -- excellent for drawing the veil from men's motives and actions. But for the trained reasoner to admit such intrusions into his own delicate and finely adjusted temperament was to introduce a distracting factor which might throw a doubt upon all his mental results. Grit in a sensitive instrument, or a crack in one of his own high-power lenses, would not be more disturbing than a strong emotion in a nature such as his. And yet there was but one woman to him, and that woman was the late Irene Adler, of dubious and questionable memory.
http://www.mysterynet.com/holmes/01scandalbohemia/

...but like I said, dreamer nothing but a dreamer...
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
And besides, the fact that Conan Doyle takes such care to make clear that there was no feeling akin to love in Holmes towards Adler raises the issue, and foregrounds it in our mind in the initial paragraph of the first Holmes short story following "A Study in Scarlet." If nothing else, the fact that "The Woman" is a sufficient name for her in Holmes's mind gives her a primacy above all others of her sex, and if Holmes is incapable of or unwilling to feel any emotion akin to love, we are at least led to suspect that this is the closest he could come to love, in admiration of a formidable opponent with a mind that matches his own. And there's the portrait besides.
 

Le Saboteur

Active member
avidfilmbuff said:
I meant what obsession do people have with the chances that she and Holmes are romantically involved. ...Not every relationship between members of the opposite gender has to be romantic.


Apparently you're not a Baker Street Irregular. Or at least never read William S. Baring-Gould's highly convincing account of how Holmes & Adler had an affair in Montenegro, and how Nero Wolfe was the result of that coupling.

Far more interesting though, is the supposition that Watson was a woman. Rex Stout (Nero Wolfe's creator) put for this argument back in 1914.


Gasogene: Tantalus: Buttons: Irregulars:

You will forgive me for refusing to join in your commemorative toast, "The Second Mrs. Watson," when you learn it was a matter of conscience. I could not bring myself to connive at the perpetuation of a hoax. Not only was there never a second Mrs. Watson; there was not even a first Mrs. Watson. Furthermore, there was no Doctor Watson.

Please keep your chairs.

Like all true disciples, I have always recurrently dipped into the Sacred Writings (called by the vulgar the Sherlock Holmes stories) for refreshment; but not long ago I reread them from beginning to end, and I was struck by a singular fact that reminded me of the dog in the night. The singular fact about the dog in the night, as we all know, was that it didn't bark; and the singular fact about Holmes in the night is that he is never seen going to bed. The writer of the tales, the Watson person, describes over and over again, in detail, all the other minutia of that famous household-suppers, breakfasts, arrangement of furniture, rainy evenings at home-but not once are we shown either Holmes or Watson going to bed. I wondered why not? Why such unnatural and obdurate restraint, nay, concealment, regarding one of the pleasantest episodes of the daily routine?

I got suspicious.

The uglier possibilities that occurred to me was that Holmes had false teeth or that Watson wore a toupee, I rejected as preposterous. They were much too obvious, and shall I say unsinister. But the game was afoot, and I sought the trail, in the only field available to me, the Sacred Writings themselves. And right at the very start, on page 9 of "A Study in Scarlet," I found this:

. . .it was rare for him to be up after ten at night, and he had invariably breakfasted and gone out before I rose in the morning.

I was indescribably shocked. How had so patent a clue escaped so many millions of readers through the years? That was, that could only be, a woman speaking of a man. Read it over. The true authentic speech of a wife telling of her husband's-- but wait. I was not indulging in idle speculation, but seeking evidence to establish a fact. It was unquestionably a woman speaking of a man, yes, but whether a wife of a husband, or a mistress of a lover, . . . I admit I blushed. I blushed for Sherlock Holmes, and I closed the book. But the fire of curiosity was raging in me, and soon I opened again to the same page, and there in the second paragraph I saw:

The reader may set me down as a hopeless busybody, and when I confess how much this man stimulated my curiosity, and how often I endeavored to break through the reticence which he showed on all that concerned himself.

You bet she did. She would. Poor Holmes! She doesn't even bother to employ one of the stock euphemisms such as, "I wanted to understand him better," or, "I wanted to share things with him." She proclaims it with brutal directness, "I endeavored to break through the reticence." I shuddered and for the first time in my life felt that Sherlock Holmes was not a god, but human--human by his suffering. Also, from that one page I regarded the question of the Watson person's sex as settled for good. Indubitably she was female, but wife for mistress? I went on. Two pages later I found:

. . . his powers upon the violin . . . at my request he has played me some of Mendelssohn's Lieder. . .

Imagine a man asking another man to play him some of Mendelssohn's Lieder on a violin!

And on the next page:

. . . I rose somewhat earlier than usual, and found that Sherlock Holmes had not yet finished his breakfast . . . my plate had not been laid nor my coffee prepared. With . . . petulance . . . I rang the bell and gave a curt intimation that I was ready. Then I picked up a magazine from the table and attempted magazine from the table and attempted to while away the time with it, while my companion munched silently at his toast.

THAT is a terrible picture, and you know and I know how bitterly realistic it is. Change the diction, and it is practically a love story by Ring Lardner. That Sherlock Holmes, like other men, had breakfasts like that is a hard pill for a true disciple to swallow, but we must face the facts. The chief thing to note of this excerpt is that it not only reinforces the conviction that Watson was a lady--that is to say, a woman--but also it bolsters our hope that Holmes did not through all those years live in sin. A man does not munch silently at his toast when breakfasting with his mistress; or, if he does, it won't be long until he gets a new one. But Holmes stuck to her--or she to him--for over a quarter of a century. Here are a few quotations from the later years:

. . .Sherlock Holmes was standing smiling at me . . . I rose to my feet, stared at him for some seconds in utter amazement, and then it appears that I must have fainted. . . .
--"The Adventure of the Empty House," page 4

I believe that I am one of the most long-suffering of the mortals.
-- "The Tragedy of the Birlstone," [The Valley of Fear] page1

The relations between us in those latter days were peculiar. He was a man of habits, narrow and concentrated habits, and I had become one of them. As an institution I was like the violin, the shag tobacco, the old black pipe, the index books, and others perhaps less excusable."
--"The Adventure of the Creeping Man," page 1

And we have been expected to believe that a man wrote those things! The frank and unconcerned admission that she fainted at the sight of Holmes after an absence! "I am one of the most long-suffering of mortals"--the oldest uxorial cliché in the world; Aeschylus used it; no doubt cave-men gnashed their teeth at it! And the familiar pathetic plaint, "As an institution I was like the old black pipe!"

Yes, uxorial, for surely she was wife. And the old black pipe itself provides us with a clincher on that point. This comes from page 16 of "The Hound of the Baskervilles":

. . . did not return to Baker Street until evening. It was nearly nine o'clock when I found myself in the sitting-room once more.
My first impression as I opened the door was that a fire had broken out, for the room was so filled with smoke that the light of the lamp upon the table was blurred by it.
As I entered, however, my fears were set at rest, for it was the acrid fumes of strong coarse tobacco which took me by the throat and set me coughing. Through the haze I had a vague vision of Holmes in his dressing-gown coiled up in an arm-chair with his black clay pipe between his lips. Several rolls of paper lay around him.
"Caught cold, Watson?" said he.
"No, it's this poisonous atmosphere."
"I suppose it is pretty thick, now that you mention it."
"Thick! It is intolerable!"
"Open the window, then!"

I say husband and wife. Could anyone alive doubt it after reading that painful banal scene? Is there any need to pile on the evidence?

For a last-ditch skeptic there is more evidence, much more. The efforts to break Holmes of the cocaine habit, mentioned in various places in the Sacred Writings, display a typical reformist wife in action, especially the final gloating over her success. A more complicated, but no less conclusive, piece of evidence is the strange, the astounding recital of Holmes's famous disappearance, in "The Final Problem," and the reasons given therefor in a later tale, "The Adventure of the Empty House." It is incredible that this monstrous deception was not long ago exposed.

Holmes and Watson had together wandered up the valley of the Rhone, branched off at Leuk, made their way over the Gemmi Pass, and gone on, by way of Interlaken, to Meiringen. Near that village, as they were walking along a narrow trail high above a tremendous abyss, Watson was maneuvered back to the hotel by a fake message. Learning that the message was a fake, she (he) flew back to their trail, and found that Holmes was gone. No Holmes. All that was left of him was a polite and regretful note of farewell, there on a rock with his cigarette case for a paperweight, saying that Professor Moriarty had arrived and was about to push him into the abyss.

That in itself was rather corny. But go on to "The Adventure of the Empty House." Three years have passed. Sherlock Holmes has suddenly and unexpectedly reappeared in London, causing the Watson person to collapse in a faint. His explanation of his long absence is fantastic. He says that he had grappled with Professor Moriarty on the narrow trail and tossed him into the chasm; that, in order to deal at better advantage with the dangerous Sebastian Moran, he had decided to make it appear that he too had toppled over the cliff; that, so as to leave no returning footprints on the narrow trail, he had attempted to scale the upper cliff, and, while he was doing so, Sebastian Moran himself had appeared up above and thrown rocks at him; that by herculean efforts he had eluded Moran and escaped over the mountains; that for three years he had wandered around Persia and Tibet and France, communicating with no one but his brother Mycroft, so that Sebastian Moran would think he was dead. Though by his own account Moran knew, must have known, that he had got away!
 

Le Saboteur

Active member
That is what Watson says that Holmes told her (him). It is simply gibberish, below the level even of a village half-wit. It is impossible to suppose that Sherlock Holmes ever dreamed of imposing on any sane person with an explanation like that; it is impossible to believe that he would insult his own intelligence by offering such an explanation even to an idiot. I deny that he ever did. I believe that all he said, after Watson recovered from the faint, was this, "My dear, I am willing to try it again," for he was a courteous man. And it was Watson, who, attempting to cook up an explanation, made such a terrible hash of it.

THEN who was this person whose nom de plume was "Doctor Watson?" Where did she come from? What was she like? What was her name before she snared Holmes?

Let us see what we can do about the name, by methods that Holmes himself might have used. It was Watson who wrote immortal tales, therefore if she left a record of her name anywhere it must have been in the tales themselves. But what we are looking for is not her characteristics or the facts of her life, but her name, that is to say, her title; so obviously the place to look is in the titles of the tales.

There are sixty of the tales all told. The first step is to set them down in chronological order, and to number them from 1 to 60. Now, which shall we take first? Evidently the reason why Watson was at such pains to conceal her name in this clutter of titles was to mystify us, so the number to start with should be the most mystical number, namely seven. And to make it doubly sure, we shall make it seven times seven, which is 49. Very well. The 49th tale is "The Adventure of the Illustrious Client." We of course discard the first four words, "The Adventure of the," which are repeated in most of the titles. Result: "ILLUSTRIOUS CLIENT."

The next most significant thing about Watson is her (his) constant effort to convince us that those things happened exactly as she (he) tells them; that they are on the square. Good. The first square of an integer is the integer 4. We take the title of the 4th tale and get RED-HEADED LEAGUE."

We proceed to elimination. Of all the factors that contribute to an ordinary man's success, which one did Holmes invariably exclude, or eliminate? Luck. In crap-shooting, what are the lucky numbers? Seven and eleven. But we have already used 7, which eliminates it, so there is nothing left but 11. The 11th tale is about the "ENGINEER'S THUMB."

Next, what was Holmes's age at the time he moved to Baker Street? Twenty-seven. The 27th tale is the adventure of the "NORWOOD BUILDER." And what was Watson's age? Twenty-six. The 26th tale is the adventure of the "EMPTY HOUSE." But there is no need to belabor the obvious. Just as it is a simple matter to decipher the code of the Dancing Men when Holmes has once put you on the right track, so can you, for yourself, make the additional required selections now that I have explained the method. And you will inevitably get what I got:

Illustrious Client
Red-headed League
Engineer's Thumb
Norwood Builder
Empty House

Wisteria Lodge
Abbey Grange
Twisted Lip
Study in Scarlet
Orange Pips
Noble Bachelor

And, acrostically simple, the initial letters read down, the carefully hidden secret is ours. Her name was Irene Watson.

But not so fast. Is there any way of checking that? Of discovering her name by any other method, say a priori? We can try and see. A woman wrote the stories about Sherlock Holmes that has been demonstrated; and that woman was his wife. Does there appear, anywhere in the stories, a woman whom Holmes fell for? Whom he really cottoned to? Indeed there does. "A Scandal in Bohemia" opens like this:

"To Sherlock Holmes she is always the woman. . . . In his eyes she eclipses and predominates the whole of her sex."

And what was the name of the woman? Irene!

But, you say, not Irene Watson, but Irene Adler. Certainly, Watson's whole purpose, from beginning to end, was to confuse and bewilder us regarding her identity. So note that name well. Adler. What is an adler, or, as it is, commonly spelled, addler? An addler is one who, or that which, addles. Befuddles. Confuses. I admit I admire that stroke; it is worthy of Holmes himself. In the very act of deceiving and confusing us, she has the audacity to employ a name that brazenly announces her purpose.

An amusing corroborative detail about this Irene of "Scandal in Bohemia"--the woman to Holmes according to the narrator of the tales--is that Holmes was present at her wedding at the Church of St. Monica in the Edgeware Road. It is related that he was there as a witness, but that is pure poppycock. Holmes himself says "I was half-dragged up to the altar, and before I knew where I was I found myself mumbling responses. . . ." Those are not the words of an indifferent witness, but of a reluctant, ensnared, bulldozed man--in short, a bridegroom. And in all the 1323 pages of the Sacred Writings, that is the only wedding we ever see--the only one, so far as we are told, that Holmes ever graced with his presence.

All this is very sketchy. I admit it. I am now collecting material for a fuller treatment of the subject, a complete demonstration of the evidence and the inevitable conclusion. It will fill two volumes, the second of which will consist of certain speculations regarding various concrete results of that long-continued and--I fear, alas--none-too-happy union. For instance, what of the parentage of Lord Peter Wimsey, who was born, I believe, around the turn of the century--about the time of the publication of "The Adventure of the Second Stain"? That will bear looking into.
 

avidfilmbuff

New member
Le Saboteur said:
That is what Watson says that Holmes told her (him). It is simply gibberish, below the level even of a village half-wit. It is impossible to suppose that Sherlock Holmes ever dreamed of imposing on any sane person with an explanation like that; it is impossible to believe that he would insult his own intelligence by offering such an explanation even to an idiot. I deny that he ever did. I believe that all he said, after Watson recovered from the faint, was this, "My dear, I am willing to try it again," for he was a courteous man. And it was Watson, who, attempting to cook up an explanation, made such a terrible hash of it.

THEN who was this person whose nom de plume was "Doctor Watson?" Where did she come from? What was she like? What was her name before she snared Holmes?

Let us see what we can do about the name, by methods that Holmes himself might have used. It was Watson who wrote immortal tales, therefore if she left a record of her name anywhere it must have been in the tales themselves. But what we are looking for is not her characteristics or the facts of her life, but her name, that is to say, her title; so obviously the place to look is in the titles of the tales.

There are sixty of the tales all told. The first step is to set them down in chronological order, and to number them from 1 to 60. Now, which shall we take first? Evidently the reason why Watson was at such pains to conceal her name in this clutter of titles was to mystify us, so the number to start with should be the most mystical number, namely seven. And to make it doubly sure, we shall make it seven times seven, which is 49. Very well. The 49th tale is "The Adventure of the Illustrious Client." We of course discard the first four words, "The Adventure of the," which are repeated in most of the titles. Result: "ILLUSTRIOUS CLIENT."

The next most significant thing about Watson is her (his) constant effort to convince us that those things happened exactly as she (he) tells them; that they are on the square. Good. The first square of an integer is the integer 4. We take the title of the 4th tale and get RED-HEADED LEAGUE."

We proceed to elimination. Of all the factors that contribute to an ordinary man's success, which one did Holmes invariably exclude, or eliminate? Luck. In crap-shooting, what are the lucky numbers? Seven and eleven. But we have already used 7, which eliminates it, so there is nothing left but 11. The 11th tale is about the "ENGINEER'S THUMB."

Next, what was Holmes's age at the time he moved to Baker Street? Twenty-seven. The 27th tale is the adventure of the "NORWOOD BUILDER." And what was Watson's age? Twenty-six. The 26th tale is the adventure of the "EMPTY HOUSE." But there is no need to belabor the obvious. Just as it is a simple matter to decipher the code of the Dancing Men when Holmes has once put you on the right track, so can you, for yourself, make the additional required selections now that I have explained the method. And you will inevitably get what I got:

Illustrious Client
Red-headed League
Engineer's Thumb
Norwood Builder
Empty House

Wisteria Lodge
Abbey Grange
Twisted Lip
Study in Scarlet
Orange Pips
Noble Bachelor

And, acrostically simple, the initial letters read down, the carefully hidden secret is ours. Her name was Irene Watson.

But not so fast. Is there any way of checking that? Of discovering her name by any other method, say a priori? We can try and see. A woman wrote the stories about Sherlock Holmes that has been demonstrated; and that woman was his wife. Does there appear, anywhere in the stories, a woman whom Holmes fell for? Whom he really cottoned to? Indeed there does. "A Scandal in Bohemia" opens like this:

"To Sherlock Holmes she is always the woman. . . . In his eyes she eclipses and predominates the whole of her sex."

And what was the name of the woman? Irene!

But, you say, not Irene Watson, but Irene Adler. Certainly, Watson's whole purpose, from beginning to end, was to confuse and bewilder us regarding her identity. So note that name well. Adler. What is an adler, or, as it is, commonly spelled, addler? An addler is one who, or that which, addles. Befuddles. Confuses. I admit I admire that stroke; it is worthy of Holmes himself. In the very act of deceiving and confusing us, she has the audacity to employ a name that brazenly announces her purpose.

An amusing corroborative detail about this Irene of "Scandal in Bohemia"--the woman to Holmes according to the narrator of the tales--is that Holmes was present at her wedding at the Church of St. Monica in the Edgeware Road. It is related that he was there as a witness, but that is pure poppycock. Holmes himself says "I was half-dragged up to the altar, and before I knew where I was I found myself mumbling responses. . . ." Those are not the words of an indifferent witness, but of a reluctant, ensnared, bulldozed man--in short, a bridegroom. And in all the 1323 pages of the Sacred Writings, that is the only wedding we ever see--the only one, so far as we are told, that Holmes ever graced with his presence.

All this is very sketchy. I admit it. I am now collecting material for a fuller treatment of the subject, a complete demonstration of the evidence and the inevitable conclusion. It will fill two volumes, the second of which will consist of certain speculations regarding various concrete results of that long-continued and--I fear, alas--none-too-happy union. For instance, what of the parentage of Lord Peter Wimsey, who was born, I believe, around the turn of the century--about the time of the publication of "The Adventure of the Second Stain"? That will bear looking into.

So let me get this straight, Rex Stout, the author of Nero Wolfe. claimed that Dr. Watson was actually a woman, and not just any woman, but "The Woman" as Holmes himself would put it. And that Holmes and Watson are the parents of Nero Wolfe. Wow, that's quite a stretch. I'm not saying I don't believe or agree with it, because it's all true and not true for one simple reason, these characters do not exist. But seriously, I've only read one Nero Wolfe story, but I should read more, for I think it's pretty obvious that Rex Stout had quite the imagination. By the way, where and to whom did he make this speech to?
 

avidfilmbuff

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
A fun read, entertaining to consider, but after all is said and done, fan fiction.

Yeah but at least it's fan fiction written by a professional writer, but it is pretty outlandish. Next I'll be hearing that Hercule Poirot is descendent from Mycroft Holmes, or that Columbo had a 3 year affair with Jessica Fletcher.
 

Le Saboteur

Active member
avidfilmbuff said:
So let me get this straight, Rex Stout, the author of Nero Wolfe. claimed that Dr. Watson was actually a woman, and not just any woman, but "The Woman" as Holmes himself would put it. And that Holmes and Watson are the parents of Nero Wolfe. Wow, that's quite a stretch. I'm not saying I don't believe or agree with it, because it's all true and not true for one simple reason, these characters do not exist. But seriously, I've only read one Nero Wolfe story, but I should read more, for I think it's pretty obvious that Rex Stout had quite the imagination. By the way, where and to whom did he make this speech to?

Not exactly. Rex Stout never made a connection between Holmes & Wolfe despite some strong similarities, and the rather pointed fact that Holmes' portrait hangs in Wolfe's office. Wolfe's proginators are never directly named by Stout, and some of the history is (deliberately?) muddled.

His speech on Watson being a woman was given at the annual Baker Street Irregulars dinner in 1941. It wasn't well received, and I'm pretty certain it was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. It's been published in several Sherlockian compendiums since its initial publication in The Saturday Review of Literature.

The Adler-Holmes affair is separate. The idea was originally proposed by John D. Clark in an 1956 issue of the Baker Street Journal. William S. Baring-Gould seized upon it, and wrote about it at length in Nero Wolfe of West Thirty-Fifth Street.

As sort of a companion piece, you'll want to pick up a copy of Sherlock Holmes of Baker Street. Once you're done with those start at the beginning, and pick up Fer de Lance.

For all your Wolfe-ian needs visit The Wolfe Pack.
 

avidfilmbuff

New member
Le Saboteur said:
Not exactly. Rex Stout never made a connection between Holmes & Wolfe despite some strong similarities, and the rather pointed fact that Holmes' portrait hangs in Wolfe's office. Wolfe's proginators are never directly named by Stout, and some of the history is (deliberately?) muddled.

His speech on Watson being a woman was given at the annual Baker Street Irregulars dinner in 1941. It wasn't well received, and I'm pretty certain it was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. It's been published in several Sherlockian compendiums since its initial publication in The Saturday Review of Literature.

The Adler-Holmes affair is separate. The idea was originally proposed by John D. Clark in an 1956 issue of the Baker Street Journal. William S. Baring-Gould seized upon it, and wrote about it at length in Nero Wolfe of West Thirty-Fifth Street.

As sort of a companion piece, you'll want to pick up a copy of Sherlock Holmes of Baker Street. Once you're done with those start at the beginning, and pick up Fer de Lance.

For all your Wolfe-ian needs visit The Wolfe Pack.

I see, thank you for clarifying. Fer De Lance, is the only Nero Wolfe story I've read so far, and although I found the characters of Wolfe and Archie fascinating, I didn't really care for the story, in fact I can't even remember the story it's been so long. But I've recently purchased Champagne For One, and I will read it as soon as I finish reading some other books I've been planning on reading.
 

Le Saboteur

Active member
avidfilmbuff said:
I see, thank you for clarifying. Fer De Lance, is the only Nero Wolfe story I've read so far, and although I found the characters of Wolfe and Archie fascinating, I didn't really care for the story, in fact I can't even remember the story it's been so long.

The short answer is that you don't read Wolfe for the story; it's all about the characters, and spending time in that immaculate brownstone. In fact, it's sort of like Monk -- the character takes precedent; everything else is subservient.

And now back to Holmes.
 

avidfilmbuff

New member
Le Saboteur said:
The short answer is that you don't read Wolfe for the story; it's all about the characters, and spending time in that immaculate brownstone. In fact, it's sort of like Monk -- the character takes precedent; everything else is subservient.

And now back to Holmes.

I'll keep that in mind the next time I read a Nero Wolfe story, well anyway as you said, back to Holmes.

Looking at the synopsis, the plot of this film seems to be slightly similar to that horrible Young Sherlock Holmes film as it deals with some sinister cult. You know, I will bet anything that it will in some way deal with Jack the Ripper or some other idiotic conspiracy, that's how rare originality is in Hollywood. I mean we all just know how it's going to end up, Sherlock Holmes investigates some murder, it leads to a respectable organization, it turns out not to be so respectable after all, and we all shockingly find out the leader is actually someone we've all heard of before. For example, Professor Moriarty, Jack the Ripper, Count Dracula, Benjamin Disraeli, the Freemasons, Queen Victoria, or some other lame revelation.

But I'm just being pessimistic, maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps Sherlock Holmes will be, despite the fact it's unfaithful, a well made film................................ But I don't think so.
 

Le Saboteur

Active member
Ebert's opening paragraph sums up my entire feeling about this version of Sherlock Holmes.

Roger Ebert said:
The less I thought about Sherlock Holmes, the more I liked "Sherlock Holmes." Yet another classic hero has been fed into the f/x mill, emerging as a modern superman. Guy Ritchie's film is filled with sensational sights, over-the-top characters and a desperate struggle atop Tower Bridge, which is still under construction. It's likely to be enjoyed by today's action fans. But block bookings are not likely from the Baker Street Irregulars.

I really liked the look of Victorian London, and RDJ's Holmes was fairly impressive despite it being an "inside out" portrayal. The good Professor, however, is quite possibly the best thing about the picture. Irene Adler was featured too much, and a bit awkwardly. I would've portrayed her in a different light.
 

AndyLGR

Active member
I really enjoyed the film. RDJ and Jude Law easily carried the movie together, they made a good screen partnership. I was wary of how RDJ would be as Holmes, puely becauase he doesnt look like a typical Holmes, but he carried it off with an odd and compelling performance at times.

The Victorian settings were excellent and even the film score harked back to old times.

The story was enough to keep me going and the first half of the film is getting to know the chrarcters anyway, something that a lot of big budget movies dont do.

Its nice to see Holmes get a big screen outing, I never thought we would see a movie like this as Holmes is probably not macho or modern enough to be seen in a blockbuster. But I think they pulled it of with this one.

Hopefully it does well enough to see us get the much hinted at sequel.
 

Joosse

New member
I still haven't seen this, but I am very curious about it.

I kind of wondered though if it wouldn't have been better to cast Law as Holmes and RDJ as Watson?
 

TheMutt92

New member
Saw this last night.

Overall a solid 4/5. The real standouts here are Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law, they both provide us w/ an interpretation of a classic duo that stays true to the spirit of the source material while providing a new spin. The decision to have Sherlock and Watson go through fight scenes doesn't detract the film in any way (except perhaps briefly at one point), I mean Watson was in the army for heaven's sake, of course he would fight if needed! And anyhow, these scenes are filled w/ such wit and intelligent thinking that it seems most in character for them to be going through these motions.

The plot is decent, and while things do not turn out how you may expect them (unless you know you're Holmes stories) in the end it all makes sense. Another interesting characteristic of the plot is that it is not an origin story. In fact, in feels more like a potential sequel (more how each individual Holmes story is a standalone, and only knowledge of certain characters is required). And as for a certain character who makes a cameo, there's no telling if the rumors of Brad Pitt were true or not, but I'm definitely looking forward to his prominence in a follow-up.

And of course, who could forget Hans Zimmer score! Whimsical and energetic, its more reminiscent of the Pirates scores than The Dark Knight (which Hans has publically stated he's tried to avoid). Hopefully this'll make up for last years Oscar snub of The Dark Knight, as I think it has a chance to become one of the nominated scores. Here's the main theme for anyone interested:


BTW, anyone know what has happened to the other Sherlock project mentioned at the beginning of this thread? The one w/ Sacha Baron Cohen and Will Ferrel? Has it fallen through due to the success of this film, or because of the two actors sudden drop in popularity, or is it still on?
 

indy34

New member
Just saw this tonight it's ok but I personally didnt really like it, I got a bit bored while watching it but it just might be me.:confused:
 

emtiem

Well-known member
It's a whole load of fun and actually manages to be surprisingly respectful to the original Holmes. Obviously it's a Hollywood version, but it works very well.

TheMutt92 said:
And of course, who could forget Hans Zimmer score! Whimsical and energetic, its more reminiscent of the Pirates scores than The Dark Knight (which Hans has publically stated he's tried to avoid). Hopefully this'll make up for last years Oscar snub of The Dark Knight, as I think it has a chance to become one of the nominated scores. Here's the main theme for anyone interested:


You can listen (and certainly not download with a current version of Realplayer, oh no) to the whole score here:
http://warnerbros2009.warnerbros.com/#/movies/sherlockholmes/score/score1
Listen out for the Big Ben countdown where the score actually plays the tune Big Ben does! :)
 
Last edited:

roundshort

Active member
TheMutt92 said:
Saw this last night.

The decision to have Sherlock and Watson go through fight scenes doesn't detract the film in any way (except perhaps briefly at one point), I mean Watson was in the army for heaven's sake, of course he would fight if needed!


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 . . .
 
Top