Funny thing: I never pictured Sherlock Holmes being a stick fighter. But there he is in the new trailer for Guy Ritchie's upcoming take, sticks in hand, swinging away and looking pretty good doing it. Heh.
In all seriousness, though, as much as purists may gripe that Ritchie has amped up the action and explosions while dumbing down the thoughtfulness of the character, thereby damaging what made him appealing in the first place - very valid complaints, from what we've seen so far, and ones I'll certainly not argue with - I've got to say this just looks fun. And there aint nothing wrong with that. Both trailers lurk below the break.
Trailer Two
Trailer One
Sorry, Todd, but this film is complete and utter garbage. As much as I liked Downey in Tropic Thunder, this film is a monstrosity. Watson punching Holmes and kicking out doors? Seriously?
And Ard Vijn, I don't know what you are talking about when you talk of the sensationalism lost. How many of Doyle's Holmes stories did you actually read? Sherlock Holmes is almost entirely about deduction and detecting, with very limited fisticuffs and 'sensationalism', as you put it. Much is implied or narrated by characters but never actually shown. This film is pure trash-infused fluff with as much intelligence, wit, and charm as possessed by a speckled snake.
I have been a fan of Doyle's Sherlock Holmes since I was a kid. I'm sorry if I seem belligerant here but there are some things which do not work and should NEVER be attempted. At least not where the people involved have any shred of dignity and conscience remaining over their pathetic greed.
This looks even worse than the first trailer.
This just looks more like 'Carry On Up Baker Street' than anything resembling the Conan Doyle stories. Ritchie is a hack, a one trick pony and not a very amazing trick at that. He lacks all the subtly that is needed to bring the Holmes stories to the big screen and is better suited to his fake cockney, what-a-palaver, contrived 'gangster' nonsense that he's been churning out since the late 90's.
It's been years since we've had a decent Holmes story brought to the big screen so why after all this time should we be saddled with this broad farce of an attempt. Get someone onboard to write and direct who has at least read the stories and understood the complex nature of the Holmes/Watson dynamic rather than someone who's heard about it from a mate of a mate.
I don't think the majority would appreciate or even sit through something adapted faithfully from Doyle's work. The attention span isn't there anymore. The young idiots that make up the typical audience today don't go home saying "Well they really developed the hell out of those characters!" All they can process are one-liners and explosions.
King stupid rules the land. And the box office.
I've always enjoyed the Sherlock Holmes tales, yet I can't really say that I've ever found a faithfully televised adaptation to be even remotely interesting for some reason. Can't explain it. Off the printed page, Sherlock Holmes adventures just come across as really boring to me. They're certainly not something that I'd pay to see on the big screen.
Though a big fan of both lead actors, I was dubious when I first heard of the casting choices made for this movie. But after seeing the direction they appear to be going with the characters in the trailer (a move similar to the earlier "Young Sherlock Holmes" movie), I have to say that it does look like it should at least be entertaining. They're obviously just playing the name recognition card (G.I. Joe, anyone?) but as long as they produce a worthwhile movie behind it, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt for now.
I've read nearly all of them (I return to those tomes again and again inbetween other books) and I stand by my words.
I'm not saying Holmes doesn't use deduction or wit. Hell, it's what he became famous for as a character. But I get the impression he became SO famous for these things that other aspects of his character were forgotten by the general public.
We've had earlier movies based on embellishing one of these less well-known aspects of Holmes ("The Seven-Percent Solution" for example) and if that is what Guy Richie is doing here I'll be interested in the final result. It may or may not be garbage.
Then again, if this is just a re-imagining without any base in the novels, just turning the stereotype on its head for the hell of it, then... ouch.
oh do stop bellyaching - for the love of god. we've all known from the outset it was a revisionist version of Holmes that is not so much based on actual work of Conan Doyle but rather the new Sherlock Holmes graphic novels...you always knew what Ritchie would bring to the table...
It looks exciting, interesting and gives the whole pomp and toff nonsense a firm kick up the arse...whilst injecting a much required sense of humour.
Mark Strong and Downey Jr will deliver regardless, Jude Bore might be a problem...but I've learnt to live with that.
You should probably get used to the idea that everything is going to be re-imagined eventually.
With a post-post-modern society that has grown up with special effects in every orifice (prime movie audience age for this film will have had the Matrix as a first outing :-) it takes a brave move to make a thoughtful, slightly slower film.
It looks like a fun movie actually, but the character should just be called something else. Maybe Nick Carter? Carnacki? Arsene Lupin? Certainly not Holmes, who though he did have some fisticuffs in The Solitary Cyclist and of course the tussle at Reichenbach falls, was mostly not a man of physical violence. What made Holmes amazing was his brain power, not his brawn even if he could use it.
I am a big fan of the original Holmes stories, the television series with Jeremy Brett, the brilliant 2002 adaptation of 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' with Ian Hart & Richard Roxburgh, and I am looking forward to Ritchie's film. Nothing wrong with spicing up the story.
But - new trailer? The only thing new is the last ten seconds, hardly worth the time to watch.
Guy Ritchie's final film. It's obvious that his career will end after this.
Please, if anything Ritchie will probably graduate to bigger-scale projects after this. Audience response to the first trailer has been very favorable, he has an incredibly popular actor in the lead role, and it looks "different" enough that it will draw in crowds who think they will be getting something new. If between now and its release anticipation increases (as it likely will), there's no reason to think it won't become a sizable hit.
All of that isn't to say this will or won't be a good film. I've enjoyed Ritchie's work thus far, so I'll be giving this a shot.
Im somewhat indifferent to Ritchie's work. Its unique but I think he got caught in making the same film over and over long ago with tiny narrative changes.
On the otherhand, this looks like a different turn for the director and like Todd says, it may not be a faithful adaptation but it definitely looks like a load of fun.
I have to agree with Collin Armstrong. The first trailer caught my attention. I liked the idea of an alternate universe Sherlock Holmes. I never read the books but I am familiar with the older, classic depictions of Sherlock Holmes. Seeing Robert Downey Jr. in the lead and Jude Law as Watson made it more interesting.The added bonus of seeing RDJ use his wing chun training in an action role. Looks fun to me. Guy Ritchie's version will not be a movie for everybody but it may become a moderate hit. I have a bit of faith that they will portray Sherlock Holmes' more cerebral side also. I
Eh, I'll see it. You know it's going to make money at the box office, which will just encourage Hollywood to dumb down more great novels like this.
If it doesn't do well at the box office, I'll work for free for a week.
"You should probably get used to the idea that everything is going to be re-imagined eventually.
With a post-post-modern society that has grown up with special effects in every orifice (prime movie audience age for this film will have had the Matrix as a first outing it takes a brave move to make a thoughtful, slightly slower film."
Isn't this precisely the problem? How many remakes have actually been any good? Anyone want to do the math?
"oh do stop bellyaching - for the love of god. we’ve all known from the outset it was a revisionist version of Holmes that is not so much based on actual work of Conan Doyle but rather the new Sherlock Holmes graphic novels…you always knew what Ritchie would bring to the table…
It looks exciting, interesting and gives the whole pomp and toff nonsense a firm kick up the arse…whilst injecting a much required sense of humour."
Ehh, NO. I can assure you the majority of film-goers will NOT know from the outset that is is a revisionist version. Did you actually think that anyone who enjoys this film will enjoy reading the original stories? This junk will further distance newer generations from the magic of Sir Doyle's stories. And this does not address the issue of WHY there needs to be a revisionist version in the first place. Sherlock Holmes and his companion Watson are the epitome of the Victorian British gentlemen. The Holmes and Watson in this garbage film were written by syphilitic, beer-guzzling frat boys for the viewing pleasure of other syphilitic, beer-guzzling frat boys. There is no reason to even have Holmes as the character. They could have invented their own. Say, 'Balzac Ruptured & Dr Gaylord' or something equally scatalogical. I'm sure that would be a hit among the target audience. Since this is a revision, why stop there? Why not have Holmes attend gay orgies and Watson turns out to be an immortal, time-travelling serial-killer named Jack?
The only reason the name 'Sherlock Holmes' is in any way associated with this trash is, as Ard Vijn points out, an exploitation of the respect and admiration the world has for Sir Doyle's work, and that is precisely what is unforgivable here. It is one thing to remake a classic while attempting to pay suitable respect, and quite another to piss and shit on it for your own profit.
I personally don't give a rats arse how they treat the source material (think Kubricks' The Shining) but I fail to understand how anyone can see Ritchie as anything other than a one trick pony (as has been said above); the Uwe Boll of British directors if you like (self publicist of toss awful B movies - only difference being Ritchie's been given some cash). Of course it will make loads at the box office, but so did Norbit, in the UK at least. And rather than fun it looks incredibly boring, run through with a terrible strain of pseudo winking at camera, aren't we funny, humour that really isn't. Phew... this guy's films rub me up the wrong way!
Wow, so much hate for a simple trailer.
This kind of reminds me of "The List of 7" by Mark Frost which took the Holmes era adventuring into a pulp/occult direction by having Sir Doyle as the main character, meeting an adventurer who would clearly go on to inspire Holmes.
I'm working to reserve judgement until the film is finished and released. Guy Ritchie, one trick pony or not, has released some enjoyable films and as someone else pointed out, this does look like a new direction (or at the very least an interesting angle). The cast looks strong, the production slick.
Like any other character of popular fiction that gets the occasional "reboot" (James Bond comes to mind) - it helps to keep in mind that what came previous is still there. This is A Sherlock Holmes, not THE Sherlock Holmes. In ten, twenty years we'll probably get another version of the character, maybe based more on the source material or maybe different.