AWFUL: Roxburgh terribly miscast as Holmes

I am a big fan of the Holmes Canon, and while Downey Jr may not fit the physical description of Holmes layed down by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, I think he shouldnt be judged until we've seen a little bit more than production stills. That said, Daniel Day Lewis would be fantastic.

agree with the OP

Given the prejudice of the OP, I should preface this post by saying I've read some of Sir Conan-Doyles' Holmes stories. Including Hound.


Given the performances of Mr Rathbone and Mr Cushing in this role; I think Mr Roxburgh was an excellent choice for Holmes.

In fact, I see this adaptation as my favourite version of The Hound.

This is only my opinion.

For me the casting of the awful phony cgi hound was the nadir of this adaptation. Also, I found Ian Hart's hat funny on him. Poor fellow, silly looking in it. I wonder why wardrobe made him wear it.

Nothing is more beautiful than nothing.

I agree with you about Roxburgh and the incessant "re-inventing" that goes on with Holmes. However, I must disagree with you about Downey Jr. Robert is a consummate actor, a real professional that should bring something astonishing to the role. I understand your misgivings, but I think you'll change your mind when you see Downey Jr. in the role.

I have read the entire canon, which I was given on my twelfth birthday. I created the image of Holmes in my mind from the excellent description given by A. Conan Doyle and the superb illustrations by Sidney Paget. I think anyone like me has a hard time seeing almost *any* actor in the lead role, because of that image I/we have built in my/our mind of Holmes.

I would love to see Eccleston as Holmes, his turn as as the title character in Winterbottom's adaptation of Jude was nothing less than remarkable. He would be an excellent Holmes as would Daniel Day Lewis.

I notice you have an affinity for actors of British lineage as the most suitable for Holmes. You are aware, however that Russian actor Vasilii Livanov is considered by many Brits to be the finest Holmes ever, and was awarded the OBE by Queen Elizabeth II for his portrayal as Holmes in the five films directed by Igor Maslennikov. Have you seen any of these adaptations, dknow3? I believe they are available in their entirety on Youtube. If you haven't seen them, I encourage you to check them out. I don't share the high opinion that some do, but there is no denying that Livanov is quite good as Holmes. The adaptations are a bit too camp for my tastes, but some consider them among the finest, if no the finest ever.

Thanks for your post, dknow3, it is always enjoyable to discuss Holmes with someone who has actually read the canon.


"...nothing is left of me, each time I see her..." - Catullus

I completely agree with you, dknow3: Roxburgh was all wrong as Holmes and Hart badly miscast as Watson. The screeplay was terrible, and it was entirely the writer's fault, as like you said he misunderstood and misconceived everything that Doyle ever wrote on Holmes. I also fail to see the producers/writers need to revise or reinvent Sherlock Holmes to the newer audiences - it's as if they're saying that the newer audiences are too dumb to understand or apreciate the stories as they were writen! I for one think that the appeal of the Sherlock Holmes stories resides precisely in the fact that they are representative of a passed era, a very uptight, repressed and indeed very complex one. When you try to modernize it, you loose the whole essence, the whole point of the story. It just doesn't make sense.
That's why I think this new Robert Downey Jr. film will be yet another failed attempt to bring Holmes back to the big screen. From what I've seen of the trailers, and from what the screenplay (which I've read) tells me, they reimagined Holmes as an action hero - whith an utter aversion to water and personal higiene and that goes around London shooting people and getting involved into every fist fight he can get his hands to -, who has to fight a megalomaniac villain who comes back from the dead after being hanged for murder. Does that sound like anything Doyle ever wrote, to you? It doesn't, to me. It sounds more like "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" all over again. Robert Downey Jr. being a great actor doesn't change the fact that he's completely wrong as Holmes. And I don't need to watch the whole film to know it; anyone who has read the books and seen the trailers knows this.
I have to disagree with you, however, when it comes to Rupert Everett: his Holmes could easly have become the best since Jeremy Brett's untimely demise if only he had injected more energy into it. The screenplay being complete rubbish didn't help, either.
We can only hope that in the near future we'll have the chance to see Daniel Day Lewis, Christopher Eccleston or even Hugh Laurie playing Holmes as he should be played.

***Totally*** disagree, Roxburgh BEST Holmes since Brett... I have read the stories and Holmes is not set in stone. Though Daniel Day Lewis would only *beep* the part up the way he *beep* up every part he has ever overacted in.
______________________________
Why shd we take advice on sex from the Pope? If he knows anything about it, he shouldn't. -GB Shaw

So true, so true. Holmes had no personality. Watson’s only personality traits were being sullen and pouty.
The ghastliness of the casting, however, was matched—if not exceeded—by the ghastliness of the screenplay. To begin with there was Holmes’s shooting up in the middle of a case when Doyle’s Holmes only takes drugs to relieve his boredom when he has no case. In one of the interviews on the DVD the director or somebody says they went back to the source by eliminating the deerstalker and the pipe: “these were introduced in theatrical productions. Holmes didn’t smoke a pipe, he smoked cigarettes.” He was right about the deerstalker; but no pipe? This of the man who could be found “smoking his before-breakfast pipe, which was composed of all the plugs and dottles left from his smokes of the day before, all carefully dried and collected on the corner of the mantelpiece”? Who spoke of the case of the Red-Headed League as a “three-pipe problem”? Yes, he smoked cigarettes as well; but not as often. To go back to the source one has to read the source.
Don’t get me started on the ending. Beryl hanged by her husband. Not Stapleton falling into the swamp he’d boasted of knowing so well, but Holmes falling in and Stapleton just sitting and watching until he’s slain by Watson’s bullet. Where’s the poetic justice in that?
There is comedy, though. Watson, with the use of only one arm and with the aid of an ordinary cloth overcoat, pulling Holmes—up to his neck by now—free of the unrelenting grip of the mire. And even funnier: Watson’s hat, three sizes too big.
We’ve just watched all the versions of Hound that Netflix or our library system can provide. This is without question the worst adaptation of them all.