I'm sure our boy D'arcy is a good actor, and a handsome devil and all that. but as to the film itself... you know, the stuff they gave him to act in? Does it have something that the true holmes fan will find enjoyable and/or edifying? Though deviating from canon, does it make a good go of it?
http://daria-rat.deviantart.com
Proud Rumrunner and Ringnut
I'm a purist and don't like see movies/ non-Doyle stories/non-Doyle novels/ect stray too far from the canon (the canon being Doye's stories and novels). For that reason I never liked the Rathbone movies. I really enjoy the Jeremy Brett films and the movie MURDER BY DECREE.
All this being said I liked this movie a lot . Holmes and Watson were young men when they met (24 and 28 respectively) and relatively young men throughout the Doyle stories. Watson was not a bungler, but a partner and an important component to the stories. The movie was true in that respect, so I could sit back and enjoy it.
Besides Vincent D'Onofrio was the ultimate Moriarty. I know it's misspelled
I've only recently seen this movie, and unlike yourself, as long as the name Sherlock appears in the title, I can watch any of the stories. I found this story to be very sophisticated and slick. I thoroughly enjoyed it. And you're certainly right about Vincent D' being the ultimate Moriarty. The way that such a gentle face can radiate such evil and menace really impresses me. What a brilliant actor.
shareVincent D'Onofrio - yes he is a good actor but his accent or rather accents were a little strange. At times I wondered if he was taking "Moriarty" of "The Goon Show" as a model.
shareIncidentally, what *was* that accent? Is it supposed to be anything specific or was it just Vincent d'O. sounding weird for the sake of sounding weird?
shareI am a "Sherlockian", the only Sherlock Holmes adaptation I liked was the British series starring Jeremy Brett (The Adventures, The Return, The Casebook, The Memoirs) [pure brilliance], and I was tolerant of Young Sherlock Holmes and Baker Street Irregulars.
I did not find this film enjoyable, but I felt it had a lot of potentional that was wasted, just wasted.
This could have been a fantastic film if the producers adapted a Doyle story, used a full cast of well-known and well-respected English actors instead of a few English actors and unknown monotone Roumanian actors, drastically upgraded the special effects, and filmed the movie on location in England.
They did cast a few spectacular actors [D'Arcy, Morlidge, D'Onofrio, Struan Rodger, Richard E. Grant] who appeared to act to the maximum and embellish their characters, but the actors had inferior resources at their disposal - subpar dialogue, predictable plot, extremely low-grade special effects crew, and lack of an authentic English setting.
I was disappointed by the technical setting of the film - it looked like it was filmed on a concocted stage or studio instead of real locations, their clothes looked like costumes, their props looked contrived, even the horse carriages looked fake (in one scene, as Holmes was stepping into a carriage, the carriage nearly fell apart). The sword-fighting scenes were weak and unsatisfactory and juvenile.
I was extremely disappointed by the plot - anybody with a brain would know that Moriarity was still alive, since we were encountering a young Holmes in the early stages of his career, and thus would know that Rebecca and the other women and the newspaper man were ploys to provoke Holmes to destroy himself. And the final killing of Moriarity while Holmes was still a young and untried detective was absurd, it is Moriarity's elusiveness that ignites Holmes' flames, to remove him from Holmes' life means to end Holmes' career as a detective.
As another user [RugGuy] stated, this version remained true to the evident ages of Watson and Holmes, and characterized Watson as a free-thinking yet rational proactive man who, like Holmes, acted beyond the confines of stagnant protocol with advantageous results, unlike other Watsons who have been depicted as linear-minded, bland, side-kick, stock-character hindrances.
Other than what RugGuy said, this film's Watson and Holmes had zero similarities to Doyle's Watson and Holmes.
I seriously hope, and would love, for James D'Arcy, Roger Morlidge, and Vincent D'Onofrio to reprise their roles for future Sherlock films, but since other Sherlock films have been made since 2002, I do not think this will happen.
Even though I was not satisfied at all with this version, like another user, I prefer Sherlock - A Case Of Evil, along with the other adaptations I mentioned, over all over versions, including the Basil Rathbone sewage-swamp versions.
Well put, TemporaryOne-1. Your assessment of the movie is MUCH better & much more informing and insightful than the crummy "review" they used for the movie summary. Your observations about the film's blunders are really on-spot, as well as your suggestions about what would have made this movie much better. I especially agree with you about the actors involved are all very talented & give it their all, but they aren't given much to work with. Also, funnily enough, I thought the same thing about the horse carriage appearing to nearly fall apart! ha ha! Lots of excellent observations; your input is insightful.
¸,«¤º°°º¤»,¸»«ëÕ|{¥(V)¸,«¤º°°º¤»,¸
That this film was a plausible outting for Holmes in any way, I respectfully disagree. I am by no means a fidelity scholar; I appreciate, indeed value reassments of the stories and characters. Often a basic reimagining of the canon offers new and interesting insights into the natures of the characters. I loved The Seven Percent Solution, for example, and believe that The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes is one of the finest pieces of cinematic Holmsiana ever made.
This film does not add to any understanding of the characters as Conan Doyle imagined them. It does not stretch the interpretations into unexplored regions and it does not persue new avenues of thought consistant with any reasonable notion of Holmes, Watson and their world. If the film had been released as it was, but with different character names, the characters would not be recognizable at all.
A fundamental tenet of Holmes' worldview is that he "plays the game for the game's own sake" [PART]. He is not a plubicity seeker, yet here he is lured into near annihilation because he is afraid his name will fall into obscurity.
The rebooting of Holmes and Watson's first meeting I accept without complaint, though I question the affect on Watson's character of having him report professionally to Lestrade. Surely this completely alters the dynamic of Watson's role as Holme's collegue, particularly considering the number of illegal acts that they commit together in the pursuit of justice?
In an effort to account for Holmes' drug habit, the sceenwriter envisioned a scenario (presumably, though this was never stated catagorically) where Holmes, forced to undergo dangerous overdoses of Heroine in his youth, must take Cocaine and Morphine medicinally for the rest of his life. I can see no other way to reconcile the events in this film with Holmes' self-injections in the canon. The trouble with this is that they saddle Holmes with a personal vendetta against the drug trade in the form of Moriarty's destruction of Mycroft (again, an incredible, but forgivable liberty). In the original stories Holmes has no guilt or shame concerning his drug use. It is entirely recreational, as evidenced by the fact that he offers some to Watson in SIGN - a thing he would never have done if this film was representative of their past.
What they DO give Holmes in the way of a substance problem is a shocking use of alcohol. Without precedent and certainly without justification, the filmmakers have Holmes consume a full bottle of gin plus a shocking quantity of absinthe in order to engage in one of the only intellectual moments he has in the whole film. Conan Doyle's Holmes never used drugs when he was on a case and he CERTAINLY would not have gotten drunk out of all sensibility under any circumstances.
Finally (there's more, so much more, but I'm quite certain I've overstayed my welcome already), the women. OK. The filmmakers wanted to create a story that explained why Holmes was, essentially, asexual. They wove a plot wherein Holmes' affection for a woman got her killed and presumably that caused him to shut up his heart and throw away the key. Trouble is, this does not gel with the canonical explanations for Holmes' proclivities. He states catagorically in DEVI: "I have never loved, Watson". The reason he eschews the "finer feelings" is that he believes that they cannot work in conjuction with perfect logic. I refer you to SIGN: "It is of the first importance," he cried, "not to allow your judgment to be biased by personal qualities. A client is to me a mere unit, a factor in a problem. The emotional qualities are antagonistic to clear reasoning. I assure you that the most winning woman I ever knew was hanged for poisoning three little children for their insurance-money." In addition, he failed to take notice of a woman's beauty beyond any bearing it may have upon her case or as an exercise in observation. That he should flirt outrageously and publicly, seduce a woman (particularly a woman of quality) without even pretense of marriage or wind up in a spontaneous threesome is an unforgivable abuse of artistic license. It is absurd. It is insulting. It is NOT Sherlock Holmes.
So, in answer to the original poster, no. This film is anathema to a Sherlockian worth his or her salt. If Sherlock Holmes were a real person this film would be the subject of a suit for libel.
A.
Precise assessment of the movie, renaissanceWmn... if Holmes were real and I were his wealthy relative, I would be strongly tempted to sue. Same goes for the private life of Sherlock Holmes with all its pathetic attempts at dirty humor concerning Watson being his flatmate.
Excellent points about the flaws of the portrayal of Holmes character and I won't reiterate them.
I will allow, however, that there is possibly room for speculation in the area of Holmes and romance.
"I have never loved Watson, but if I did love, and if the woman I loved had met such a fate, I might act even as our lawless young lion hunter had... who knows?"
Such statements were obviously placed in the book to make the reader speculate...as were the incidents where he shows compassion for people, though rare.
But no matter what you think about that statement, it is made clear to the reader that IF Holmes ever loved, his would be an honorable and noble love... not a non-commital animal urge for a woman or one-shot relations with Irene Adler as acknowlegement of her independence and brilliance.
But it's all a losing battle, renissanceWmn...you see, modern society likes to see dishonarable ,immoral portrayals of a hero. It makes us feel good...and there is no obligation to try when we have convinced ourselves that noone could be that virtuous.
Although I love James D'Arcy as an actor and think he was a decent Holmes, I didn't care for this movie. The plot was just too unbelievable, and no matter what other good aspects the movie might have, the plot issues trump all.
I agree that the writers treated Watson respectfully, a welcome change from the bumbling Watson of the Basil Rathbone films. The quintessential Watson example from that mess: in The Scarlet Claw, they're running around Canada in some parallel Baskerville case. Watson falls in a boggy hole and says "I fell in a boggy hole!" And if that weren't bad enough, he falls into another boggy hole at the end of the film. Holmes wouldn't have put up with someone who couldn't be depended upon to not entrap himself in mud!
Wickedness is a myth, invented by good people, to account for the curious attractiveness of others-Oscar Wilde