Hey, everyone. Rusty here with the first of a double-parter. The other guys are working on their own write-ups right now, including “Chuck” and James Cameron’s “Avatar,” but I luckily snagged two of my favorite events of the entire convention. But first things first, let’s tackle the logical and most deductive choice…
“Sherlock Holmes”
Guy Ritchie’s new spin on Arthur Conan Doyle’s greatest creation arrives in theaters this December in all its Victorian-action-movie glory. You all probably saw the trailer (if not, check it out here). Is it the Sherlock Holmes that we’re used to? Definitely not (I somehow never pictured him being that much of an agile, punching badass). But, more importantly…could it still be good? Absolutely, and the stuff we saw at Comic-Con certainly gives me confidence of that.
Downey Jr. and company are purporting that this will be the closest interpretation of the character to the original works by Doyle. That might be a bit hard to take, especially since Holmes looks to have transformed into John McClane (will “Elementary, my Dear Watson” be his macho-action-hero catchphrase after he beats up some bad guy?). Still, there might be some truth to that claim, but a lot of that really depends on the finished product.
I just had the immense (and very belated) pleasure of rediscovering the Holmes stories—I bought myself a big, fat volume and just dug in…and I loved it! Trough all the different movies, TV shows, and what have you, I forgot just how much of a character Holmes was—how much fun his stories actually are. He was far from some stuffy, boring fellow in a deerskin cap with a penchant for pipes and magnifying glasses. This was a guy who lived for the challenge and puzzles, and shunned anything less than a keen intellect and a hunger for discovery. He knew baritsu (yep, an ancient form of martial arts, which he used on his arch-enemy Professor Moriarty), was an amateur boxer, and just relished disappearing into different characters and disguises. Downey would be brilliant as that—bringing that witty, intellectual energy of his to another worthy character, one that we may not have seen from this particular, lovingly bizarre angle. The new film will probably be a more Hollywood-blockbuster Holmes than Doyle ever intended, but as long as it stays true to the spirit of the original character, then, by all means, it could add all the explosions and fistfights it wants.
The stories also presented one of the best friendships in literature—the ultimate bond between a man of pure logic and intellect and his steady, sensitive backup of a companion. Holmes and Dr. Watson are inseparable—Watson cannot solve crimes because he lacks the “whole picture” vision, while Holmes’ often insane ideas need the restraining and dependable hand of Watson. By all means, they shouldn’t get along—Holmes is an odd, unsociable, drug-addicted mess, while Watson is a smooth, charming, and quite noble doctor. Can you honestly see those two dudes hanging out at a party? But it works. The two together are magic, and that’s the brilliance of Doyle’s “Sherlock Holmes”—that friendship is the charming, emotional clincher of the original stories, and it’s the crucial element that will determine this new movie.
Footage:
And, well, after seeing the Comic-Con footage, I have a lot more faith in the great sleuth’s new adventure. For the most part, I actually liked the trailer that’s now in theaters. It’s fun, moves quickly, and gives you a sense of the scale and action of this new version…everything, that is, but the actual character work. Sure, we get glimpses, but Downey and Jude Law (a perfect choice for Watson) have but one tiny exchange (they’re too busy fighting and jumping), and poor Rachel McAdams (as Holmes’ infamous female intellectual match, Irene Adler) barely utters one word. In fact, I’m pretty sure Adler is dead silent for the entire two minutes—she does look great, though, as the trailer makes sure to point out repeatedly by showing her walking around in 1800s lingerie.
On the other hand, the roughly five minutes or so of Comic-Con footage gave me everything I originally wanted: Holmes and Watson bicker like a hilarious old married couple (McAdams has a great line where she says that the “lovers are fighting again”), McAdams’ Adler proves a verbal, spunky match for Downey’s Holmes (as she should be), and we saw lots more of Holmes, you know, detecting, as opposed to kicking and punching and stuff. We also got a better sense of the story, including the dastardly plan of occultist Lord Blackwood (the great character actor, Mark Strong, reteaming with Ritchie after “Rock ‘n’ Rolla”), in a clever riff on Doyle’s own fascination with mysticism and the occult.
All in all, it looks like witty, clever fun. I loved director Ritchie’s “Snatch” and “Rock ‘n’ Rolla” (anyone else upset that Ritchie’s lucky charm and my perpetual man-crush Jason Statham couldn’t find a role in this one — really, not even as a cool-looking cameo thug?), and I think he’ll step up here to deliver an entertaining, breezy picture that doesn’t betray what fans loved about the original stories. It’s not a guarantee, but it’s certainly looking far more promising.
Panel:
I know I rambled on and on about the footage and the original stories, so I wouldn’t blame all of you people for (justifiably) skimming to finally get to the actual panel. Well, simply put, it was fantastic all-around. It got off to a rousing start when instead of the standard moderator (no offense to him) of the WB panel, in ran Downey to rapturous screams and applause. And he was everything you’d expect: quick, funny, always keeping the audience entertained. Of all the stars at the convention, I was most impressed by him—it probably helps, though, that all of us here are huge fans of his—I’d even guess that Ace and Luke are harboring not-so-secret man-crushes just like me. He genuinely seemed to love the crowd, and vice versa; even when the same questions were asked over and over (and trust me, there were a good four or five questions that were basically variations of something he already answered in the beginning of the panel), Downey didn’t miss a beat, always having some funny anecdote, and making the fans feel like they did him a favor for even asking (or, as he said, “fueling his narcissistic tendencies”). You also get the sense that he found a kindred, quirky spirit in Holmes, and it comes through in his enthusiasm and the footage.
“Sherlock Holmes”
Guy Ritchie’s new spin on Arthur Conan Doyle’s greatest creation arrives in theaters this December in all its Victorian-action-movie glory. You all probably saw the trailer (if not, check it out here). Is it the Sherlock Holmes that we’re used to? Definitely not (I somehow never pictured him being that much of an agile, punching badass). But, more importantly…could it still be good? Absolutely, and the stuff we saw at Comic-Con certainly gives me confidence of that.
Downey Jr. and company are purporting that this will be the closest interpretation of the character to the original works by Doyle. That might be a bit hard to take, especially since Holmes looks to have transformed into John McClane (will “Elementary, my Dear Watson” be his macho-action-hero catchphrase after he beats up some bad guy?). Still, there might be some truth to that claim, but a lot of that really depends on the finished product.
I just had the immense (and very belated) pleasure of rediscovering the Holmes stories—I bought myself a big, fat volume and just dug in…and I loved it! Trough all the different movies, TV shows, and what have you, I forgot just how much of a character Holmes was—how much fun his stories actually are. He was far from some stuffy, boring fellow in a deerskin cap with a penchant for pipes and magnifying glasses. This was a guy who lived for the challenge and puzzles, and shunned anything less than a keen intellect and a hunger for discovery. He knew baritsu (yep, an ancient form of martial arts, which he used on his arch-enemy Professor Moriarty), was an amateur boxer, and just relished disappearing into different characters and disguises. Downey would be brilliant as that—bringing that witty, intellectual energy of his to another worthy character, one that we may not have seen from this particular, lovingly bizarre angle. The new film will probably be a more Hollywood-blockbuster Holmes than Doyle ever intended, but as long as it stays true to the spirit of the original character, then, by all means, it could add all the explosions and fistfights it wants.
The stories also presented one of the best friendships in literature—the ultimate bond between a man of pure logic and intellect and his steady, sensitive backup of a companion. Holmes and Dr. Watson are inseparable—Watson cannot solve crimes because he lacks the “whole picture” vision, while Holmes’ often insane ideas need the restraining and dependable hand of Watson. By all means, they shouldn’t get along—Holmes is an odd, unsociable, drug-addicted mess, while Watson is a smooth, charming, and quite noble doctor. Can you honestly see those two dudes hanging out at a party? But it works. The two together are magic, and that’s the brilliance of Doyle’s “Sherlock Holmes”—that friendship is the charming, emotional clincher of the original stories, and it’s the crucial element that will determine this new movie.
Footage:
And, well, after seeing the Comic-Con footage, I have a lot more faith in the great sleuth’s new adventure. For the most part, I actually liked the trailer that’s now in theaters. It’s fun, moves quickly, and gives you a sense of the scale and action of this new version…everything, that is, but the actual character work. Sure, we get glimpses, but Downey and Jude Law (a perfect choice for Watson) have but one tiny exchange (they’re too busy fighting and jumping), and poor Rachel McAdams (as Holmes’ infamous female intellectual match, Irene Adler) barely utters one word. In fact, I’m pretty sure Adler is dead silent for the entire two minutes—she does look great, though, as the trailer makes sure to point out repeatedly by showing her walking around in 1800s lingerie.
On the other hand, the roughly five minutes or so of Comic-Con footage gave me everything I originally wanted: Holmes and Watson bicker like a hilarious old married couple (McAdams has a great line where she says that the “lovers are fighting again”), McAdams’ Adler proves a verbal, spunky match for Downey’s Holmes (as she should be), and we saw lots more of Holmes, you know, detecting, as opposed to kicking and punching and stuff. We also got a better sense of the story, including the dastardly plan of occultist Lord Blackwood (the great character actor, Mark Strong, reteaming with Ritchie after “Rock ‘n’ Rolla”), in a clever riff on Doyle’s own fascination with mysticism and the occult.
All in all, it looks like witty, clever fun. I loved director Ritchie’s “Snatch” and “Rock ‘n’ Rolla” (anyone else upset that Ritchie’s lucky charm and my perpetual man-crush Jason Statham couldn’t find a role in this one — really, not even as a cool-looking cameo thug?), and I think he’ll step up here to deliver an entertaining, breezy picture that doesn’t betray what fans loved about the original stories. It’s not a guarantee, but it’s certainly looking far more promising.
Panel:
I know I rambled on and on about the footage and the original stories, so I wouldn’t blame all of you people for (justifiably) skimming to finally get to the actual panel. Well, simply put, it was fantastic all-around. It got off to a rousing start when instead of the standard moderator (no offense to him) of the WB panel, in ran Downey to rapturous screams and applause. And he was everything you’d expect: quick, funny, always keeping the audience entertained. Of all the stars at the convention, I was most impressed by him—it probably helps, though, that all of us here are huge fans of his—I’d even guess that Ace and Luke are harboring not-so-secret man-crushes just like me. He genuinely seemed to love the crowd, and vice versa; even when the same questions were asked over and over (and trust me, there were a good four or five questions that were basically variations of something he already answered in the beginning of the panel), Downey didn’t miss a beat, always having some funny anecdote, and making the fans feel like they did him a favor for even asking (or, as he said, “fueling his narcissistic tendencies”). You also get the sense that he found a kindred, quirky spirit in Holmes, and it comes through in his enthusiasm and the footage.
There was some playful banter between him and McAdams (quite lovely herself), and I especially loved McAdams’ answer of how she prepared for her role, by “perusing over and over…the 10 pages she was in.” She’s one of my favorite actresses, and it’s nice to see that she’s likely as smart as she comes across.
The overall vibe from the panel (which also included Downey’s producer wife, Susan, uber action-producer Joel Silver, and the man who originated the project, Lionel Wigram) is that they made a movie they’re proud of, and can’t wait to show it off properly to an audience. It could still go either way, but now I’m looking forward to it a whole lot more.
Will it be as good and faithful as fans would want? Probably not…but that’s not necessarily a negative. Literature invites different interpretations, and if this one captures the core elements that make the stories work, we might be in for an entertaining new take on a beloved character. In the end, it’d be fantastic to have an ongoing current Holmes series, especially one that united both the old-school fans of Doyle and the newbie obsessives of Mr. Tony Stark himself (with me proudly falling in both camps).
Thanks for sticking with me through another horribly lengthy wrap-up. I’ll be back a little later with Part 2 of this set, featuring a tiny-budget Downey flick none of you will probably see anyway. Honestly, what the hell is this “Iron Man 2” movie??
Images courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures.
No comments:
Post a Comment