More Holmesian geekery
I'm on vacation! \o/ I saw Sherlock Holmes again, in the middle of the afternoon, on a working Monday (I feel so decadent), and the theater was still at full capacity. My first viewing, while enjoyable, didn't go so well due to the people sitting right behind me who would not shut up but more because of the fight that broke out in the back of the theater so we'd missed an entire scene (we got a free movie pass for the trouble. I think it says something I still really liked it the first time despite the chaos). This time, much more peaceful.
Not that I needed an excuse to see it again. :p
A second viewing confirmed the awesomeness (and also I caught a lot more of the dialogue because it was a quieter audience this time and that added to the appreciation factor).
This is cut because much as I'm determined to drag you all down into the squee with me, the movie possibly hasn't eaten everyone else's brain yet.
Watson is STILL MY VERY FAVORITE. I have a list of "Oh, Watson" moments. I feel almost guilty not to be more attached to the RDJ half of things, because RDJ was fantastic in this.
From [here], Hans Zimmer's thoughts on creating the score:
"I didn’t want to do a big orchestral score. I wanted the music to have edges, I wanted to hear the noise in Holmes’s head. When somebody played a note I wanted to hear the how, why, what for. The film is set in the middle of the industrial revolution, so the music wheezes and screeches and splutters. There is no reverb."
They bought a piano and broke it on purpose to get the sound he wanted.
This is making me rethink my comment that the movie was cluttered/chaotic as a *criticism* -- because if the director, like the composer, was trying to capture the way Holmes sees things, then the chaotic, busy feel really works. There's a scene where Holmes is on sensory overload noticing details in a restaurant, and the movie is maybe going for that. His pov is that he observes so many things, very quickly, and processes them. He sees *everything* -- so the movie is cluttered.
The plot is still a bit silly, tho. That sort of goes without saying and again -- so. doesn't. matter.
Rachel McAdams did a lot of her own stunts.
I love the visual design -- dusty old glass and a hint of steampunk and cobblestones and broken brick and archways and winding staircases.
It looks like some movie critics (and based on a cruise of friendsfriends, some fans) have decided the movie will only appeal to people who aren't familiar with the Doyle canon text, or it's a crap movie and Guy Ritchie isn't honoring Holmesian tradition. I'll have to disagree -- there are things this movie does that work better for me than some more "traditional" depictions (for example, I am not a big fan of the Basil Rathbone movies), even if it shakes things up wackily (and nobody is better than Jeremy Brett). Plus I think it's a FUN MOVIE.
Per this BBC article, Guy Ritchie was a fan of the original stories since the age of 6 and he wanted to draw on them as inspiration. RDJ: "There were times when we were so locked into how Doyle expressed things, but we had to twist it up." Jude Law: "It was a happy juggle between going back to Doyle, relishing in the accuracy that had been overlooked before and adding new energy to it." The screenwriters say they tried whenever possible to use actual pieces of Doyle dialogue.
So, maybe the movie won't work for everybody, but it doesn't exactly sound like they wanted to bulldoze all over Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
The Washington Post's critic complaining that there is OMG TOO MUCH OF TEH GAY made me go *sigh*. Look, I went in with my slash goggles set to high, but I feel that the movie absolutely works if all you want is a depiction of the epic friendship between two intelligent, very different men, and the pearl-clutching -- from what I saw, all from professional movie critics -- that started before the movie even got into theaters seems out of proportion. You don't have to be into the slash to think this movie is entertaining or to appreciate the dynamic between Holmes and Watson in this version.
I'm hoping to have a yuletide recs post put together soon.
Not that I needed an excuse to see it again. :p
A second viewing confirmed the awesomeness (and also I caught a lot more of the dialogue because it was a quieter audience this time and that added to the appreciation factor).
This is cut because much as I'm determined to drag you all down into the squee with me, the movie possibly hasn't eaten everyone else's brain yet.
Watson is STILL MY VERY FAVORITE. I have a list of "Oh, Watson" moments. I feel almost guilty not to be more attached to the RDJ half of things, because RDJ was fantastic in this.
From [here], Hans Zimmer's thoughts on creating the score:
"I didn’t want to do a big orchestral score. I wanted the music to have edges, I wanted to hear the noise in Holmes’s head. When somebody played a note I wanted to hear the how, why, what for. The film is set in the middle of the industrial revolution, so the music wheezes and screeches and splutters. There is no reverb."
They bought a piano and broke it on purpose to get the sound he wanted.
This is making me rethink my comment that the movie was cluttered/chaotic as a *criticism* -- because if the director, like the composer, was trying to capture the way Holmes sees things, then the chaotic, busy feel really works. There's a scene where Holmes is on sensory overload noticing details in a restaurant, and the movie is maybe going for that. His pov is that he observes so many things, very quickly, and processes them. He sees *everything* -- so the movie is cluttered.
The plot is still a bit silly, tho. That sort of goes without saying and again -- so. doesn't. matter.
Rachel McAdams did a lot of her own stunts.
I love the visual design -- dusty old glass and a hint of steampunk and cobblestones and broken brick and archways and winding staircases.
It looks like some movie critics (and based on a cruise of friendsfriends, some fans) have decided the movie will only appeal to people who aren't familiar with the Doyle canon text, or it's a crap movie and Guy Ritchie isn't honoring Holmesian tradition. I'll have to disagree -- there are things this movie does that work better for me than some more "traditional" depictions (for example, I am not a big fan of the Basil Rathbone movies), even if it shakes things up wackily (and nobody is better than Jeremy Brett). Plus I think it's a FUN MOVIE.
Per this BBC article, Guy Ritchie was a fan of the original stories since the age of 6 and he wanted to draw on them as inspiration. RDJ: "There were times when we were so locked into how Doyle expressed things, but we had to twist it up." Jude Law: "It was a happy juggle between going back to Doyle, relishing in the accuracy that had been overlooked before and adding new energy to it." The screenwriters say they tried whenever possible to use actual pieces of Doyle dialogue.
So, maybe the movie won't work for everybody, but it doesn't exactly sound like they wanted to bulldoze all over Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
The Washington Post's critic complaining that there is OMG TOO MUCH OF TEH GAY made me go *sigh*. Look, I went in with my slash goggles set to high, but I feel that the movie absolutely works if all you want is a depiction of the epic friendship between two intelligent, very different men, and the pearl-clutching -- from what I saw, all from professional movie critics -- that started before the movie even got into theaters seems out of proportion. You don't have to be into the slash to think this movie is entertaining or to appreciate the dynamic between Holmes and Watson in this version.
I'm hoping to have a yuletide recs post put together soon.