His character may have been working on theories of self defense. Fighting on one level is cold and calculated. Boxing is called the "sweet science."
I always believed that Holmes was exploring the physical limits of the human body in addition to his logical pursuits. On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Keith Johnson <keithbjohn...@comcast.net>wrote: > > > I've never read any of the stories, so wondered about Watson's fiance as > well. Is she in the books? I liked her personality too. > Given that Holmes is a student of--everything--his Eastern fighting ability > didn't bother me. That is, it didn't bother me once i got over the shock of > seeing Holmes portrayed as a brawler of any kind. I always pictured him as > being less physical. I mean, I can see him fighting when necessary, and > doing so with cool efficiency. I'd liken Holmes the fighter to a Vulcan: > incredibly good, but only doing what's necessary to end a fight, moves > calculated and struck with an economy of motion and a maximum of effort. I > remember watching one of the rare times "Voyager" allowed martial arts > master Tuvok to fight, and he was amazing, moving in swift circles of motion > to dispatch his opponents, but always in control. So I could see someone > like Holmes having studied Indian fighting styles (since kung fu is said to > have its roots there), as well as Chinese and Japanese arts. I'd have > expected a bit more of the "soft" stuff: judo and aikido to redirect his > opponent's power, rather than a reliance on so much "hard" fighting, as > efficient as it was. > > But the way they had him show a side of barely contained rage threw me. It > wasn't so much *how* he fought, but *why* he fought that confused me. Is > that Ritchie's take, a redoing of Holmes, or is it true to the books? > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mr. Worf" <hellomahog...@gmail.com> > To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 11:07:43 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern > Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Sherlock Holmes > > > > I have to agree with you about Rachel McAdams. > > Another character that no one has mentioned yet was Mrs. Watson. She seemed > to maybe be spunkier than she lets on. I was half expecting her to show up > in a fight scene. > > One thing that I found interesting was the "Holmes fu." His fighting style > was very martial arts like rather than British fisticuffs and Wrassling > styles of the day. > > > On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Keith Johnson > <keithbjohn...@comcast.net>wrote: > >> >> >> I thought they were overplaying Holmes as the crazy man-of-action at the >> beginning. The "cage match" and the unkempt Holmes were a bit much at first, >> and I was seriously missing the deductive reasoning parts. But later in, the >> movie settled in to give us more of Holmes the detective--and of course, the >> point was to show how incredibly out of sorts he was without a challenging >> case to focus his vast mental energies. Once he started doing some sleuthing >> I was pleasantly surprised too. It was paced well, I liked the way they >> reproduced England, the action was good, the villain good, the music was >> very impressive. And Law as Watson is probably closer to the book than the >> more aged, sidekicks of the movie. >> >> My only slight complaint was that Rachel McAdams seemed just a tad too >> young and slight of personality to play Holmes' untrustworthy lover. I'd >> have preferred a slightly older, stronger actress in the role. But no real >> big issue there. >> My wife and I both liked it, moreso as we discussed it this past weekend. >> Indeed, I wouldn't mind seeing it again. And boy did they leave things open >> for a sequel! >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Mr. Worf" <hellomahog...@gmail.com> >> To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com >> Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 4:39:27 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern >> Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Sherlock Holmes >> >> >> >> That was my first thoughts too. Now I'm glad that I saw it. >> >> I just hope that they don't try to take two different actors and turn it >> into a tv show. >> >> On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 10:04 AM, B Smith <daikaij...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> The reviews were pretty good. It was more griping from "true" fans over >>> Ritchie's take. Turns out it was the fans of the movie Sherlock Holmes >>> series and not the Holmes of the books. They thought his style and >>> storytelling didn't mesh with Sherlock Holmes. Boy were they wrong. Ritchie >>> did his homework by going to the source material and delivered an >>> entertaining and exciting film. >>> >>> --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, "Tracey de Morsella" <tdli...@...> >>> wrote: >>> > >>> > I read all good reviews. I'm dying to see it. What did you hear? >>> >>> > >>> > -----Original Message----- >>> > From: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:scifino...@yahoogroups.com] >>> On >>> > Behalf Of B Smith >>> > Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2010 8:56 AM >>> > To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com >>> > Subject: [scifinoir2] Re: Sherlock Holmes >>> > >>> > I don't know why this movie got so much flack at first. It's was very >>> good >>> > and Downey and Law were excellent. >>> > >>> > Guy Ritchie has his golden ticket to A list status now. >>> >>> > >>> > --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, "Mr. Worf" <HelloMahogany@> wrote: >>> > > >>> > > Just saw the movie, and I enjoyed it. Lots of authentic looking eye >>> candy. >>> > > Interesting plot. Robert Downey's Sherlock seemed right on target. I >>> was >>> > > leery that they would somehow over do it but it felt right. >>> > > >>> > > Dr. Watson got a bit of an upgrade which made his character more >>> enjoyable >>> > > than previous incarnations. Jude Law made a believable counterpart to >>> > > Sherlock. >>> > > >>> > > Bonus points for the Steampunk gadgetry. >>> >>> > > >>> > > -- >>> > > Celebrating 10 years of bringing diversity to perversity! >>> > > Mahogany at: >>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/ >>> >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > ------------------------------------ >>> >>> > >>> > Post your SciFiNoir Profile at >>> > >>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/app/peoplemap2/entry/add?fmvn=mapYa >>> > hoo! Groups Links >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------ >>> >>> >>> Post your SciFiNoir Profile at >>> >>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/scifinoir2/app/peoplemap2/entry/add?fmvn=mapYahoo! >>> Groups Links >>> >>> >>> >>> (Yahoo! ID required) >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Celebrating 10 years of bringing diversity to perversity! >> Mahogany at: >> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/ >> >> >> >> > > > -- > Celebrating 10 years of bringing diversity to perversity! > Mahogany at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/ > > > > > -- Celebrating 10 years of bringing diversity to perversity! Mahogany at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/
