RE: [scifinoir2] Re: Sherlock Holmes
Keith, now part of me is going to try to cast the role... _ Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390707/direct/01/
RE: [scifinoir2] Re: Sherlock Holmes
Keith, I can't say if this depiction of Holmes' rage in his fighting style is close to accurate in the Conan Doyle tales, because it's been years since I last touched them. Somewhere, I've got the entire collection in e-book format. Would take me from now until the end of Time to find it but, if I do, I'll send it to you. They're well worth the reading, IMO. If all the world's a stage and all the people merely players, who in bloody hell hired the director? -- Charles L Grant http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQUxw9aUVik To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com From: keithbjohn...@comcast.net Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 22:56:53 + Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Sherlock Holmes 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
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Sherlock Holmes
Agreed, and it's not a knock against Adams. She's just a young actress who comes off as a young woman in the movie. I like her as a person, i think she's very pretty, and I think she's a good actress--just wrong for the role. What a sad world we live in when they couldn't have gotten an actress closer to Downey's own age. - Original Message - From: Martin Baxter truthseeker...@hotmail.com To: SciFiNoir2 scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 28, 2010 4:30:02 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: RE: [scifinoir2] Re: Sherlock Holmes Keith, Irene Adler, in the Holmes universe, is meant to be a woman of some years (not old, but experienced in the ways of the world), something McAdams couldn't hope to carry off. Casting works in mysterious (and incorrect) ways. Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. Get it now.
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Sherlock Holmes
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.netwrote: 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.netwrote: 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
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Sherlock Holmes
That might be true. Like I said, I've never read a Holme's story, so I wasn't sure if Ritchie's treatment of him as attacking with barely suppressed rage was accurate or not. - Original Message - From: Mr. Worf hellomahog...@gmail.com To: scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 7:38:29 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Sherlock Holmes 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
RE: [scifinoir2] Re: Sherlock Holmes
Thank you once more, Mr Worf. This will fit in nicely with something I'm working on. _ Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390707/direct/01/
RE: [scifinoir2] Re: Sherlock Holmes
Keith, Irene Adler, in the Holmes universe, is meant to be a woman of some years (not old, but experienced in the ways of the world), something McAdams couldn't hope to carry off. Casting works in mysterious (and incorrect) ways. _ Hotmail: Powerful Free email with security by Microsoft. http://clk.atdmt.com/GBL/go/196390710/direct/01/
[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 hellomahog...@... 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/
RE: [scifinoir2] Re: Sherlock Holmes
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 hellomahog...@... 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
[scifinoir2] Re: Sherlock Holmes
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
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 -- Celebrating 10 years of bringing diversity to perversity! Mahogany at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Sherlock Holmes
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: scifinoir2@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 -- Celebrating 10 years of bringing diversity to perversity! Mahogany at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/
[scifinoir2] Re: Sherlock Holmes
This flick is closing in on $400,000,000 worldwide and only cost $90,000,000. They are talking movie series and not tv. I wonder who they will cast as Prof. Moriarty. I would like to see a pay cable version of Ritchie's Rock N' Rolla. I know we'll never get a theatrical sequel so I would love to see a miniseries or something to continue the story. --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Mr. Worf hellomahog...@... wrote: 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...@... 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 tdlists@ 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 -- Celebrating 10 years of bringing diversity to perversity! Mahogany at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mahogany_pleasures_of_darkness/
[scifinoir2] Re: Sherlock Holmes
The boxing and martial arts were directly from the books. Holmes was an accomplished amateur boxer, swordsman and adept in baritsu(bartitsu), a hybrid martial art mixing jujitsu, wrestling, boxing and savate. --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Mr. Worf hellomahog...@... wrote: 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...@...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...@... 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...@... 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 tdlists@ 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/
Re: [scifinoir2] Re: Sherlock Holmes
Hmm that is very interesting! I learned something tonight. I had to look it up. There's video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tC5O7HV_KY There is also a documentary coming out on this subject. My steampunk friends will enjoy this. On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 8:42 PM, B Smith daikaij...@yahoo.com wrote: The boxing and martial arts were directly from the books. Holmes was an accomplished amateur boxer, swordsman and adept in baritsu(bartitsu), a hybrid martial art mixing jujitsu, wrestling, boxing and savate. --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, Mr. Worf hellomahog...@... wrote: 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...@...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...@... 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...@... 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 tdlists@ 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
