Comments on: SHERLOCK HOLMES http://www.atatheatrenearyou.org/sherlock-holmes/ Reviews, Trailers, and Much More! Wed, 23 May 2012 04:57:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Jacques COULARDEAU http://www.atatheatrenearyou.org/sherlock-holmes/comment-page-1/#comment-2544 Jacques COULARDEAU Sun, 07 Mar 2010 03:45:19 +0000 http://atatheatrenearyou.org/sherlock-holmes/#comment-2544 Sherlock Holmes has been so standardized that this new film is absolutely thrilling and fascinating. Of course we can look at it as a "touristic" guide to 19th century London, with mud, crime, squalor, bleakness, and it is true little of the top class or upper society. This London has been shown very often from Oliver Twist to Dracula or Elephant Man. But that is definitely not the main interest of this film. Then there is the fight against crime. There are two types of criminals. Lord Blackwood who is trying with a secret society that believes in human sacrifice to frighten the populace to establish the fascist rule of the upper class who wants to reestablish a total and absolute centralized power that has never existed in England anyway. And then there is the scientific crime that tries to transform crime into a fine art, the eighth fine art of this world but whose objective is only stealing and getting all the most beautiful stones, gems and the biggest piles of money they can, but with the beauty of a wizard. Lord Blackwood is another Voldemort and in a way Irene Adler and her boss are criminalized Harry and Hermione Potter. But that is of little interest except that it creates a phenomenal action. What is most important here is the relation between Dr Watson and Sherlock Holmes, a full and absolute homo-friendship. They cannot live without each other. They cannot even survive without each other. They realize that homo-friendship in their action against crime. But the film is extremely clear and careful to show that this is only a friendship between two souls and that the only male element in that friendship in the male action, and by male I mean violent and disruptive, physical and muscular. And the film shows how these two men are obsessed each one by a particular woman. Dr Watson will be able to satisfy his sexual hunger by marrying his Mary, but she will have to become the go-between of the two men. She will have to bring her husband, soul and mind tied up, at the feet of Sherlock Holmes for one more batch or episode of adventure every so often. Dr Watson can love Mary only if he can love Sherlock Holmes and take part in his capers and adventures. On the other hand Sherlock Holmes can only survive in this life if he is chasing his own love in the person of Irene Adler and sexual contact can only be submissive on Sherlock Holmes' side. Irene will take advantage of him sexually when he has been reduced to passivity by some kind of soporific drug and Sherlock Holmes loves it and he will go on running after her and he will only get the satisfaction of holding her tight to prevent her from being cut in two lengthwise by a belt saw. That's only utilitarian physical contact whose sexual dimension has been evacuated by the danger. And the key to his liberation is under the cushion for sure but he is handcuffed to the bed and as nude as a new born baby with all his hairs standing up on their roots when the chamber maid arrives. This homo-friendship is exactly what Walt Whitman described so well in his poetry, particularly in his Calamus songs. The attraction between two men that makes them partners in life for some active and material objective with no sexual dimension and with two women around them who are making them dream of sex and run after their skirts but who have to bring them together regularly for their sexual energy to be reloaded by some adventure against some criminal, like Moriarty. Beautiful modern film that is talking to us of the emotional relations between people, man and man, woman and woman, man and woman, woman and man, in a very harsh world slowly edging towards fascism but always avoiding this deadly end. The most extreme advocate of eugenics and social Darwinism was H.G. Wells at the end of the 20th century: the only non Caucasian whites who were tolerated were the Jews provided their intermarried, and all alcoholics, mentally and physically handicapped people had to be gotten rid of. Hitler was only different from that objective as fort his position about the Jews. That's the society that is reflected in this film but from an iconoclastic point of view that is praising emotional relations between beings as founded on nothing rational, just love. And don't forget you can and must love your worst enemy. <br /> <br />Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Paris 8 Saint Denis, University Paris 12 Créteil, CEGID <br /> Rating: 5 / 5 Sherlock Holmes has been so standardized that this new film is absolutely thrilling and fascinating. Of course we can look at it as a “touristic” guide to 19th century London, with mud, crime, squalor, bleakness, and it is true little of the top class or upper society. This London has been shown very often from Oliver Twist to Dracula or Elephant Man. But that is definitely not the main interest of this film. Then there is the fight against crime. There are two types of criminals. Lord Blackwood who is trying with a secret society that believes in human sacrifice to frighten the populace to establish the fascist rule of the upper class who wants to reestablish a total and absolute centralized power that has never existed in England anyway. And then there is the scientific crime that tries to transform crime into a fine art, the eighth fine art of this world but whose objective is only stealing and getting all the most beautiful stones, gems and the biggest piles of money they can, but with the beauty of a wizard. Lord Blackwood is another Voldemort and in a way Irene Adler and her boss are criminalized Harry and Hermione Potter. But that is of little interest except that it creates a phenomenal action. What is most important here is the relation between Dr Watson and Sherlock Holmes, a full and absolute homo-friendship. They cannot live without each other. They cannot even survive without each other. They realize that homo-friendship in their action against crime. But the film is extremely clear and careful to show that this is only a friendship between two souls and that the only male element in that friendship in the male action, and by male I mean violent and disruptive, physical and muscular. And the film shows how these two men are obsessed each one by a particular woman. Dr Watson will be able to satisfy his sexual hunger by marrying his Mary, but she will have to become the go-between of the two men. She will have to bring her husband, soul and mind tied up, at the feet of Sherlock Holmes for one more batch or episode of adventure every so often. Dr Watson can love Mary only if he can love Sherlock Holmes and take part in his capers and adventures. On the other hand Sherlock Holmes can only survive in this life if he is chasing his own love in the person of Irene Adler and sexual contact can only be submissive on Sherlock Holmes’ side. Irene will take advantage of him sexually when he has been reduced to passivity by some kind of soporific drug and Sherlock Holmes loves it and he will go on running after her and he will only get the satisfaction of holding her tight to prevent her from being cut in two lengthwise by a belt saw. That’s only utilitarian physical contact whose sexual dimension has been evacuated by the danger. And the key to his liberation is under the cushion for sure but he is handcuffed to the bed and as nude as a new born baby with all his hairs standing up on their roots when the chamber maid arrives. This homo-friendship is exactly what Walt Whitman described so well in his poetry, particularly in his Calamus songs. The attraction between two men that makes them partners in life for some active and material objective with no sexual dimension and with two women around them who are making them dream of sex and run after their skirts but who have to bring them together regularly for their sexual energy to be reloaded by some adventure against some criminal, like Moriarty. Beautiful modern film that is talking to us of the emotional relations between people, man and man, woman and woman, man and woman, woman and man, in a very harsh world slowly edging towards fascism but always avoiding this deadly end. The most extreme advocate of eugenics and social Darwinism was H.G. Wells at the end of the 20th century: the only non Caucasian whites who were tolerated were the Jews provided their intermarried, and all alcoholics, mentally and physically handicapped people had to be gotten rid of. Hitler was only different from that objective as fort his position about the Jews. That’s the society that is reflected in this film but from an iconoclastic point of view that is praising emotional relations between beings as founded on nothing rational, just love. And don’t forget you can and must love your worst enemy.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Paris 8 Saint Denis, University Paris 12 Créteil, CEGID

Rating: 5 / 5

]]> By: Harry Eagar http://www.atatheatrenearyou.org/sherlock-holmes/comment-page-1/#comment-2543 Harry Eagar Sun, 07 Mar 2010 02:04:41 +0000 http://atatheatrenearyou.org/sherlock-holmes/#comment-2543 Seldom have I seen a movie whose grasp was so much less than its reach. <br /> <br />This was shown at the Maui Film Festival's First Light on Dec. 23, and MFF's Barry Rivers said it was the first showing in North America. Be warned. It's coming to a theater near you. <br /> <br />First, at least a third of the dialogue is incomprehensible, and not only because of the London accents. Sherlock, especially, mumbles. <br /> <br />Whoever wrote this script either failed to get Sherlock Holmes or was deliberately standing Doyle on his head. Although in the Strand stories, Holmes occasionally displays a surprising strength, he uses his head, not his fists, to get results. Likewise, Watson is occasionally advised to "bring your pistol," but as far as I can recollect, he never shoots it. <br /> <br />The authors show a considerable knowledge of the Holmes canon but no understanding of it (unless they are being intentionally perverse for mysterious reasons). "Across the Universe" two years ago showed what creative people could do by reworking the complete canon of other creative people. "Sherlock Holmes" shows how people without any creative imagination can take a high canon and rework it as a Saturday morning cartoon, <br /> <br />Third, director Guy Ritchie cut this like a music video, and not a good one, either. It was akin to watching a waterbug on crack. <br /> <br />The only good thing I can find to say about this flick is that Rachel McAdams has very nice lips. Rating: 1 / 5 Seldom have I seen a movie whose grasp was so much less than its reach.

This was shown at the Maui Film Festival’s First Light on Dec. 23, and MFF’s Barry Rivers said it was the first showing in North America. Be warned. It’s coming to a theater near you.

First, at least a third of the dialogue is incomprehensible, and not only because of the London accents. Sherlock, especially, mumbles.

Whoever wrote this script either failed to get Sherlock Holmes or was deliberately standing Doyle on his head. Although in the Strand stories, Holmes occasionally displays a surprising strength, he uses his head, not his fists, to get results. Likewise, Watson is occasionally advised to “bring your pistol,” but as far as I can recollect, he never shoots it.

The authors show a considerable knowledge of the Holmes canon but no understanding of it (unless they are being intentionally perverse for mysterious reasons). “Across the Universe” two years ago showed what creative people could do by reworking the complete canon of other creative people. “Sherlock Holmes” shows how people without any creative imagination can take a high canon and rework it as a Saturday morning cartoon,

Third, director Guy Ritchie cut this like a music video, and not a good one, either. It was akin to watching a waterbug on crack.

The only good thing I can find to say about this flick is that Rachel McAdams has very nice lips.
Rating: 1 / 5

]]> By: H. Schneider http://www.atatheatrenearyou.org/sherlock-holmes/comment-page-1/#comment-2542 H. Schneider Sun, 07 Mar 2010 01:19:04 +0000 http://atatheatrenearyou.org/sherlock-holmes/#comment-2542 Some men have problems with their women. Guy Ritchie had a divorce, and now Sherlock Holmes is somewhat unfortunate with Rachel McAdams. <br />But surprisingly, these problems turn out to be small fry! The real problem is another one: <br />Ritchie either never read Conan Doyle's Holmes stories, or he thought he can get away with inventing a new man with the same name. (Like: did you know that Shakespeare's plays were not written by him but by somebody else with the same name?) <br />Sorry to say: no, he can't, or if he thinks he can, he needs to try again, as this one failed. <br /> <br />My often reliable daily paper South China Morning Post rated this movie 2 of 5 stars. I did not want to watch it. Then Downey got a Golden Globe for best drama acting. (Or was it comedy? Even worse!) I thought, mistakenly, that must mean something and went into a Singapore movie theatre, despite my misgivings about the film and despite my inability to enjoy the arctic frost in Singapore public indoor places. <br />No, folks, it means nothing. The Downey character in this film is nothing, not even a caricature. Talking about caricatures: I just read a few comments on Inglorious Basterds, and how bad Pitt's acting is supposed to have been, and how much he is a caricature. Let me say this: Downey here is not even that, he is just a bad copy of himself. Jude Law as Watson might have worked with a convincing Holmes. <br /> <br />The story or plot is an awful mess about a conspiracy to rule the world and about black magic and witchcraft and mysterious assassinations, with an evil guy who looks as if Andy Garcia tries to impersonate Hitler. Holmes & Watson spend a surprising portion of their screen time doing action stunts, or trying to get along with their respective women. Downey mumbles, which I will not forgive. <br />I have rarely been so uncomfortable and bored in a cinema. <br /> <br /> Rating: 1 / 5 Some men have problems with their women. Guy Ritchie had a divorce, and now Sherlock Holmes is somewhat unfortunate with Rachel McAdams.
But surprisingly, these problems turn out to be small fry! The real problem is another one:
Ritchie either never read Conan Doyle’s Holmes stories, or he thought he can get away with inventing a new man with the same name. (Like: did you know that Shakespeare’s plays were not written by him but by somebody else with the same name?)
Sorry to say: no, he can’t, or if he thinks he can, he needs to try again, as this one failed.

My often reliable daily paper South China Morning Post rated this movie 2 of 5 stars. I did not want to watch it. Then Downey got a Golden Globe for best drama acting. (Or was it comedy? Even worse!) I thought, mistakenly, that must mean something and went into a Singapore movie theatre, despite my misgivings about the film and despite my inability to enjoy the arctic frost in Singapore public indoor places.
No, folks, it means nothing. The Downey character in this film is nothing, not even a caricature. Talking about caricatures: I just read a few comments on Inglorious Basterds, and how bad Pitt’s acting is supposed to have been, and how much he is a caricature. Let me say this: Downey here is not even that, he is just a bad copy of himself. Jude Law as Watson might have worked with a convincing Holmes.

The story or plot is an awful mess about a conspiracy to rule the world and about black magic and witchcraft and mysterious assassinations, with an evil guy who looks as if Andy Garcia tries to impersonate Hitler. Holmes & Watson spend a surprising portion of their screen time doing action stunts, or trying to get along with their respective women. Downey mumbles, which I will not forgive.
I have rarely been so uncomfortable and bored in a cinema.

Rating: 1 / 5

]]> By: Amsterdam20 http://www.atatheatrenearyou.org/sherlock-holmes/comment-page-1/#comment-2541 Amsterdam20 Sat, 06 Mar 2010 23:22:44 +0000 http://atatheatrenearyou.org/sherlock-holmes/#comment-2541 This movie stunk. I knew it was going to be a modernized version of the Sherlock Holmes legacy, but the only thing this movie had in common with the original story were a few names and the deductive reasoning of Holmes. Everything else about it felt wrong and out of place, especially the fight scenes. The original Holmes was highly intelligent, but he never used this talent to be some kind of MMA fighter. The vibe of this movie was also far too slapstick for my liking and it was really hard to understand what the characters were saying because of the English accents. I usually don't have a problem with this kind of thing, but this movie needed subtitles. The story itself was terrible and I nearly walked out, but it was one of those things where I figured I sat here this long and might as well stay to the ending. That was a mistake because the ending sucked too. I can't believe these guys think they are going to make another movie. It is rare that sequels top the first movie and anything worse than this movie would be a disaster. Rating: 1 / 5 This movie stunk. I knew it was going to be a modernized version of the Sherlock Holmes legacy, but the only thing this movie had in common with the original story were a few names and the deductive reasoning of Holmes. Everything else about it felt wrong and out of place, especially the fight scenes. The original Holmes was highly intelligent, but he never used this talent to be some kind of MMA fighter. The vibe of this movie was also far too slapstick for my liking and it was really hard to understand what the characters were saying because of the English accents. I usually don’t have a problem with this kind of thing, but this movie needed subtitles. The story itself was terrible and I nearly walked out, but it was one of those things where I figured I sat here this long and might as well stay to the ending. That was a mistake because the ending sucked too. I can’t believe these guys think they are going to make another movie. It is rare that sequels top the first movie and anything worse than this movie would be a disaster.
Rating: 1 / 5

]]> By: Mark D. Norton http://www.atatheatrenearyou.org/sherlock-holmes/comment-page-1/#comment-2540 Mark D. Norton Sat, 06 Mar 2010 21:10:27 +0000 http://atatheatrenearyou.org/sherlock-holmes/#comment-2540 This movie was terrible. There were times when I couldn't even understand the words they were saying because they were talking so fast. The plot absolutely stunk. I never knew that Sherlock Holmes fought in Bare-Knuckle Cage Matches like he did in this movie. There was ABSOLUTELY ZERO MYSTERY IN THIS MOVIE. I read Sherlock Holmes books as a child, and loved them. The books I read as a child were full of mystery. However, this move decided not to have any mystery to it at all, instead they just had a bunch of really weak action scenes where Sherlock Holmes would go in an kick everyones butt. The main Character, Holmes, was meant to be a genius, but he is portrayed as a mumbling idiot for most of the movie. I would not recommend this to anyone, and I almost walked out of the theatre, but I didn't - But I wish I had walked out, since the ending is as boring as the rest of the movie, and no mystery is ever solved. Rating: 1 / 5 This movie was terrible. There were times when I couldn’t even understand the words they were saying because they were talking so fast. The plot absolutely stunk. I never knew that Sherlock Holmes fought in Bare-Knuckle Cage Matches like he did in this movie. There was ABSOLUTELY ZERO MYSTERY IN THIS MOVIE. I read Sherlock Holmes books as a child, and loved them. The books I read as a child were full of mystery. However, this move decided not to have any mystery to it at all, instead they just had a bunch of really weak action scenes where Sherlock Holmes would go in an kick everyones butt. The main Character, Holmes, was meant to be a genius, but he is portrayed as a mumbling idiot for most of the movie. I would not recommend this to anyone, and I almost walked out of the theatre, but I didn’t – But I wish I had walked out, since the ending is as boring as the rest of the movie, and no mystery is ever solved.
Rating: 1 / 5

]]>