Sherlock Holmes, sort of

Im not a film critic; thanks you guys for the insight.

Thank you for bringing back Walling. Whether I agree with him or not, he actually knows how to write movie reviews. Whoever wrote the Avatar review wasn't in Walling's league, either as a writer or someone knowledgeable about films.

"Etc. Etc."

Come on son, carry on. You can't just leave it there.

Where to start...

You have the roles reversed in the current version, which again shows you don't know what you're talking about.

There have been many, many publications of The Complete Sherlock Holmes over the years illustrated by different artists. Some of whom probably used Rathbone as a model.

Etc. Etc.

Paul, it's neither here nor there but I won't be going to the trouble of viewing this latest Sherlock Holmes offering. The idea of Jude Law playing the great man is enough to put me off, not to mention Robert Downey, sometime porn star and full time drug fiend, and American, playing Dr Watson is just too much. And besides, its yet another offering of Holmes in colour and that just won't do. I own the book The Complete Sherlock Holmes which has a drawing of Holmes in profile on its dust jacket - the resemblance to Basil Rathbone is close. Rathbone owns Holmes, Bruce owns Watson.

"Anything made before or since, especially since is inferior, grossly so, and a travesty, as this latest effort must be. Some things should just be left alone."

"Sanan Phutrakul has probably never seen the Rathbone series and would probably blench at the suggestion that he might give it a go."

Have YOU seen the new film? You are the one who seems to be "playing the man" here.

Personally, I haven't seen the Downey film, and wouldn't make a comparison. But, you are the one who is making the flat-out statement that it must be a "travesty".

Jiri, thanks. You're absolutely correct.

Paul Margulies, your comment is acceptable, but for your, "shows that your film going experience is, at best, limited. " I mean, how would you know? Along with some other regulars to these pages you can't help playing the man instead of the ball and come across as supercilious, displaying incivility. All pretty gratuitous and really unnecessary.

Back to the script. Rathbone's Holmes were short films by any measure, almost all of them, save for The Hound of the Baskervilles, being a bit over an hour long. You're quite right in saying the films were not faithful to Sir Arthur's stories, and there have been subsequent versions made which were much more so, especially those starring Cushing and Plummer, and then in colour of course, but that doesn't detract from my enjoyment of the Rathbone films which have no peer owing to their atmosphere, atmosphere which is absent in all subsequent Holmes films - much to do with the Rathbone films' being in black and white. But, perhaps it all gets down to personal taste. Sanan Phutrakul has probably never seen the Rathbone series and would probably blench at the suggestion that he might give it a go. That's his right. Good for him and his view of this latest Holmes offering which apparently rocks.

Karel,

I guess you have been "downgraded" by others.
The problem-of course- is, that the arts of any kind(films included) are a very subjective matter not open to any "objective" reasoning by anybody.If anybody(including noted film critics)tries to objectify the arts to they own upbringing,philosophy or biases,it is just a personal opinion regularly bellied by many even if supported by another ones.

There is no science in film's critical business at all.It is all a personal taste often subjected to ego of reviewer and/or viewers.

I, too, was a big fan of Basil Rathbone in the part of Holmes. But to say that anything else made since was inferior just shows that your film going experience is, at best, limited.

First of all, Rathbone's films were not "short films". They were feature length productions in an era of "double-features" and radio. And they weren't exactly true to the texts, considering they frequently transplanted Holmes and Watson into the World War II era to battle nazi spies, etc. Rathbone also eventually played the character on tv, radio and the Broadway stage.

But,there have been many other wonderful portrayals of Holmes over the years. Christopher Plummer, for one, in Murder By Decree was great. Jeremy Brett was excellent in the tv versions. Even a young Nicholas Rowe as the "Young Sherlock Holmes" was quite good.

Boohoo. God forbid that in 2009 someone retell the story of Sherlock Holmes. This film rocks. It's for our ADD generation. The best was the bickering between Holmes and Watson, like an 80 year old couple who annoy each other, but would never think of breaking up. Downey Jr. is blessed to have cleaned up his act and become a great actor. Superb pairing with Jude Law.

"Up to snuff..."?

Pardon?

There has only ever been one Sherlock Holmes and there has only ever been one Dr Watson. Surely someone out there has heard of Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce who played Holmes and Watson in a series of short films between 1939 and 1945, black and white films. Yes, black and white; how positively awful and how depressingly ancient. But they do have sound. Anything made before or since, especially since is inferior, grossly so, and a travesty, as this latest effort must be. Some things should just be left alone.

This was a real dog and the title is a sham. James liked it better than I but agrees that the committee of five came up with the disjointed plot unrelated to each of the other four parts. Thanks for the warning that there may be a sequel and using the Sherlock Holmes name is really off base. Like James said, it is much more Indiana Jones that any book by Arthur Conan Doyle. But, the photography is good.