New Sherlok Holmes Movie

[Kapnismologist]

Two pipe sightings in the movie site trailer alone...

http://sherlock-holmes-movie.warnerbros.com/

We'll see how they treat the gentle art in the rest of it on the 25th...

 

[Justpipes]

Two pipe sightings in the movie site trailer alone...

http://sherlock-holmes-movie.warnerbros.com/

We'll see how they treat the gentle art in the rest of it on the 25th...

In one of them, he takes a swan dive with a pipe out the window into the river below. Must have been a cheap basket pipe! :lol:

 

[shortcircuit]

In one of them, he takes a swan dive with a pipe out the window into the river below. Must have been a cheap basket pipe! :lol:

Ya know... I keep seeing the trailer, and that part specifically, but sometimes I wonder if there is a crafty, quick cut to a different scene there. I'm thinking now, but I guess we will see.

 

[Pipefan2009]

A couple guys from my pipe club and I got to see a sneek preview of the movie. He refers to a briar pipe as a clay pipe at one point in the movie. I must admit, it was better then I thought it was going to be.

 

[HistoryMajor]

Good to hear...I'm quite excited to go see this.

 

[Doc Manhattan]

Little puff piece (har) about the new Holmes pipe in the Times' fashion insert. For such a short article, they do an okay job of noting that the pipe is coming back into the public eye, but not as much into the smoker's mouth. Extra props for correctly describing the pictured pipe (guessing they asked the guy at Barclay-Rex.)

 

[LL]

A*bom`i*na"tion (#), n. [OE. abominacioun, -cion, F. abominatio. See Abominate.]

1. The feeling of extreme disgust and hatred; abhorrence; detestation; loathing; as, he feels rats are an abomination.

2. That which is abominable; anything hateful, wicked, or shamefully vile; an object or state that excites disgust and hatred; a hateful or shameful vice; pollution.

Antony, most large in his abominations. Shak.
3. A cause of pollution or wickedness. Syn. -- Detestation; loathing; abhorrence; disgust; aversion; loathsomeness; odiousness. Sir W. Scott.

 

[Tennessee Dave]

Anyone into the old Sherlock Holmes movies ought to check out TCM channel beginning at 8 tonight EST. Playing SH movies for about the next 24 hours or so.

 

[Dock]

I just got back from seeing it folks! It was actually pretty great and very well done! Though it bears little resemblance to the Sherlock Holmes of old, it's still damn good in it's own right. I may just go see it again now :lol:

 

[shortcircuit]

I just got back from seeing it folks! It was actually pretty great and very well done! Though it bears little resemblance to the Sherlock Holmes of old, it's still damn good in it's own right. I may just go see it again now :lol:

Good to know. I'm thinking about seeing it here early next week. Does anyone know if it is at all similar to the books, or follows the story of any of them? I'm seriously considering reading the novels and short stories because I'm running low on reading material and at the pace I have been reading lately what I do have is not going to last long.

 

[hunter1127]

Anyone into the old Sherlock Holmes movies ought to check out TCM channel beginning at 8 tonight EST. Playing SH movies for about the next 24 hours or so.

I'm all over these..even plan to Tivo the ones in the wee hours of the morning. Can't wait..... :santa:

 

[Dock]

It really was a great movie in a million different ways. Especially interesting to me was just how "down and dirty" the overall scenery was. Contrary to the Granada TV version Richie gave a much more acurate portrayal of Victorian England. Everything was literaly ripe with filth. Folks teeth and general hygine were likely every bit as horrible as Mr.Richie made it out to be. The streets were dirty and smoke filled and there were MANY pipe smokers including several women. This is a big departure from the romanticized Granada TV series which made everything look so clean and sterile. The movie had an edge about it that was pure genius. I can't wait for the next instalment...

 

[Strongirish]

I have a bit of a different take on the movie. Having read all the books, I watched the movie with more of a critical eye. I was disappointed that none of the charactors were as Conan wrote them to be. In it's own right as an action thriller, it was a good movie. I liked the old London scenes and their depiction of being so dirty. But I had hoped that the base of the charators would be somewhat like the books. But, other than the name, it was nothing like them at all. The books have Sherlock as knowing the martial arts, but very little was ever used. The movie had him as a street fighter. Watson in the books revered Holmes, in the movie he was sarcastic and seemed to take joy in catching Holmes in positions so he could pop one liners. The pipe was briar and not clay. Holmes always had his pipe in the books, in the movie only now and then and Watson never smoked where in the books he did, often. I did enjoy seeing pipe smokers though in a movie. On a scale of five I would give the movie a 2 at best.

 

[Dock]

I have a bit of a different take on the movie. Having read all the books, I watched the movie with more of a critical eye. I was disappointed that none of the charactors were as Conan wrote them to be. In it's own right as an action thriller, it was a good movie. I liked the old London scenes and their depiction of being so dirty. But I had hoped that the base of the charators would be somewhat like the books. But, other than the name, it was nothing like them at all. The books have Sherlock as knowing the martial arts, but very little was ever used. The movie had him as a street fighter. Watson in the books revered Holmes, in the movie he was sarcastic and seemed to take joy in catching Holmes in positions so he could pop one liners. The pipe was briar and not clay. Holmes always had his pipe in the books, in the movie only now and then and Watson never smoked where in the books he did, often. I did enjoy seeing pipe smokers though in a movie. On a scale of five I would give the movie a 2 at best.

It wasn't supposed to be a copy of the books. If you want that then you should certainly buy and watch the Granada TV versions done in the 1980's. To give it two stars is just plain foolish to be frank. Because it didn't live up to your own views of how it should have been?

It was a modern day take on a classic story, no more and no less. Movies are meant to take you somewhere far away and get your mind out of the real world for a bit. It certainly accomplished that feat as far as I'm concerned...

 

[Strongirish]

I am very surprised by your responce to me Danish, just because I did not like the movie do to the weaknesses I stated makes me foolish? I rated it 2 stars and I felt I was giving it the benefit of the doubt, more like 11/2 to me. You can have your opinion, but I can have mine. When a movie does not live up to it's billing, and I am a Robert Downey Jr fan, by the way, I am certainly entitled to my opinion. I think you are out of line calling my call of the movie foolish. This director is known for being one of the worst in Hollywood. I stand by my review as stated.

 

[Justpipes]

I plan to go see the movie this week and I will give my review of it and settle the matter. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Dock]

Sorry Guys & especially you Irish. I'm prone to lashing out in irrational anger if anyone insults the movie. I was forced to drop about 40 facebook friends cause they also seemed to have the same opinion of it as Irish :lol:

Your the deciding vote now Mark

 

[Centurian 803]

Went to see it this afternoon. Like Strong Irish, I was disappointed in how the characters were portrayed. But what the hell. I'll probably never be satisfied with anyone after Jeremy Brett just as I can't abide anyone's portrayal of Hercule Poirot after seeing David Duchet. I did enjoy the move and was especially taken with the realism of the scenery. As an action adventure it succeeded on a high level and I did enjoy Holmes' explanation of the mystery. The only real problem I had was with the frenetic pace of some of the scenes. Camera angles changed so often and so rapidly that it was uncomfortable for me in places. But then, I'm an old fart so that's just me. Guess I'd place myself somewhere between Dock and Irish. :scratch:

 

[Strongirish]

Thanks for the apology Danish. I was just rather surpised at your post as that is not normally like you. I thought the purpose of postin on threads was opinions and I was being honest in my assessment. I did think and state it was a good movie in in own right. If I had not read the books, I would have just enjoyed it as an action flick, but as I have, I was let down by it. But that's just me. Since Downey stated in a prerelease that he really studyed the part more than any other movie he made to get into the part, I was expecting some depiction based on the books. I actually liked the part of Watson as the sarcastic side kick.

 

[Justpipes]

I guess the jury is still out. I plan to see it sometime this week. I have heard nothing but good things about it from local friends that went to see it.

I take movies for what they are and have no loyalty to the accuacy to the original book. It would be difficult for a mvie to be completely accurate to the book it is based on. If the movie is good it is good. I guess you could liken it to who made the best bond movie and were they true to Ian Fleming's books. Nobody has played 007 as good as Sean Connery, not even close, though I do think the new bond movies with Daniel Craig are awesome.