Audience members responses to Sherlock Holmes were dramatically different, depending on age, language and gender. Ten kids in the audience, aged 10- 15 absolutely loved the movie: excited by the action, loved the pace, got all the jokes and eft burbling with excitement. Those up to 40 years of age talked of the film’s various technical achievements – the overall bleached look of the images, the sooty London décor, the recreations - Piccadilly, the docks, the Tower Bridge - caused considerable discussion.
Sherlock Holmes buffs (some are members of the Sherlock Holmes Society), couldn’t stop talking about the respect the script showed for the original Conan Doyle material.
Many women 65+ said their husbands liked it, or would have liked it but found the action sequences too much, too violent, too long. They found the plot very confusing, esp. the death and the ressurrection. They didn’t get the explanations as to how Holmes figures things out.
I had expected a 100% house, and in conversations after, discovered that many, having seen the Sherlock Holmes trailer (we had run it prior to the three previous screenings), anticipated what the film was going to be like and stayed away. Indeed some said the only reason they came was to support Cinémagique, knowing WB had given us the film.
Here are member verbatim responses:
I really enjoyed Sherlock Holmes as did my wife and son. I've read all 56 of the short stories and the four novels so there is no way I would want to miss this film but Barbara and Dave were watching it without all that background...and they loved it too! I think you've got a hit on your hands. David told me at lunch today that he will go back and see it again when it opens and that he will bring many of his friends along. He liked the stylistic way Guy Ritchie handled the characters and the story. Using the slowed down footage to reveal Holmes' thought process as he was about to do something complex showed his ability to think clearly under pressure and revealed Holmes' reasoning powers in a very visual way...Conan Doyle would have approved...an excellent example of how a modern filmmaker can adapt ideas from literature and translate them into something special, something cinematic.
Your guest was a great addition to the evening and I liked how he reflected on the filmmaking process and I also enjoyed the personal touches when he spoke about his interest in saving greyhounds from their post racing life and staying in his local community even though he is starting to get some traction in Hollywood. His family being there to support him was also a nice touch. Seeing him standing there with his daughter emphasized his large stature for sure, but also his humanity.
If I am any judge of Holmes and Hollywood I am guessing there will be a part 2 in the near future. I predict we will see more of your guest in part 2 but he most likely will be working on the side of Holmes and Watson instead of playing the heavy. That's what Doyle would do...
Thanks again for the great evening...did you notice how many films we've seen with Cinemagique this season were front runners with the Golden Globes! Good for you! - John
anyway, i wanted to thank you for all the work you have done on the season!! Happy holidays and see you in the new year, - julie
I wanted to feel more for the characters, really care about them, love them..I guess I don't think of Sherlock as being so young and athletic! The action was a fun ride but I missed not having more mystery/intrigue and less fast filler. Dawn
Sherlock Holmes est un bagarreur. Il faut bien se tenir occupé! Autrement, il se morfond entre deux enquêtes, imaginant mille et un scénarios et testant toutes sortes de mixtures à une époque où la science devenait de plus en plus importante. Son ami, le docteur Watson, est heureusement là pour l'aider à être un peu plus présentable. Un "straightman", mais qui sait se battre lui aussi!
Holmes est un génie troublé, qui a besoin d'action pour vivre. Chacun de ses déplacements est une invitation a retenir tous ces détails qui lui permettent de résoudre les intrigues. Et des détails, le film en fournit abondamment. Le Londres du milieu du 19e siècle est surpeuplé, et sale de toute cette fumée de charbon. Très propice aux mystères.
Qu'est-ce qu'on cherche quand on va au cinéma? De l'action: DES TONNES! Des cascades? PLEIN! Des effets spéciaux? Vous ne les verrez pas ou très peu tellement ils sont bien réussis. On se croirait à Londres. Du paranormal? C'est la base de l'intrigue, où de jeunes femmes sont tuées pour accomplir un rite. Une histoire d'amour? Deux même, mais bon, c'est secondaire dans ce film. Important pour les suites? On verra. Le décor, les costumes, les explosions, les menaces, l'intrigue, le scénario (c'est une histoire de Sherlock Holmes après tout!), méritent un détour par le cinéma. Tout le film est présenté par une solide équipe de comédiens, autant pour les bons que les méchants et même les policiers. Dans la version anglaise (très British comme langue parlée, avis aux auditeurs moyennement bilingues!), le géant est présenté comme un français. Mais l'est-il? Et survit-il?
Voilà le genre de film que l'on attend des grands studios hollywoodiens. Même dans ses excès.
J'ai pu voir ce film dans le cadre des activités du club Cinémagique, un ciné-club qui présente des nouveautés à chaque semaine au Cinéma du Parc à Montréal. Nous avons eu comme invité le fameux géant du film, Robert Maillet, qui habite au Nouveau- Brunswick. Bien sympathique de finir un film avec un de ses acteurs et d'en apprendre un peu plus sur les capacités de Robert Downey à excéuter ses propres cascades.
Sherlock Holmes? Définitivement, cher Watson. Et en espérant une suite aussi glorieuse.- daniel
(Published on Flickster/Facebook)
I thought the film was well-matched with the intellect of Holmes: complex, quirky and witty. I marvel at the appeal to a wide age range. It takes everyone along with the action at its own pace and the viewer is challenged to keep up. In this way, the intelligence of the audience is not taken for granted. The previous exposure (if any) one may have to Holmes as a character of our imagination built since the publication of the books and release of various films did not matter. This was a new experience for all.
Downey's incarnation is entirely believable to a contemporary audience and plays with any previously established characteristics to reveal him as more outlandish and layered than expected. The film thus exceeded my expectations and I want to see it again and again. I was thoroughly absorbed, entertained and intrigued. The speed of language, and repartee created a rush of excitement from beginning to end. The Holiday Season timing is perfect.
Robert Maillet was a great ambassador for the movie, again totally unexpected. He had a refreshing manner and charming way of answering questions. You were also an ideal foil for him during the question and answer period with your respect, understanding and knowledge of filmmaking as a collaborative art form. Robert's role in the film was an example of the attention to detail that could have been easily overlooked upon a single screening of the film. The fact that he was flown in for this, heightened the overall reception and allowed us to explore the darker side of the movie from the point of view of the villain of the piece. I noticed that Robert was also on CBC Radio in Montreal while he was here and his infectious enthusiasm, respect for his fellow actors and Director, Guy Ritchie, and obvious pride in his own performance came across even on radio. Somehow his physical size equalled his voice and the interviewer seemed captivated by his honesty and integrity. Thank you and thank you, Warner Brothers! Marlene
Helped by his straightman Dr. Watson (who sure knows how to fight!), they solve intrigues set up in the mid 19th century dirty London. The city is full of details, and its creepyness adds to the story plot.
What do we want when we go to the cinema? Action? LOTS! Stunts? PLENTY! Special Effects? So good you won't notice them. You will be in this old London. Paranormal? This is the main idea of the story. Love story? Even two, could we say, but I admit it is really secondary. Important for future releases? We'll see. All set design, costumes, explosions, threaths, story line (it is a Sherlock Holmes story after all!) are worth a detour by your favorite theater. The whole movie is sustained by a solid team of actors, as well for the goods, the villains and even the policemen. The English version is really "Old British" for the language. The exception is a French giant (is he really French?), who adds a nice touch to the feature. He's a villain, so he dies. Really?
This is the kind of movie we like from Hollywood studios, even with their excesses. I got to see this movie with the Cinémagique movie club, presenting new features of all kind every week at Cinéma du Parc in Montreal. We had a guest, the giant Robert Maillet, who lives in New Brunswick. It was nice to complete a presentation with one of the actors of the movie, who allowed us to learn a little more about the true stuntman capacities of Robert Downey (yes, he does as much as he can).
Sherlock Holmes? Definitely, Watson. And hoping for a glorious sequel. Daniel
The work to recreate 19th Century London was extremely effective. I was really impressed. The story line, with its frenetic chase was a little less appealing; it reminded me more of Raiders of the Lost Ark than Sherlock Holmes.
The portrayal of Holmes was not consistent with the Holmes of Conan Doyle. Holmes is described as an intellectual who might have known everything about martial arts, but would much prefer to think about them rather than develop the practical skills. He was also a misogynist, who might have been fascinated by the brain of a smart woman but would not have fallen in love with her. The scruffy look of Holmes was also odd. The drawings published with the original editions showed a very well dressed individual.
Much of the books (and earlier depictions) depend on the relationship between the severely gifted Holmes and the well grounded and not so swift Watson(elementary, my dear Watson). A close partnership, yes, but not between the almost equals portrayed in the movie. The relationship between House and Wilson in the popular medical drama series is closer!
One might argue that the portrayal in the movie uses artistic license. However one would hope that any interpretation is consistent with the ‘facts’ provided by Conan Doyle. This is not. Martin
Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes is like nothing you ever saw or imagined. The reconstruction of London at the time of the action is probably more accurate than ever portrayed before. Slums are slums, streets are dirty and dangerous, and most dwellers on the unkempt side. The rich are super rich, the poor, super poor
Sherlock,as portrayed by Ritchie and brought to life by Robert Downey Jr. is multifaceted. He is a Martial Arts expert, (Downey is himself an adept) with a superior intellect, divining abilities, wry sense of humour, a scientific curiosity that borders on dangerous and with a tendency to be on the slob side rather than neat and with a trying sense of friendship that would make any normal person decide he is not worth befriending. In short he is very different than ever seen before.
Jude Law's Watson, sidekick and mystery solving partner, is his preyed upon friend and colleague who comes through even in the most trying of circumstances. The chemistry between the two actors is good and believable as we witness them They battle against the evil plot of Lord Blackwood who confounds Scotland Yard. They will of course solve the mystery and save their country. Both are put through very difficult situations made even more impressive with the use of special effects and a sound track that accentuates the sombre, the evil , the tense, and the comic.
Rachel McAdams is Sherlock's dangerous love interest and some of their scenes together are downright funny. Mark Strong plays a villain true to colors. The villains are really bigger than life! Robert Maillet Bouctouche New Brunswick, born wrestler turned actor is impressive.
If the plot is thin, the villains, villainous, the dialogue is at times difficult to understand. It is as if they mumble. The action is continuous, it is a film that is action packed with impressive special effects and gives a new look and probably more accurate look at Sherlock than ever seen before. I wonder what Sir Conan Doyle would say. He probably would have a good time and so will you ! Nicole
***
This is a refreshing new look at the most famous of all fictional detectives, Sherlock Holmes. Nowadays the market is flooded with mystery stories. We tend to forget that crime fiction of the Western world only became an accepted style of writing in the 19th century. In the early days there were no police or private detectives trying to figure out how, why and by whom crimes were committed. Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes, who first appeared in publication in 1887, is often described as the first consulting detective. His methods of observation, deductive reasoning and forensic skills influenced police methods and criminology all over the world.
Robert Downey is certainly a different actor than Jeremy Brett, THE Sherlock Holmes of British films. He is rather rougher around the edges than we are used to. But Downey’s portrayal accents some aspects of Holmes’ character that we haven’t seen as much previously, his prowess in bare-knuckle boxing for instance. Downey is very observant and has the audience as well as fellow actors cringing as he keeps tasting items to deduce what they are. Jude Law as Watson makes a more appealing lady’s man than previous actors I thought. Irene Adler, the one woman who could match Holmes’ skills, is only featured in one of the original Sherlock Holmes adventures (A Scandal in Bohemia). But she (Rachel McAdams) plays a large part in this film and one suspects she will be turning up in subsequent movies. I certainly hope so. I would also enjoy seeing a revival of Dredger (Robert Maillet), the giant villain. Bad guy Mark Strong, playing Lord Blackwood, is wonderfully sinister. I did not find it hard to follow the plot and action
There is some wonderful camerawork in this film. The special effects are very well done. The shipyard and inferno scenes are spectacular. I loved the upside down angle on the chase of Holmes going after Dredger. The slow motion filming is effective, a good contrast to fast action scenes.
It is fun noticing the bits of dialogue which refer to other movie characters, such as Dr Who. My British friend recognized phrases from a childrens’radio show, which director Guy Ritchie must have also grown up listening to.
Some members of the Bimetallic Question, Montreal’s Sherlock Holmes Society, were upset about this film’s departure from traditional British Sherlock Holmes movies. Others saw it as a breath of fresh air. I think this movie does a good job of introducing Sherlock Holmes to a new generation. Nancy
***
