Swanner: Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law star in Guy Ritchie’s new big budget version of Sherlock Holmes. My question is do we need another version of the Arthur Conan Doyle stories? The story isn’t based on any of the original writings but it definitely feels like it was and much of that comes from a solid script, great production values, snappy editing and tight direction. So is another version necessary? … I say why not.
Judd: I’ve got a friend that came with me to the screening who’s read the Sherlock Holmes books, and she said Downey’s version is closest to the books. Apparently old Holmes had a bit of a cocaine and opiate problem. Anyway, I enjoyed this Sherlock Holmes as directed by Guy Ritchie. I was wondering how Ritchie’s style was going to adapt to Holmes, and the answer is beautifully. This isn’t your grandfather’s Sherlock Holmes with his spyglass and deerstalker hat.
Swanner: I liked how they played up how F$%ked up Holmes was and there was sure a lot of sexual tension between Holmes and Watson. I don’t remember that from the Basil Rathbone version. My only problem with the movie was Rachel McAdams; she seemed out of place and kind of bad in the movie. Fortunately she was a supporting character.
Judd: The only sexual tension between Holmes and Watson was in your perverse mind. I understand what you mean about McAdams, but I think it is her youth that played against her. Regardless she was definitely miscast. The performances, otherwise, were excellent. Jude Law was spot on and Downey’s was perfect as the disheveled, ragamuffin Holmes. The pacing is great; you can definitely tell this is a Guy Ritchie movie. I think that’s a good thing, others may think the movie is a little manic.
Swanner: You could tell that Holmes felt something more than friendship for Watson but then it is Jude Law. They actually removed some of the stronger “gay” moments because Ritchie’s fans and the studio executives would freak but that was the plan that there was something more between the boys. Still, I don’t think they even needed “love interests” in the movie. It’s not important … who cares about spouses in a Holmes mystery? I really liked the scenes where they were outside at the bridge and the shipyard. It almost made London attractive but then I remembered what a cold and dirty city is was at that time.
Judd: Removed gay elements? What the hell are you talking about? I can’t find anything that says that outside of gossip sites. Did you know that the Bat Boy is getting married? Anyway, the studios needed Rachael McAdams in the movie for several reasons. One, audiences don’t like a younger asexual bachelor – AND I DON’T MEAN GAY! And two, they needed a woman to sell the movie to the female audience. The movie actually reminded me a lot of the old Columbo show with Holmes being a tousled detective who seemed to stumble his way through the case, but then turns out he had everything figured out.
Swanner: I thought the film was great fun and once I got use to Ritchie’s crazy editing it moved really well. I think this is one of the first Guy Ritchie movies where I understood all the characters. I’m hoping the production team gets remembered at Oscar time.
Judd: I really enjoyed the movie. It was a fun action flick, the story was good though a little too DaVinci Code for my taste, and I think the movie should appeal to a broad audience.