Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Overstreet

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011)

Recommended Posts

Good, looking forward to it. Something I never thought I'd say when I saw the trailer for the first film. :D I ended up liking the movie so much better than I'd expected (although, being an utter wuss, I did hide my eyes a few times).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Put me down for one of the believers who thinks that the second one could actually be even better than the first one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pleased about this. After watching the first film I'm re-working my way through the short stories, and the comparison is very interesting, and the stories enlightened by this new take. I still think Brett has the edge in my head, but still...

Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good, looking forward to it. Something I never thought I'd say when I saw the trailer for the first film. :D I ended up liking the movie so much better than I'd expected (although, being an utter wuss, I did hide my eyes a few times).

The trailers for the first movie had to be among the most misleading I've ever seen! Seriously, I was almost expecting a screwball sex comedy. Thank goodness the movie didn't end up like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would be a great catch. I can see him doing an excellent variation on my own personal favorite film Moriarty, Henry Daniell (see about 0:46 into

).

(And I must say, as much as I enjoyed the first movie, a scene like this--with these two towering intellects coolly talking over the differences between them without resorting to "a fit of heroics" would be a welcome surprise).

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I supposed I should see the first one if this isn't going away. The iPod should suffice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather seen Day-Lewis focus on a film that's likely to be great rather than... well... a Guy Ritchie film. He works so rarely. I mean... he turned down Aragorn, for crying out loud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather seen Day-Lewis focus on a film that's likely to be great rather than... well... a Guy Ritchie film. He works so rarely. I mean... he turned down Aragorn, for crying out loud.

I'm with Jeffrey. I think it would have been more likely to see Laurence Olivier work with Roger Corman than to see Day-Lewis work with Ritchie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Set video reveals surprise cameo.

And by "surprise cameo" they mean an absolutely earth-shatteringly obvious cameo.

Yes, it's Irene Adler

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed. It would be the first cameo by an unborn of which I'm aware. :P

Too bad it wasn't Benedict Cumberbatch.

:D I think that sentence is more awesome than anything we'll see in the actual movie (and I say that as someone who's looking forward to it).

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have a title:

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

Because we need this movie to be confused with a George R.R. Martin novel.

Honestly, though, the title's a bit awkward. I'm not sure it's more awkward than The Valley of Fear, The Boscombe Valley Mystery or other Conanical Holmes titles. But it lacks a certain, I dunno, punch that even the lamest Doyle title seems to have.

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Set video reveals surprise cameo.

Wait a minute, the "surprise" is revealed in the post that started this thread, back in May 2010.

But since that time--unless I'm getting my chronology messed up--there was a lot of back-and-forth over the extent of that cameo, and even whether it would happen at all (see, for instance, this story, some months after the initial one, in which Rachel McAdams and Robert Downey, Junior both seem to have some doubts about her return). So this is the first absolute confirmation, even if it doesn't surprise anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MTV has a set visit.

My favorite bit is Law:

"My aim is that by the end, I'll actually be enormously fat and blumbering around...I'll be the big old Watson that everybody wants to see. 'Oh dear, I've just fallen over!'"

In other news, RDJ doesn't think the Canonical Holmes-Watson adventures have an origin story, which would certainly shock readers of A Study in Scarlet (although Holmes' own origins, apart from "The Gloria Scott" and "The Musgrave Ritual" do remain shrouded in mystery). But then RDJ goes on to say that these movies are "better" than Doyle, which is so flippant that I can't imagine he's taking any of the Canon-notCanon issues seriously. Given the kinds of movies these are, that is just as well.

EDIT: Thinking about that Law quote, though, it amuses me that filmmakers still feel the need to point out that Watson isn't really a buffoon in the books; have we even had an idiot Watson since Bruce (and even Bruce isn't quite as bad as people let on). We've had plenty of idiot Holmes portrayals over the years (Matt Frewer being, IIRC, the most recent) but Watson is almost uniformly portrayed as reasonably intelligent at least since The Seven Per Cent Solution (and even before, in The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes). I guess it's a tribute to the staying-power of the Rathbone-Bruce movies that everyone feels the need to scramble and explain that Watson wasn't really a bumbler after all. I know, in discussing the previous film with people "on the ground" I've been forced to repeat the line myself, which is a bit silly, when you think about it.

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I Hear of Sherlock Everywhere has an interview with Les Klinger--a well-known Sherlockian and consultant on both Ritchie films. Nothing very ground-breaking (apparently he had a hand in the title), but interesting.

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Collider has an interview with Jared Harris. Some interesting bits:

They did [Moriarty] verbatim from the Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes, and you can see it on YouTube you know? So we went back and forth about trying to come up with a look, and I was given a lot of input into how I wanted to look. There was a certain amount of thrashing around in terms of the character itself, with Robert and with Guy, and all the people involved in creating the series. Lionel. So I had some input into that, but I hadn’t been with the whole thing as long as they have so, I mean it’s very much a spontaneous thing to what happens when you get there on the day. So you can do all your preparation and be ready for everything and then none of it’s useful.

Going back to what you were asking about with Moriarty and with playing villains in general, and about the interface with plot and exposition and stuff like that—don’t tell them anything! Iago is one of the great villains of all time, there is no explanation for why he does what he does. None. People are fascinated by evil because it’s mysterious and it doesn’t seem to have a rational behind it, and the second you say that Hannibal Lecter was abducted as a child and he had to eat his sister or something like that, it becomes immediately mundane. The character becomes mundane. Don’t explain. That’s what’s fascinating about it.

Does your Moriarty think he’s a bad guy? Does he know he’s evil?

Harris: I think that for me—and this is again my rational, it’s never explained in the story and I don’t really think it needs to be—but for me, the character’s amoral. He’s moved beyond the concept of there being a heaven and a hell and a God and a devil, and there being good and evil, he doesn’t believe in it. And if you don’t’ believe in that moral construct, then everyone is free to do whatever they want. He sees that whole approach to viewing the world and everything around them as being a childish construct. He doesn’t believe in the whole idea of there being good and evil, so he couldn’t conceive himself as being either good or evil. He’s just doing what’s good for him. It’s like asking, if you’re a fish, how could a fish conceive of space? You swim in the water that you swim in or the atmosphere that you’re in. For him it just doesn’t exist. The whole idea doesn’t exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×