Mr. Holmes

[seadogontheland]

I've read all of Sherlock Holmes which was produced by Sir A.C.D. There is no substitute for the imagination.

The movies and TV shows are an interesting diversion, but not nearly as fully satisfying as the print. Doyle's collection can be had in paperback at Barnes and Nobel for about 20 bucks.

 

[seacaptain]

I agree with seadog, there's no substitute for the original books.
That being said, this looks like an interesting movie that might be worth watching.

 

[maxpeters]

I read all of his books in 1974 and, like most people, became hooked. There's just something about those stories that draws you in, makes you feel so close that you become a part of the story. You're right there with Holmes and Watson, out thinking and tracking down evil doers. Once you start a story, you don't want to put the book down until you're through. It took a lot of skill to write that way.

I also agree that Jeremy Brett's interpretation of Holmes is the best ever. I have most of the series recorded, but on VCR cassettes!

 

[johnnyreb]

I went to see "Mr. Holmes" yesterday and enjoyed the movie a lot. I won't spoil the plot for those who might see it but just know that it is set in 1947 when Holmes is 93 yrs old and suffering from age related memory loss, off & on. He is trying to trigger memories of a case he misjudged that was obviously a career-ender and more or less placed him in exile some 35 yrs ago. The story is based on the novel, "A Trick of the Mind" from 2005 by Mitch Cullin. Being a newbie I was able to discern enough about the novel on line before seeing the movie that I had no trouble following the story as it unfolds.
Ian McKellen is an incredible actor. As Holmes he does a great job going from an often confused 93 yr old Holmes to his former self in flashback even though his appearance does not change all that much, and you have no trouble distinguishing the two. If you are a Holmes traditionalist just be aware that for the purposes of this story at least he dispels the pipe smoking ("I prefer a cigar") and the deerstalker hat as Watson's poetic license taken in the writing of their adventures.

 

[johnnyreb]

Double post - deleted on edit.

 

[dustmite]

Sounds like a good movie. I read through the Sherlock collection about 15 years ago. I usually need some time before I re-read a book, but those I started over as soon as I finished just to try and follow the clues and Holmes's deductive process. Some of my favorite literature.

 

[tobyducote]

Can't wait to see it..

 

[lordofthepiperings]

The film was pretty good. Well written and directed plus the actors were wonderful. It does take quite a few liberties from the stories though. Regardless, it was a very good movie.
I've read the stories a few times. Great reading.
As far as versions go I love the series Granada did starring Jeremy Brett as Holmes. It stayed close to the stories. In some cases the lines are directly from the stories. They're wonderfully adapted and Jeremy Brett is Holmes. No one has ever played the character close to the one Doyle wrote.
I do enjoy the Sherlock Holmes films Downey and Jude Law have done. Jude Law's Watson is much closer to the good doctor in Doyle's stories. Downey is pretty close to Sherlock as well. Much more so than Basil Rathbone's portrayal at least.
Sherlock with Benedict Cumberbatch is well done. The characters themselves are close to those written by Doyle. The modern setting had me up in the air about watching it, but when I finally did watch them I loved them.
I haven't watched Elementary aside from one episode. The Doyle estate didn't approve of it, so CBS or whoever makes it had to change a lot to avoid a lawsuit.
The Rathbone ones are quite famous, but I never watch them. Rathbone just isn't Holmes and Bruce is a terrible Watson. Watson was a doctor, he would have been too intelligent to be some fat bumbling idiot sidekick. Edward Hardwicke, who played Watson opposite Brett, knew Bruce growing up as his father and Bruce were friends. Hardwicke once said in an interview that the war was going on when Rathbone and Bruce were making the films and so the world needed Watson to be someone people could laugh at and forget the war for an hour or two. I get that. It does explain the films quite well. I still don't watch them though, because they're so different from the stories.

 

[johnnyreb]

Do Sherlockians have cons? If so I think I'm hooked!

 

[aldecaker]

I guess I'm kind of a curmudgeon when it comes to "remakes" or "re-interpretations" of literature or movies I enjoy. Taking e few liberties here or there is one thing, but taking an original, twisting it into something completely different, and giving it the same title as a classic book, movie, or character seems like a con job. Seems like trafficking off of something's well-earned reputation in order to "sell" your new creation. I am looking forward to seeing Mr. Holmes to see what it's all about. I may well enjoy it. A respectful homage to another's creation is okay in my book.
I will say my prejudice in this regard has bitten me before. When the modern remake of Flight of the Phoenix came out, I clearly remember thinking "Oh, you're gonna do better than Jimmy Stewart and Ernest Borgnine? Good luck with that!" Well, I was pleasantly surprised by enjoying a very well-made movie. Goes to show, I suppose...

 

[sallow]

This week I picked up 'The Complete Sherlock Holmes', volume one.
It was in the bargain bin at Borders, eight bucks.
less than one dollar per story.

 

[condorlover1]

I thought the film version 'Without a Clue' was pretty amusing!

 

[mso489]

Doyle couldn't free himself from the character. He killed him off, and then had to resurrect him to placate his readers. And now the author's posthumous career is rich (or is it heavy?) with all these sequels, now with Holmes in late retirement. I say the original stories, in print, are the ticket, and a few of the best adaptations of the stories. The rest are often good entertainment, but the character of Holmes is not the same persona. Writers, publishers, producers, actors and directors and the public just can't let go. That was some writing in the originals.

 

[briarfriar]

Anyway, there is no pipe smoking in this new movie. Holmes explains he prefers cigars. He's not shown smoking any of those either.

 

[aldecaker]

MSO- If you have have to "resurrect" a character because your readers just can't get enough, I'd say it means you're doing something damned good as a writer! As an author, though, it must suck to want to move on to something new and different, and have your public want you to keep doing the same old thing.

 

[jpmcwjr]

What do the Holmes scholars think of the series starring Cumberbatch?

 

[huntertrw]

Sir Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle sold his first Sherlock Holmes story "A Study in Scarlet" in 1886. His last, "The Adventure of Shoscombe Old Place," was published in 1927. I daresay that any author writing about any character over a span of 41-years is probably more than enough.

 

[johnnyreb]

Sir Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle sold his first Sherlock Holmes story "A Study in Scarlet" in 1886. His last, "The Adventure of Shoscombe Old Place," was published in 1927. I daresay that any author writing about any character over a span of 41-years is probably more than enough.

Interesting & somewhat unusual manner in how Doyle killed Holmes off, then managed to bring him back to satisfy the demand for more stories.

 

[huntertrw]

"Interesting & somewhat unusual manner in how Doyle killed Holmes off, then managed to bring him back to satisfy the demand for more stories."
His was a literary device that writers continue to use to this good day.

 

[johnnyreb]

His was a literary device that writers continue to use to this good day.

And that's exactly why the ending to a movie is often different than the book it otherwise followed closely.