charloween: (stop narrating)


*happysigh*

The density of the set design and the props alone is enough to keep me squeeing for a while.

There are so many ways this movie could go horribly wrong* but I find it hard to get too worked up about the maybes. Just as long as I get to watch Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law fight crime in period drag, I'm happy. Because really, what's there not to love about that?

*Remember, Guy Ritchie is directing a screenplay by the guy who gave us X3, xXx:2 and Jumper.
charloween: (Default)
It seems that I was mistaken: there are two Holmes films in development.

One of them is the Sacha Baron Cohen, Will Farrell and Judd Apatow movie.

The other, directed by Guy Ritchie, is based on "a forthcoming comic book" with a "more adventurous Holmes" and will star (wait for it) Robert Downey Jr.

So, Guy Ritchie's directing the less stuffy-more adventurous Holmes and they've cast the opposite physical type to the Strand illustrations of Holmes, which should mean all kinds of wrong. But then... it's Robert Downey Jr. in the role. He can do brainy, quirky, actiony stuff, we know, we've all seen Iron Man by now. But if you're going to make a movie about, like, a Victorian Tony Stark ("stuffy" is an adjective that has never been applied to Tony Stark)... please, have the good graces not to call him "Sherlock Holmes". Though, this means we can fantasy-cast Paul Bettany as Watson. ...*lightbulb* Oh god please someone write AU steampunk Victorian Iron Man. Agh! With mechanical men! Agh! "You have been to Afghanistan, I perceive." Agh! Crossover possibilities! Agh! Agh! Someone write this and I will love you FOREVER and bring you stuff from England and also my firstborn.

***

Because I can't let three whole posts go by without mentioning Doctor Who, I'm duty-bound to report that it looks like 9.4 million people watched the finale (and I wonder how many more online?) but the BBC felt it necessary to report in a separate article that the reaction to said finale was "mixed". I do enjoy how they report the plot twists as if all that stuff was happening to real people. And no spoiler warnings, in the headlines or the articles. There's this attitude of, "If you care, you've already seen it". Amusing. But not as fun as Anthony Stark, Esq., eccentric genius millionaire and builder of Living Mechanicals.
charloween: (you broke sir)
They're planning a new Sherlock Holmes film! Hoorah?

It's being made in Hollywood, and it's going to be a comedy "based on" the Holmes stories. No word if this means a period setting or something more hip and modern that the kids today can relate to.* Judd Apatow is co-producing. Guy "No, not divorcing Madonna - for reals" Ritchie is going to direct.

Just as long as they don't set it in the 1980s. Just saying...

They have Sacha Baron Cohen as Holmes ('cause he's British!) and Will Farrell as Watson ('cause he can do "bumbling"?).

Apparently they want a "less stuffy" and "more adventurous" Holmes, to which I say: he wrestled a man on a precipice overlooking a killer waterfall in the Alps! Maybe Holmes was never at a consistent James Bond-level of Adventurous, but he certainly wasn't a... um... Garfield. More a Calvin & Hobbes? But with solving crimes. In Victorian London. Argh. You know what I mean. Holmes was stuffy because he's an upper-class Victorian male, but he still could get his adventure on in between the dazzling feats of deductive brilliance.

This could be either fantastic or hideous... or, worst of all, it could be safe and boring. Or the next Lethal Weapon movie.
Page generated Sep. 22nd, 2017 06:27 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios