The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes
discussion
What is better: Book or movie(the 1 with Robert Downey Jr.)?
message 1:
by
Jasmine
(new)
-
rated it 5 stars
Mar 06, 2012 05:44PM
For those who have seen the Sherlock Holmes movies (the first OR A Game of Shadows) what do u like better,the books or the movies? I absolutely LOVE Robert Downey Jr. as Holmes because he has the perfect personality 2 do it.And of coarse Rachel McAdams is the PERFECT Irene Adler.So I guess the movies r a little bit better than the books.But only a little.What do u guys think???
reply
|
flag
Definitely the book. But I was pretty impressed with the movies. The books have a classic, more rich feeling to them but I do think the movies were done very creatively and I love both!
I have always loved the stories, especially The Hound of the Baskervilles and A Study in Scarlet. But Robert Downey is just sublime eye-candy and has that devilish personality... he truly brings the character to life!
Sherlock Holmes will always be Basil Rathbone in my mind. If you haven't seen The Hounds of the Baskervilles (1939), check it out. While I love what the new movie has done in bringing out the implied Holmes - he was a boxer, drug addict and so forth, the Holmes that comes across in the books is solving mysteries. I like the film for what it is, but Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote a proper English gentleman who outsmarted police and criminals alike. The charm is in the reserve. The books are better!
The Guy Ritchie/Robert Downey Jr. Sherlock Holmes films feel like the first real adaptation of the books to me. I saw the old Basil Rathbone movies long before I read the stories and I was surprised at just how many liberties were taken with the movies. (Back when I was young enough to be surprised by that.)Downey's Sherlock feels like the drug-addicted slacker genius misanthropic pugilist bohemian Holmes of the stories. By contrast, the Rathbone films feel like an entirely different character, more like Hercule Poirot than Sherlock Holmes.
The only real departures the new movies have from the stories is the fact that Watson isn't the narrator, but they definitely have that flavor to it, like a bit of seasoning, and the fact that (in the books) Holmes actually *did* manage to clean himself up in order to mix with high society and was described as fastidious about his appearance. Overall, though, those are minor changes compared to the wholesale butchering the classic films did to the source material.
I personally love both. Guy Ritchie, Robert Downey jr. and Jude law did an amazing job with these movies. I especially love how Downey and Law were able to bring the characters to life. The stereotypical watson protrayed before these movies were... no offenese.. bad! They showed watson as a bumbly, old, fat, bald, and not the brightest. According to the books, Watson was brilliant (I mean he was roommates with THE Sherlock Holmes and he was a doctor in the war). I love how Law was able to capture the character in the book. Robert Downey jr. did an amazing job capturing Holmes' character. Sherlock Holmes (according to the books not the normal stereotype we were used to seeing before the 09 and 11 movies) he was a brilliant man, he always tried different experiments on the dog or on himself... and some of those experiments did bring him into being a drug addict (cocaine, opium, the works) the reason he did those drugs in the first place was to experiment the effects from it on the human body and since he was alone alot of the time... he used himself. Sherlock was also kind of crazy, there was a method to his madness (downey portrayed that perfectly). Especially in the second one, Professor Moriarity was amazing. And when he and Sherlock were locked in a constant battle of the wits! Amazing!No offense to anyone that loved the classic movies.. but they needed to desperately work on the characters.
I recommend both the new movies and the books ^_^
I was not at all a fan of the movies. I didn't think they were a great adaptation... I think it was all the action. However, the new version of Sherlock with Benedict Cumberbatch, I think, is absolutely brilliant.
The latest movies were certainly the closest anyone's gotten to Holmes and Watson as they were written.I saw the first episode of the TV series and liked it quite a lot. Although it is hard to imagine Cumberbatch as a former back-alley brawler, the other aspects of Homes' personality seem to be there.
I don't think the issue is the classic movies vs. the new movies. The classics were in many cases adaptations that even went as far as having Holmes fight Nazis. I also agree that Watson was a cartoon in those early films. The new films get more right than wrong regarding the characters, I just think the books are better because it is the Rathbonesque Holmes that Conan Doyle creates the blueprint for and that's what drives all of this.
Sarah wrote: "I personally love both. Guy Ritchie, Robert Downey jr. and Jude law did an amazing job with these movies. I especially love how Downey and Law were able to bring the characters to life. The stereot..."I really like the movies with RDJ and Jude Law. I was however disappointed with some of the liberties that they took in the last movie. I just read the book that corresponds, and a lot of it was not how it happened in the movie.
Although I love me some Robert Downey Jr. great character actor. I have seen both movies and didn't care for either of them. The books are classics and just can't be out done regardless of how much technology(special effects) they put into it. I really felt the adaptation of the books would have been better as a suspense or a drama
Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law performed very well, but the movies themselves were bad in my opinion.
I don't think that the movies with Robert Downey Jr. follow the stories much, but I think in general I would probably would prefer the books anyway, because I usually do. For an actor who played Holmes that I actually like, I would have to go with either Jeremy Brett or Basil Rathbone.
I think that in the RDJ and JL movies made Sherlock and John look too much like action heroes.
If you liked Robert Downey Jr. you should see Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock Holmes in the BBC's Sherlock.The first season (3 episodes) is on Netflix.
Guy Ritchie has done a hell of a job with the movie, but its still a guy ritchie movie,.....the character & personality of Sherlock homes is nowhere near what sir Arthur Conan Doyle had in mind. the movie and the book cannot be compared as both are superior in a league of its own
Sandesh wrote: "Guy Ritchie has done a hell of a job with the movie, but its still a guy ritchie movie,.....the character & personality of Sherlock homes is nowhere near what sir Arthur Conan Doyle had in mind. ..."
It may not be exact, but it's pretty darn close. The closest ever rendered on the big screen. I kind of wonder why people keep saying it's so different, because the behaviors of RDJ and the place he lives are taken directly from the stories.
Doyle described Holmes as a brutal barroom bareknuckle brawler, a slacker with a cocaine addiction, living in a sty of an apartment and someone who hates high society. Later he's described as being able to dress up and play nice (the better to blend in, one would guess), but mostly he's an antisocial genius. We are told Holmes keeps his cigars in a little bucket, sticks his mail to the fireplace mantel with a knife and keeps his pipe tobacco in his slippers.
That's a slovenly guy for all his brilliance, and I think the Ritchie films pull that off perfectly. It's different from the classic movies starring Rathbone, but those films took more liberties with Holmes than Jon Peters wanted to do with Superman. "Superman should have body guards. And he shouldn't wear the suit. The suit is gay. Plus, flying is stupid, so that's out. Oh, and he needs to fight a giant spider, because spiders are the most dangerous predators in the insect kingdom."
The Sherlock Holmes of the books would beat the starch out of the Sherlock Holmes of the old movies. Smirkingly.
The latest movie, A Game of Shadows, comes very close to the Sherlock Holmes stories. Holmes is quirky, but highly effective and Watson is the man of action as the character is written in the original stories.
I like Downey, but I think the best Sherlock Holmes has to be Jeremy Brett (especially with Edward Hardwick as Watson). This mid-80s to 90s series done by Granada television did the most faithful rendering of the works and went far to adding much to the backstory and emotions of the characters. The action is subdued, but there was never much in the books. The series also did a great job examining Holmes failings (drug abuse) as well as his obvious strengths.
Yes, I did enjoy the Jeremy Brett Holmes with Edward Hardick as Watson. This was the first adaptation that I felt lived up the the original stories.
The books are absolutely the best. I finished the books right before the first movie came out. I was appalled when I saw Holmes portrayed as a semi superhero. I love the Jeremy Brett Holmes and that is what I picture when I re-read the stories. RJD is not a true portrayal of Holmes in my mind. I am really enjoying the "Sherlock" series with Cumberbatch the stories are adapted for modern times but hold so many details of the stories.
Books, however I liked the movie just to see how they can interpreted it.
I like the RDJ adaptation. It wasn't a perfect match to the books, but I don't know if modern audiences would have responded well to that.
I've seen the first season of the new BBC series. It does live up to the spirit of the Canon, and I can appreciate the modern setting.
For me, Jeremy Brett IS Sherlock Holmes. I simply cannot watch anyone else play the part. If you are a fan of the PBS series, you'll know what I mean!
Ken wrote: "I like Downey, but I think the best Sherlock Holmes has to be Jeremy Brett (especially with Edward Hardwick as Watson). This mid-80s to 90s series done by Granada television did the most faithful r..."I so agree!!
The books. Downey makes a horrible Holmes. He does not even have the look or attitude. He can't hold a candle to Jeremy Brett who really brings the character to life. I fell in love with Brett as Holmes.
Brett played an excellent douchey Holmes, but he doesn't look like Doyle's description of Holmes at all. I can't imagine Brett getting into a fistfight, let alone having a reputation among the thugs of London as a brawler. That Watson is so far off it's not even the same character. (Rugby star, war hero, above average size with a strong build and thick neck.)Way too much Rathbone infecting their performances. I still think the Ritchie movies come closest to capturing the look and feel of the Holmes of the books.
Trike wrote: "Brett played an excellent douchey Holmes, but he doesn't look like Doyle's description of Holmes at all. I can't imagine Brett getting into a fistfight, let alone having a reputation among the thug..."I could not disagree more! Brett, with his hair swept back, captures much of the appearance of Paget's original drawings. Plus, Brett actually gets into a boxing match in the dramatization of The Priory School. The staging is simple and the fight rather subdued (a few jabs are traded back and forth before Holmes' superior skill wins out), but he comes out of it with a couple of nice cuts and bruises. We must also remember that much of the action in Doyle's work is told in retrospect. We see Holmes after several days of living on the street and surviving attempts on his life in The Final Problem, rather than the attempts themselves.
As to Waston, I agree the first Watson (David Burke) did not do Watson justice. He was okay, but not great. Edward Hardwick, though, was fantastic as the older, wiser Watson, who was still amazed by Holmes' skill, but was ready to point out his foibles just as frequently (and crack wise at his friend's expense). He lacks some of the physicality of Watson from the book, but the hard-nosed military man surfaces many times. For example, in The Dancing Men he puts his pistol to the culprit's temple with a calm reserve that shouts, "I will not hesitate to end you." He may not be as rough and tumble as the cinema Watson, but he was not lightweight.
The books and movie have nothing in common but a name. If they had made the films but called the title character something else I would have loved them but to change the basic nature of a character and the plots as to be unrecognizable is a pointless exercise. The books are well written, were astonishingly forward thinking and scientfic for their time, and amazed and entranced their readers. The books are better.
I REALLY REALLY like the book,but i LOVE the movies,they are so intersting and funny, and i think the movie is very motivating for people who hasnt read the book yet,it makes you want to read the book,i dont know what i would prefer because theyre both excellent,the movie and the book.
Jamie wrote: "I was not at all a fan of the movies. I didn't think they were a great adaptation... I think it was all the action. However, the new version of Sherlock with Benedict Cumberbatch, I think, is abs..."I'm with you Jamie
I didn't see the movies with Robert Downey Jr. because the most faithful Sherlock Holmes will always be Jeremy Brett. I love him, the series are amazing.I don't think that the movies are faithful to the books, as far as I could understand... so I refuse to see them x)
Anamoreira0 wrote: "I don't think that the movies are faithful to the books, as far as I could understand... so I refuse to see them x)"They are the most faithful adaptations to date. Anyone who tells you differently has never read the books.
The first thing everyone needs to know is that movies and books are that old adage, comparing apples and oranges. Worse, it's more like comparing apples and chickens. Consider that the novelist has hundreds of pages, on average over 400 and thousands of words, in the typical range of 125,000 to 200,000 words to tell the story. But since the picture is worth a thousand words, the screenplaywright only has about one page per minute of film, he or she must use the visual images to offset the handicap faced. Since every reader who reads the writer has visual images that are different, there is no way in making a film that even most of the people can be satisfied. So give it a damn rest already. Novels and films are two different media and the results will be different. Judge each on its own merits. Don't try to compare, it's impossible to do that with any basis in reality.
Well said, Whitebeard. You are truly noble and wise.I'm still going to compare books and movies, of course, but you dropped the wisdom up in here.
Jamie wrote: "I was not at all a fan of the movies. I didn't think they were a great adaptation... I think it was all the action. However, the new version of Sherlock with Benedict Cumberbatch, I think, is abs..."YES, if you love Sherlock Holmes, please, do yourself a very solid favor and watch SHERLOCK. Start with "A Study In Pink" and see what you think!
I do enjoy the Sherlock series. It is a very visual show and goes a way in showing how Holmes perceives things. The integration of new technologies like smartphones is appropriate and interesting. SHERLOCK's Irene Adler is a truly wicked and worldly woman, more of a predator like a female preying mantis than someone driven to desperate circumstances.
I saw both series of Sherlock before I saw the Downey Jr movie, and I have to say the first movie disappointed me a little. Not a bad film but it felt less intelligent than Sherlock. I have yet to see the second movie, so maybe that will tip the balance the other way.
I love both the movie and the book!
Definitely the books. I liked the first movie and thought it was an interesting twist on the books; featuring what was 'between the lines.' I didn't like the second movie.I really like Sherlock. Benedict Cumberbatch has replaced Jeremy Brett as my favourite film Holmes. I was disappointed at the last two films in the series, but the first four are solid.
Ken wrote: "I like Downey, but I think the best Sherlock Holmes has to be Jeremy Brett (especially with Edward Hardwick as Watson). This mid-80s to 90s series done by Granada television did the most faithful r..."Jeremy Brett.. best Holmes ever..
I liked the Robert Downey movie a lot ,but it has nothing to do with the Conan Doyle character, except that they both have the same name. Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock Holmes in the BBC's Sherlock, is in my opinion closer to what Sherlock Holmas would be like. They have done an incredible job in adapting it to the the present time. Watch it.
I loved the movie! Robert Downey Jr. is Sherlock! He did an amazing job portraying that character, and so did Jude Law with Watson. I can't choose which one I like the most, because I must say that I love Doyle's writing, I just love how he writes and I loved how Downey brought to life Holmes. It's hard to choose, since one is a movie and another thing is a classic book :S
And talking about the BBC adaptation and the movie, it's hard to say too, because they are based on different time periods, and Robert did an amazing job portraying what Sherlock was and Cumberbatch did an amazing job portraying what will Holmes will be today.
And talking about the BBC adaptation and the movie, it's hard to say too, because they are based on different time periods, and Robert did an amazing job portraying what Sherlock was and Cumberbatch did an amazing job portraying what will Holmes will be today.
Wlatin wrote: "I liked the Robert Downey movie a lot ,but it has nothing to do with the Conan Doyle character, except that they both have the same name."I like the BBC show, too, but the Downey films definitely do feel like Holmes' character. Has no one actually read the stories?
Also, I found this comparison: http://oldeship.blogspot.com/2010/06/...
Wlatin wrote: "I liked the Robert Downey movie a lot ,but it has nothing to do with the Conan Doyle character, except that they both have the same name. Benedict Cumberbatch as Sherlock Holmes in the BBC's Sherlo..."very true.. I am nt sure but how downey differs from Holmes of the books, who is so clean and methodical..he has such nice vintage aura around him, Father of a whole genre..
i shall check out BBC's series though.. havent seen that
I love both of them but because of Robert Downey Jr. I will choose the movies.I think that Downey is the best Sherock Holmes.
Paola wrote: "I loved the movie! Robert Downey Jr. is Sherlock! He did an amazing job portraying that character, and so did Jude Law with Watson. I can't choose which one I like the most, because I must say that..."Couldn't agree more.
I think they made the Robert Downey Holmes be more of an action figure than the books portrayed him, though he did have a few actions scenes that I remember from the books very well. But movies do that to sell the movie and that's what it takes to attract a big audience. The difference was probably the emphasis. The books emphasized his thinking, while the movie emphasized his ability. I absolutely love the modern day Sherlock! It has become my favorite series. I wish they would make more than three per season!
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
