Video: “Sherlock Holmes” trailer
posted at 9:55 am on May 20, 2009 by Allahpundit
A very pleasant surprise. I was expecting some dreary mystery with Downey skulking around foggy alleys in old London; instead, as Ace says, it looks like a Victorian Indiana Jones, albeit kitschier to play to RD’s hammy strengths. Actually, what it really looks like is a Bond flick transposed to the 19th century and leavened with a few more one-liners than usual. I wonder what goofy double entendre the name of the Rachel McAdams character has. Inna Course, maybe?
Between this and “Iron Man,” Downey should have two franchises up and running well into the middle of the next decade. Well played, sir.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
about time they re-made these.
jp on May 20, 2009 at 10:02 AM
Title should be “Hollywood to ruin Sherlock Holmes.”
How is this a pleasant surprise? Sherlock isn’t Indiana Jones and he isn’t Bond. Why ruin characters like that? It’s just a lame attempt to cash in on the name recognition.
Darth Executor on May 20, 2009 at 10:02 AM
I’m not a frequent movie go-er, but I would make an effort to go see that.
I’m glad that Downey was able to turn things around after all that drug and prison crap.
myrenovations on May 20, 2009 at 10:03 AM
Let’s hope Guy Ritchie’s talent wasn’t squandered during his marriage to Madonna.
On the subject of Downey, one of his best performances recently was in the criminally underrated Kiss Kiss Bang Bang. Give that a look when you get a chance.
Doughboy on May 20, 2009 at 10:03 AM
Looks too actiony for my tastes in a Sherlock Holmes story. But still looks fun!
Here’s hoping they haven’t used the Holmes story “The Country of the Saints” as a basis for this film as payback for Prop 8 tomake Mormons the bad guys. I wouldn’t put it past Hollywood.
oddjob1138 on May 20, 2009 at 10:03 AM
I don’t even like Sherlock Holmes, but that looks like a movie I’d pay to see.
Anna on May 20, 2009 at 10:03 AM
Jeremy Brett is turning over in his grave.
Vashta.Nerada on May 20, 2009 at 10:03 AM
Looks….well, bad.
This isn’t Holmes – at least the literary character. It’s someone else entirely.
Yeah, it doesn’t have to be totally faithful; but….
SteveMG on May 20, 2009 at 10:05 AM
Looks like the only resemblence to Sherlock Holmes will be the name.
CDeb on May 20, 2009 at 10:05 AM
Looks good, though I can see the guy with the big hammer knocking out support after support as he tries to kill Holmes, and the ship will then tip over.
You heard it here first.
Bishop on May 20, 2009 at 10:05 AM
Christmas Day? Geez, remind me in about six months, ok?
LastRick on May 20, 2009 at 10:05 AM
Was that Jude Law as Watson? Talk about breaking type.
Weight of Glory on May 20, 2009 at 10:06 AM
I just received “Sherlock Holmes: The woman in green” (Basil Rathbone) from Netflix yesterday, and I had no idea that Hollyweird was remaking a SH. Cool.
kirkill on May 20, 2009 at 10:08 AM
Good movie, great performance by Downey. He was also very good in Tropical Thunder.
ladyingray on May 20, 2009 at 10:09 AM
GUY RITCHIE FTW!
Check out “RocknRolla”
Rusty Shackleford on May 20, 2009 at 10:10 AM
You’re right it’s not. Holmes in the stories isn’t the “libertine” he’s portrayed as here. I mean c’mon, bustiers and handcuffs in bed? But I’ll still wait to see it.
Weight of Glory on May 20, 2009 at 10:10 AM
Oh, and to those that poo poo remakes like this, all I have to say is, Nobody is making you go see it.
Just like I will not see any movie, no matter how great it’s supposed to be, if it has Alec Baldlose, Whoopi Goldturd, or half of the other Hollywood idiots that engage in extreme left-wing politics. No more Tom Hanks for me either, with is kinda sad since I think he’s one of the best actors (or used to be) of our generation.
kirkill on May 20, 2009 at 10:11 AM
Vashta.Nerada at 10:03AM
…and spinning at 78 rpm.
whitetop on May 20, 2009 at 10:11 AM
Jeremy Brett = God of all Sherlock Holmes
The Granada Sherlock Holmes series are bar-none, some of the best TV ever produced!!
This movie looks decent but Downey will never live up to Brett’s intrepretation which was masterful.
LordMaximus on May 20, 2009 at 10:13 AM
Looks fantastic. Can’t wait to see it.
At the same time, I’m a firm Jeremy Brett cultist, so I’m looking at this as a lark rather than a proper depiction.
MadisonConservative on May 20, 2009 at 10:13 AM
He has remarkable range. From Road to Perdition to Sleuth to Talented Mr. Ripley, the guy really does seem to be doing his best to be the new Caine.
MadisonConservative on May 20, 2009 at 10:15 AM
Agreed. I don’t see how anyone could do better, especially an American.
Missy on May 20, 2009 at 10:17 AM
Yep, I have them on dvd, and watch them regularly.
Vashta.Nerada on May 20, 2009 at 10:17 AM
CSI London.
jgapinoy on May 20, 2009 at 10:20 AM
Completely agree.
Weight of Glory on May 20, 2009 at 10:26 AM
I’ve loved the original Conan Doyle version of Holmes since I was a kid and once in a while will read a story before I hit the hay. Great palate cleanser after a rough day.
This looks like a fun movie, but it isn’t Holmes. If it isn’t the bi-polar, genius, navel-gazing coke-head of Doyle’s imagination then it isn’t Holmes.
Love Downey Jr’s work though. He was the Brittney Spears (maybe worse) of the 90′s but turned it around. Good for him.
pugwriter on May 20, 2009 at 10:29 AM
To be semi-fair, Holmes in the original stories is a mix of thought and action [no, none of the sex stuff, of course, other than the McAdams character Irene Adler - and that's more of an unrequited thing. Holmes refers to her as The Woman in various stories.]
I remember one story, an enraged man comes in an threatens Holmes by bending an iron bar. Once the man leaves, Holmes puts it back straight. He’s supposed to be very strong, and does get in direct struggles with some of the men he pursues.
meep on May 20, 2009 at 10:30 AM
More Hollywood trash. I’m surprised Doyle’s estate doesn’t sue. I get a kick out of AP and like commenters. Hate what’s happening to America but keep lapping up the trash. Garbage in, garbage out.
Christian Conservative on May 20, 2009 at 10:31 AM
Feels like blasphemy. But the jury is still out.
Jude Law’s got a lot to prove to me. I used to LOOOOOOOOVE him, but that nonsense he pulled on his ex-wife and children is hard to forgive. I never liked Sadie Frost, but the way he screwed her over, she got my sympathy.
And Michael Caine, he ain’t.
tickleddragon on May 20, 2009 at 10:32 AM
Apart from being a top-class boxer, he was familiar with the Chinese style of wrestling known as Bartitsu(proper spelling).
MadisonConservative on May 20, 2009 at 10:34 AM
Sorry, gotta disagree – this looks awful. The whole point of Sherlock stories is that they focus on the natural and not the supernatural. Hollywood gets another one wrong.
JDinSC on May 20, 2009 at 10:34 AM
I’m withholding judgment. Obviously they’re going for movie-trailer fodder here, but I don’t see anything terminally objectionable.
The “real” Holmes did engage in fisticuffs, and gunfights, though I don’t think the bodice-ripping was ever an issue. There’s no indication in the trailer that Downey was voluntarily handcuffed naked to a bed – quite the contrary.
I just hope they don’t fall back on the “dumb Watson” of the radio era.
The accent bothers me a little, but, hey, it’s better than Kevin Costner’s.
Merovign on May 20, 2009 at 10:35 AM
Looks like fun to me.
I suppose Charlie Chan remakes are next?
booter on May 20, 2009 at 10:38 AM
Looks fun to me.
Reading the original Holmes stories is not like the stuffy old movies. Remember how Watson walked in on Holmes while he was beating a corpse to see if it bruised after death? The Baker Street Irregulars? How about Holmes shooting up all the time? No, Holmes wasn’t a stuffy upper crust Englishman afraid to get his hands dirty. This movie looks much more true to Arthur Conan Doyle’s books.
Oh, and when Doyle wrote his “Study in Scarlet” the Mormons WERE bad guys. They raided and murdered settlers and took their wives and daughters to be concubines in their filthy harems. They’ve reformed since Doyle used a Mormon as his villain in his story. But accurate to the times? Yep, afraid so.
bonnie_ on May 20, 2009 at 10:39 AM
It’s coming out next Christmas. Is there nothing else to talk about? What about Newt Gingrich on Jon Stewart, if you feel like jibber jabbering about the idiot box?
chunderroad on May 20, 2009 at 10:40 AM
Ah, yes…nothing says excitement like late-1800s England.
James on May 20, 2009 at 10:40 AM
I really like Downey. I think he is entertaining in movies and I am very happy to see that he turned his life around so remarkably. I was surprised that he wasn’t mentioned for the Sinatra role. The man has a really nice voice and he is very charming.
sammypants on May 20, 2009 at 10:41 AM
Yes, it was such a calm place, with people like Jack the Ripper.
MadisonConservative on May 20, 2009 at 10:45 AM
that’s not the Sherlock Holmes I know…..
bperiwinkle on May 20, 2009 at 10:47 AM
Wait…you mean crime happened in every era? Shocking!
James on May 20, 2009 at 10:48 AM
Yes. Jeremy Brett has had my eternal admiration since I watched The Adventures series.He did convince the series people to drop the drug storyline, for the children, and thus deviated from the stories, but he simply defines Sherlock Holmes.
I will go see this movie. It won’t be Brett, but it’ll probably be fun.
emailnuevo on May 20, 2009 at 10:52 AM
Oh, come on! You know how well the Americans redo British classics; I mean, take Robin Hood, for example, where they inserted an American actor into the role. Well, OK, Costner himself will admit he is no Downey and that film sucked (as in he was an embarrasment).
Or how about when they take a true story and make a film like U-571 where they merely rewrite history by changing the heroes from British to American. I mean, it could have been Americans that captured the enigma machine except for the minor detail that the yanks were sitting it out at the time…
yubley on May 20, 2009 at 10:53 AM
Precisely. So what makes Victorian England any less appropriate for this kind of story, much less with the underlying assumption that Moriarty’s syndicate is skulking around?
MadisonConservative on May 20, 2009 at 10:53 AM
Does Leonard Nimoy make a guest appearance from the future in this movie too?
Sweeeeet.
Weebork on May 20, 2009 at 10:59 AM
I was about to post “How can there be a sexual scene sans Irene?” Then I realized it was her.
Given how loopy Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was, behind the scenes, the supernatural element isn’t that far-fetched.
emailnuevo on May 20, 2009 at 11:01 AM
Sir Basil Rathbone was the definitive Sherlock Holmes. Far better than anyone since.
But then again, I’m sure I am much older than anyone who would remember such history. “The Woman in Green” was indeed a fine episode of Sir Basil’s.
But whomever is cast to play him, remakes of Sherlock Holmes will be far more entertaining and fun to watch than anything at Cannes which might be named “AntiChrist” or have a single “artistic” element involving nudity and mutilation of a character.
I’m glad Mr. Downey has done better since rehab. I wish it was always the way of things. His is a disease which requires constant care, and the support of a large group of people to prevent relapses. And Hollywood is the poorest sort of support in those endeavors. I wish Robert Downey, Jr. luck and a bright future.
Subsunk
Subsunk on May 20, 2009 at 11:05 AM
Jeremy Brett is definitely better for this role (even better than Basil Rathbone, whose portrayals were essentially WW2 propaganda films, and a bit too sanitized). Except for the one he always called “the woman,” I don’t believe Holmes had an interest in women at all. And even then, their relationship was more… uh, shall we say, reserved, than depicted in the movie.
Also, I don’t remember Watson being so sure of himself.
Finally, the trailer gives no indication of Holmes’ indulgence in heroin and opium, which is ironic given who they chose for the part.
I may actually go see this one.
manwithblackhat on May 20, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Where’s Basil Rathbone when you need him?
Percy_Peabody on May 20, 2009 at 11:08 AM
I too hope it isn’t a remake of A study in Scarlet, which does have lots of Mormon bashing. And unlike Bonnie above, who just did a driveby smear of my faith, the LDS church NEVER kidnapped women for “harems.” Them’s actionable fighting words. Sounds like Bonnie has been watching too many cult films.
Vanceone on May 20, 2009 at 11:10 AM
Not sure he could play a convincing dope addict. How would he get into character?
29Victor on May 20, 2009 at 11:11 AM
Makes you wonder what these guys would do with a remake of “Jesus of Nazareth.”
Mike Antonucci on May 20, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Dan Ackroyd just announced that Ghostbusters 3 would start filming this winter.
We all know how well sequels that show-up after a really, really long duration turn out? Really, really well.
YYZ on May 20, 2009 at 11:21 AM
This is not your great grandfathers Sherlock Holmes.
portlandon on May 20, 2009 at 11:22 AM
Deplorable.
OneGyT on May 20, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Downey looks like he’s playing Hugh Laurie more than he’s playing Sherlock Holmes. Come to think of it, Hugh Laurie might have been a better fit for that role.
OxyCon on May 20, 2009 at 11:25 AM
Bargain Bin fodder thanks, but no thanks.
dogsoldier on May 20, 2009 at 11:26 AM
If he doesn’t fall off the wagon, or screw it up some other way, Downey should be able to ride this character through several years of sequels, just like Harrison Ford rode the Indiana Jones character for several years.
RBMN on May 20, 2009 at 11:26 AM
It’s English actually, based on Japanese martial arts.
Darth Executor on May 20, 2009 at 11:27 AM
The drug addiction was just a small and insignificant part of his character. I don’t even think he was really addicted, he just used them to keep his mind busy when he had no work.
Darth Executor on May 20, 2009 at 11:29 AM
I saw Rachel McAdams in this Canada series called Slings & Arrows and she was the cutest most natural actress I’ve seen in years.
I always like Jeremy Brett for the fact that when he was interviewed, he always went out of his way to complement other actors. Very generous. (And not like how they do these days when the bimbo/bimbette declare every actor a “genius.”)
Blake on May 20, 2009 at 11:31 AM
Brain freeze. Not sure why I typed Chinese rather than Japanese. Thanks.
MadisonConservative on May 20, 2009 at 11:32 AM
Glad to see Hollywood is continuing with fresh new ideas.
mankai on May 20, 2009 at 11:34 AM
Robert Downey Jr. portraying a coke fiend? i just don’t see it. /sarc
Come on!! Dickensian London… street urchins… the birth of heavy industry, and the wealth disparities that went with it… opium, cocaine, and hookers (and let’s face it, what would coke be without coke whores)… to steal a phrase from Apocalypse Now!, “Disneyland?… F**k, this place is better than Disneyland!”
As my British friends like to remind me, London had organized crime when we still had people running around with raccoons on their heads.
JohnGalt23 on May 20, 2009 at 11:40 AM
That’s not a Sherlock Holmes movie, that’s a Lethal Weapon movie.
AaronGuzman on May 20, 2009 at 11:46 AM
Consider me “intrigued”.
Techie on May 20, 2009 at 11:52 AM
Sorry, but this movie looks like just any other Hollywood dribble them been shoving at us these last few years. Every notable character has to be a martial arts expert, dark lighting, dark music all the time, and always a ticking time bomb ending.
V-rod on May 20, 2009 at 12:15 PM
There’s a very Monty Python-ish skit in there somewhere that would probably make a much better movie.
James on May 20, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Good news? Indian Jones pretending to be Sherlock Holmes? Lewis was right about atheism.
corona on May 20, 2009 at 12:20 PM
This comes to mind.
I’m a seller.
thebrokenchair on May 20, 2009 at 12:23 PM
Between this and “Iron Man,” …
Don’t forget the “Avengers” movies which will be coming in the next few years.
catmman on May 20, 2009 at 12:36 PM
Be still my beating heart………..
Seven Percent Solution on May 20, 2009 at 12:44 PM
I am a Downey fan. I love it when a person comes back from self induced Hell, survives and does something with their lives. Not a journey for the squeamish.
Dr Evil on May 20, 2009 at 12:46 PM
They made him a ladies’ man? That completely ruins it. The guy is supposed to be the epitome of dispassionate logic!
Gaunilon on May 20, 2009 at 12:55 PM
So why couldn’t this film be about some detective we’ve never heard of?
ynot4tony2 on May 20, 2009 at 1:06 PM
Repeat with me, kids. Steampunk is here to stay.
:)
El Coqui on May 20, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Requirements for a “good” movie (the more elements the better):
Aliens
Rock Music
Pretty woman/women
Car chase
Gun play
mankai on May 20, 2009 at 1:33 PM
^Hollywood’s assessment of “good” that is…
mankai on May 20, 2009 at 1:33 PM
^Hollywood’s assessment of “good” that is…
mankai on May 20, 2009 at 1:34 PM
^Hollywood’s assessment of “good” that is…
mankai on May 20, 2009 at 1:34 PM
You’ve got a couple of my essential elements for a great film on your list. But you left off:
Nazis
Explosions
James Woods
JohnGalt23 on May 20, 2009 at 1:43 PM
Forgot Christopher Walken for his zany goodness!
coyoterex on May 20, 2009 at 1:53 PM
Terrible. Awful. The Complete Sherlock Holmes was one of the first books I owned (other than, you know, the pop-up kind) and I would have enjoyed a good movie version. Halfway through the trailer I had to turn it off. I won’t be watching this perversion and I lament the fact that a lot of people who’ve never read the stories might think of Downey with a bad British accent when they think of Conan Doyle. Ugh!!!
evergreen on May 20, 2009 at 2:49 PM
I think this is what gave them the idea to have Jamie Fox play Sinatra.
- The Cat
P.S. Would be a good movie as long as I don’t think of him as
Capt KirkSherlock Holms.MirCat on May 20, 2009 at 2:54 PM
Darth Executor on May 20, 2009 at 11:29 AM
“Three times a day for many months.” Sounds like a junkie to me.
Wait…he did it ’cause he liked it…he could stop any time…
29Victor on May 20, 2009 at 3:00 PM
…….. Hey!!!
(I jest)
Seven Percent Solution on May 20, 2009 at 3:47 PM
Yea, that should last ju-u-u-u-st until his Method prep starts on the “Seven Percent Solution” aspect of Holmes’s character.
eeyore on May 20, 2009 at 5:48 PM
Yea, that should last ju-u-u-u-st until his Method prep starts on the “Seven Percent Solution” aspect of Holmes’s character.
eeyore on May 20, 2009 at 5:48 PM
Wow I didn’t think anyone was going to go for the obvious…you win.
Dr Evil on May 20, 2009 at 6:27 PM
Where’s Jack Black and Ben Stiller?
Claypigeon on May 21, 2009 at 12:17 AM
More a Spring Heel Jack enthusiast myself. The idea of some dude using spring loaded shoes and a frightening costume to scare the bejeezus out of Victorian London just seems so incredibly facinating to me.
Anyhoo, kinda nice to see Holmes flashing his pugilism skills for once.
Am I the only one that remembers how he scraped up his knuckles in “The Final Problem”?
Hello!?! Thrashing a group of hired goons with nothing more than his bare fists!
But wait!
OH NOES!!! He’s using…A GUN!!! (Oh, wait, that’s actually accurate, Holmes and Watson did go strapped when the case warrented. The writers/producers actually pulled their heads out of their butts for a second on this one. If it were a Speilberg flick, I suppose Holmes would just deliver “Judo Chops of Doom!” to fell his pistol packing assailants…wait, forgot, in a Speilberg flick they’d be walkie talkie weilding assailants.)
Holmes was the FIRST Action Hero! (okay, first MODERN action hero.)
SuperCool on May 21, 2009 at 4:13 AM