indecision

so i have holmes to blame for being annoyed so often by these men on my tv? that's good to know.

*squints* are those slash googles? i am confused!

From:

lovesongwriter.livejournal.com

seriously. ¯\(°_o)/¯

From:

You're confusing us! What's going on!

From:

and by "went to see" i mean a DVD screener finally showed up and i downloaded.

HAHA! SAME HERE! :D *high-fives*

I liked the movie. But was a little surprised about the golden globe for RDJ. Not that he didn't play well. IDK...?

From:

yay for internet piracy! \o/

oh wow he won the golden globe? did no one else do any acting this year? did they give him it entirely for attempting a british accent? i mean he did a good job, yes. but.

From:

I agree completely. But the category doesn't seem that star-studded. I have not seen any of the other movies that were nominated. I was just really surprised...

From:

last year wasn't a really good year for movies then? oh though i'd have thought jeremy renner would have won, the hurt locker was amazing.

From:

It was movie comedy or musical, I think.

ACTOR - COMEDY OR MUSICAL
Matt Damon - “The Informant!”
Daniel Day-Lewis - “Nine”
WINNER: Robert Downey Jr. - “Sherlock Holmes”
Joseph Gordon-Levitt - “500 Days of Summer”
Michael Stuhlbarg - “A Serious Man”

So, judge for yourself. :)

EDIT:

ACTOR - DRAMA
WINNER: Jeff Bridges - “Crazy Heart”
George Clooney - “Up in the Air”
Colin Firth - “A Single Man”
Morgan Freeman - “Invictus”
Tobey Maguire - “Brothers”

Edited Date: 2010-01-18 05:45 pm (UTC)

From:

oh wow jeremy renner didn't even get nominated!

...wow i have not seen a single one of these movies besides SH either. o.O

From:

I am watching Brothers right now. But other than that I haven't seen anything either. Which is weird. But whatevs. I am now curious about the Oscar-Noms.

From:

leksa.livejournal.com

I'm also under the general impression that Sherlock Holmes was actually the original version of the type (or at least one of them?) and not vice versa - howevers has been years and years and years since I last read one of the books.

But, also,

gatefiction & I saw the movie when I was in Sthlm, and the, I think, third thing we said after leaving the theatre (one and two having been: (1) well, that was pretty fun, (2) eek with the violence! (because we're both squeamish girls and had to look away a lot)), was, (3) hey, it wasn't really all that slashy! Of course it was sort of slashy, but still, not as very so as fandom let on, maybe? But then I'm one of the people who often feel that a movie's very clear self-awareness of slashiness mostly tends to contain and, err, limit the slashiness! maybe! - and also the fourth thing we said (or I said) was (4) "Can the sequel be about Holmes and Watson and Mary and Irene all living together and fighting crime or baking cookies or filling in cross-words forever please?" so who knows. Err, what I'm trying to say is, I agree, I think.

From:

hrm. don't suppose it's the whole "hyper observant dude" trope that bothers me, it's the "he's also a self-involved asshole who constantly endangers/makes miserable the lives of those around him." i guess it could be argued that the characters enjoy being pushed around by a genius man-child? it creates tension? it's more fun than everyone standing around in awe while holmes knows everything and is flawless? i am a wee bit tired of it, is all.

1) it was pretty fun! 2) haha unsurprisingly, one of the least violent movies i've seen all week 3) it really wasn't! i don't know. maybe re-watch? 4) YES PLZ NOW.

From:

leksa.livejournal.com

don't suppose it's the whole "hyper observant dude" trope that bothers me, it's the "he's also a self-involved asshole who constantly endangers/makes miserable the lives of those around him."

No, I got that! and do rather agree with you on the trope's being pretty tiring/tired by now, yes indeed. Only I thought more along the lines of the original Holmes (possibly - again, it's been a looong time since I read any of the books & I've never been much of a buff) having also been of the "eccentric genius with (problematic) habits and traits others will put up with" type - though certainly (or, again, possibly, probably, maybe) not to the extent, maybe, that the trope is being paraded around all over (and possibly in the movie) these days (it's a cycle that feeds itself?). Har, I don't even know if that makes any sense, also possibly I should, IDK, READ THE BOOKS again before making up stuff about them. :D

From:

oh! doh, i feel that that should tell you all i know about sherlock holmes, which is essentially nothing at all save for possibly a couple of tv movies or shows that i recall only vaguely, except that perhaps watson was far more tolerant of holmes than he is now. perhaps i'm just irritated by the trope and it is not as glaring in the movie as i thought it was um, i should rewatch yes? BUT I FEEL ONCE WAS ENOUGH OMG.

...or i should take a stab at the books y/y?

From:

holmes is basically like that but it's - different, somehow? i quite liked the film, but RDJ was not the character in the stories, i don't think. real!holmes was less openly energetic - it's hard to put a finger on -

part of it, i think, is the intended audience: where the writers of, say, house assume that we will recognize and accept him as that asshole-genius type, conan doyle cut holmes essentially from whole cloth. he was supposed to be a little bit disturbing to his readers. he was somehow more genuine, more frightening - he was a nut, basically, and the fact that watson narrated the stories made him all the more inscrutible. he wasn't a hero and we weren't supposed to secretly agree with him. we never got inside his head. he did make the people around him miserable, but it wasn't supposed to be fun. it wasn't even really tolerated. i don't really know what i'm trying to say, here. sry.

jude law's watson, though, is SO MUCH closer to the character from the stories. this, basically.

/read the complete sherlock holmes every time she got sick as a schoolgirl

From:

so much closer than other tv/film watsons, that is.

From:

okay that makes sense then, entirely. although i think my gripe with the movie - other than that i wish it were more gay, was that. hrm, i don't know, i might have enjoyed it more perhaps if i'd watched it on the big screen instead of downloading it and watching?

From:

yeah, idk, i'm not very articulate but i think it's just sort of - in the stories, it was less "holmes! he's brilliant but insane! look at his silly friend!" and more "okay, i'm doctor watson, and i know you think i'm insane for living with this psycho, but really he's alright. no, really!"

more gay would have been nice!

From:

lebenketten.livejournal.com

/read the complete sherlock holmes every time she got sick as a schoolgirl

Dude, me, too. Except I didn't wait til I was sick.

From:

hee! yeah, i could have not waited, but then the plots wouldn't have been surprising every time!

From:

lebenketten.livejournal.com

My mother, in an attempt to gain my forgiveness for something when I was 10, gave me the entire collection of Sherlock Holmes. I read this giant tome that can double as a weapon again and again over the years, most recently this past summer. And then, in an attempt to get me serious about learning Korean, she gave me a few stories of his in Korean for my 15th birthday.

Does this tell you how much I love the stories?

So I watched the movie. And loved it. The little in-jokes (like the V.R. he shot into the wall) and more accurate portrayal of Watson won me over. Yeah it was a bit more 'commercial' to appeal to modern tastes, and Watson and Holmes didn't fight that much. But overall, great adaptation. Except for the Irene Adler bit; they were never involved and he never liked women. Borderline misogynist is a good description.

Ahem. :D

From: