Sherlock Homes Coming Via Guy Ritchie, Joel Silver, and Robert Downey, Jr.
Posted by Dirty Harry on Wednesday, October 1st, 2008
They’re talking franchise. Could happen if the script’s smart, faithful to the source material, and not post-modernized to death:
Robert Downey Jr. is to play Victorian super sleuth Sherlock Holmes in an upcoming blockbuster that studio Warner Bros. hopes will become a lucrative new franchise.
The 43-year-old said one reason he was chosen for the role may have been his involvement in action movie “Iron Man,” which earned over $570 million in global ticket sales this year, and he promised his Holmes would be the best screen portrayal ever.
“In case you aren’t aware I had a hell of a summer, and it’s made me much more viable to play a lead role than I might have (been) in the past,” Downey Jr. told reporters in London, where shooting on “Sherlock Holmes” is about to begin.
When asked what he could bring to a character portrayed countless times on film and television, he joked: “Clearly I’m going to do it better than it’s ever been done.
“The more I read about it the more overwhelmed I was by the weight of it and the amount of people who will be watching to see if it’s gotten right.”
Director Guy Ritchie said “Sherlock Holmes” was his biggest movie “by a long shot” in terms of budget.
Producer Joel Silver would not name the figure, but he called the budget “healthy” and said plans had not been affected by recent turmoil on the financial markets.
“What we’ve done is hopefully launched a franchise of Sherlock Holmes stories,” he said.
Jude Law’s been cast as Dr. Watson. Their chemistry will be crucial. Not too sure on that one. Downey Jr. as Holmes and Ricky Gervais as Watson would’ve been inspired, but it sounds like Ritchie wants to up the action, so we’ll see.
Filed in General |
Ginaon 01 Oct 2008 at 12:36 pm 1Jude Law? Pfffft.
I wanted Hugh Laurie to be Holmes. Then Stephen Fry could have been Watson!
Perfect!
Robert Lindseyon 01 Oct 2008 at 12:39 pm 2I don’t know if anyone will top Basil Rathbone in the Holmes role. (and it is Holmes, not Homes)
Joaoon 01 Oct 2008 at 12:42 pm 3Can anyone name three movies in which Jude Law has had chemistry with anyone? Two movies? Awful casting choice.
Growltigeron 01 Oct 2008 at 12:45 pm 4Bad idea casting Jude Law as Watson. Doesn’t matter if he and Downey Jr. have chemistry — Law is one of those actors, like Madonna, who seems toxic to celluloid. Put either one of them in the film, and it tanks — no matter the hype, no matter the buck poured into it, no matter the “franchise”, no matter the co-stars.
Rupert Everett was going great guns — then he starred with Madonna, and hasn’t been heard from since — at least not to my knowledge. “Cold Mountain” was a lousy book, so I didn’t bother with the film, but didn’t it tank even with a great cast?
Might be an interesting “top 5″ for Harry. Five most toxic actors who, if cast, pretty much assure the film will tank.
I can only think of two:
Law
Madonna
maatkareon 01 Oct 2008 at 12:46 pm 5I think Jeremy Brett and Edward Hardwicke were superb in the BBC tv series, at least in the early ones before Brett started getting a little too florid and actor-y. That they kept them Victorian as opposed to Rathbone’s updated ones endears them greatly to me. Rathbone was fantastic, and so was Nigel Bruce, but for from-the-page-perfection (Bruce made poor Watson a little too buffoonish, IMHO), including production value, I gotta give it to Brett & co. over the Rathbone backlot quickies. Of course, Downey has the drug addict thing in common with Holmes, I suppose, and I know this is silly but he seems too short. Jude Law doesn’t strike me as a Watson at all, but he usually surprises me so…we’ll see. And yes, I am a huge Holmes dork. His adventures were the CSI of his era.
billypaintbrushon 01 Oct 2008 at 12:50 pm 6Is the aura of obama’s arrogance so contagious? Downey might be going full sleuthard here and over the cliff.
RESon 01 Oct 2008 at 1:03 pm 7Casting a new Holmes & Watson strikes me as, in the words of Samuel Johnson, the triumph of hope over experience.
Downey, Law, Ritchie at all at least have in their favor the fact that almost nobody in their target audience has ever actually read Doyle’s work. Fact is, compared to film’s audience virtually noboy has seen Brett & Hardwicke’s interpretation.
I think (hope?) Downey is being facetious and have confidence he will attempt to be faithful.
Richardon 01 Oct 2008 at 1:09 pm 8I disagree. Law is an inspired choice for Watson. Watson was a man of action, a veteran of Afghanistan and much, much younger and more with it than he’s been portrayed in the movies. Holmes and Watson were contemporaries, and it will be refreshing to see them portrayed as such.
Richardon 01 Oct 2008 at 1:11 pm 9Forgot to add that Robert Duvall in the 7% Solution has been the most faithful portrayal of Watson, to date.
abeon 01 Oct 2008 at 1:14 pm 10I second Hugh Laurie and Stephen Fry! Keen choices there. Downing and Jude Law seem like downright arbitrary choices for these roles. They WILL post-modernized it–over the years I’ve learned to take Hollywood’s promises of staying “true to the source material” with a grain of salt.
PerfectTommyon 01 Oct 2008 at 1:17 pm 11I complained about Depp as Tonto and though I like Downey, I have a similar complaint here. No one British to take the part? (Though Downey was great as Chaplin.)
PerfectTommyon 01 Oct 2008 at 1:19 pm 12And should take this sieze this rare opportunity while I can:
I completely agree with Abe here.
Morganon 01 Oct 2008 at 1:23 pm 13I got this to say: when I first heard Robert Downey, Jr. had been cast as Iron Man, I was in a disbelieving state. I could not see Downey as Iron Man, until I saw the film and realized not only was I wrong, but that as Tony Stark/Iron Man, Downey rocked.
Now, upon reading about Downey being cast as Sherlock Holmes, I am in that same disbelieving state again, but I remember Iron Man and I could once again be wrong.
As for Jude Law, I don’t know. It depends on the kind of role he has, but it’s entirely possible playing Dr. Watson could be well within his range.
Splashon 01 Oct 2008 at 1:28 pm 14I’ve been tracking this one on my blog, and I take a totally different view of the chemistry question. It is, in fact, good within the cast and great within the creative team as a whole. RDJ plays British very, very well. Jude Law’s perceived urbane “detachment” makes for a perfect sidekick in this situation.
I mean, come on… Rachel McAdams just signed up for this, too. What’s not to like? You’ve gotta want this to suck for it to suck at this stage.
The notion of Holmes as a man of action is smart enough. In the hands of Guy Ritchie, the chances of success with this cast are way better than average.
Morganon 01 Oct 2008 at 1:31 pm 15“No one British to take the part?”
PerfectTommy, when it comes to casting for roles, it is my opinion that an actor/actress’s nationality shouldn’t be a factor. It should be whether the actor/actress has the right talent for the role.
You mentioned Robert Downey, Jr. was good as Charlie Chaplin. I agree heartily with that, but Downey as Chaplin serves as a key example that nationality shouldn’t matter. Richard Attenborough could’ve chosen an Englishman for the title role, but ultimately chose Downey because he was the RIGHT choice.
thudon 01 Oct 2008 at 1:44 pm 16I watched Brett filming around the streets outside my home many times…a great man and Holmes not to be taken lightly.
Johnny Ed's Babyon 01 Oct 2008 at 2:18 pm 17It will never work Mr. Law.
Why not Mr. Downey?
Elementary Mr. Law. Elementary. You are no Nigel Bruce or Edward Hardwicke and I am no Basil Rathbone or Jeremy Brett.
Elementary.
Kiton 01 Oct 2008 at 2:21 pm 18In the books, Watson was not the bumbling oaf that the films made him out to be, but a trained medical docter, and a British soldier who fought and was wounded in Afghanistan.
I hope this is the film portrays Watson properly.
Watson should be large, but NOT fat. More John Wayne than Ricky Gervais (sorry DH).
thudon 01 Oct 2008 at 2:41 pm 19If you read imperial historys of the time then it becomes obvious that British officers were a peculiar but hardy caste…Watson should be portrayed as such.
Jaredon 01 Oct 2008 at 3:03 pm 20I would like to use this as an opportunity to suggest that Dirty Harry promote Robert Downey Jr to “The Mighty” status. Please no post-modernism, I want to see a franchise that has The Hound of the Baskervilles.
PerfectTommyon 01 Oct 2008 at 3:17 pm 21Morgan,
I generally agree that a role should go to the best actor and nationality should not matter. But there are characters, fictional and historical, that are archtypes of a culture. I’d rather not see a Brit playing Huck Finn or Abraham Lincoln. I’d rather see a Brit as Holmes. But if Downey pulls it off, more power to him.
PerfectTommyon 01 Oct 2008 at 3:26 pm 22I’m sure Sean Penn is excited about Jude Law in this role, but Chris Rock, not so much:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvbFwj__frg
Michael Andrewson 01 Oct 2008 at 3:26 pm 23Rathbone had always been my favorite. Bruce was bumbling and not accurate but fun. Downy makes almost everything interesting so I’m interested, but I am not counting on it being terribly accurate with this cast, or even this director.
Laurie would make an interesting choice, but I also thought he should play the Prisoner in the remake of the series.
Matt Helmon 01 Oct 2008 at 3:27 pm 24I agree that Brett was the best Holmes and the Victorian setting and attention to detail, made those the best Holmes outings. But there’s something about Rathbone’s Holmes, after having watched all the BBC shows and all of Universal movies, I’d rather watch his Holmes if given the choice between the two (even though after the second one they’re all of a sudden in the 1940s). Peter Cushing wasn’t a bad Holmes either.
I just hope Madonna hasn’t rubbed off too much on Ritchie and he doesn’t do something stupid like make Holmes gay.
maatkareon 01 Oct 2008 at 4:00 pm 25I loved Fry & Laurie’s Jeeves & Wooster shenanigans, and I confess I don’t watch House, but they seem a little old for Holmes & Watson now, can’t say why. Peter Cushing and Christopher Plummer were both good Holmes, IMHO, but I found Heston a wee bit hammy.
RES, I hope you’re wrong re: no-one having read Doyle. I think everyone who likes mysteries has paid at least a few visits to the literary 221b Baker Street…The Brett mysteries have rerun on various cable outlets for a long time. I’d like to believe the character is still vital, and if they’re making a movie with the 30+ moviegoer in mind, so much the better.
And, boy, if anyone thinks the nitpickers of WWII or other historical films are bad, wait until the Sherlockians get their eyes on the film!
Danielon 01 Oct 2008 at 4:37 pm 26I wouldn’t mind seeing a Steampunk (though with not that much ‘punkiness’) take on Holmes.
Kiton 01 Oct 2008 at 4:58 pm 27Richard gave me an idea:
If Duvall can pull off a good British accent, then he might be good. But he might be a wee bit old by now.
Jimbo2on 01 Oct 2008 at 6:48 pm 28I loved Jeremy Brett and Edward Hardwicke because the depictions were so accurate to the written stories, which I had already read.
Brett became very melancholy toward the end. His wife died and you could see that he had given up.
The trouble with the Rathbone/Bruce renditions, of course, was that if there was a bucket, Watson would step in it. Hollywood portrayed him as a buffoon.
Mr. Blankon 01 Oct 2008 at 7:10 pm 29I hope they put Professor Moriarty in it, but I can’t think of a good choice to play him.
Mr24pon 01 Oct 2008 at 7:15 pm 30My main concern here is Guy Ritchie. Maybe I’m in the minority here but I have not been a fan of his. Again, I may be alone on this but ‘Snatch’ was one of the worst films I’ve seen in the last decade. And tackling this type of material is not something I’m eager to see him try.
maatkareon 01 Oct 2008 at 10:23 pm 31Ooo…Mr. Blank, I think Ralph Fiennes would be a great Moriarty. Just saw him in “The Duchess,” and he was the only thing worth watching in it, unless you have an 18th century wig fetish. (pretty countryside tho)
Acushlaon 01 Oct 2008 at 10:32 pm 32Not a huge Jude Law fan here, but he surprised me as the psychopath Harlen Maquire in Road to Perdition, so who knows?
abeon 01 Oct 2008 at 10:52 pm 33Agreed on Watson getting generally misrepresented in films–I think that started happening in the first silent film adaptations of the series (or so I heard). But I think this portrayal of him inevitably emerged from the fact that he was always playing second fiddle to Holmes’ amazing performances, essentially always there to express amazement at Holmes solution. Just how often did Doyle make Watson central to the action? Anyway, there is a Sherlock Holmes story by Stephen King in which it is Watson who solves the case instead of Holmes. As is often the case with King, the plot of the story isn’t very well thought out and imagined, so his mystery and solution aren’t that striking–still, the idea was neat.
beartoothon 02 Oct 2008 at 12:16 am 34Put me down for “what’s the point ?”. Brett was perfect at his best, although the later episodes slipped quite badly. Hardwicke and David Burke were both equally good, and merged so well that almost everyone has now forgotten Burke even appeared. I can’t imagine anyone surpassing them in a faithful adaptation.
I have to say that whilst I bow to no-one in my admiration for Duvall and The Mighty Chuck, I didn’t take to their respective Watson and Holmes films.
Ratherreadon 02 Oct 2008 at 4:36 am 35I’ll be there. I love Sherlock Holmes and I think Downey will do him justice, although my heart belongs to Basil Rathbone as the character. I have a sneaking fondness for Nigel Bruce although I know that his Watson is not the Watson of the stories.
I think a kick ass Holmes will work very well, since in the stories Holmes was a boxer and knew a type of judo. Watson also knew his way around a revolver and had been a man of action. It could work. Now if Ritchie brings in Kabbalah or makes the characters gay, I will spontaneously combust then go to London to give him a piece of my mind.
Bonnie_on 02 Oct 2008 at 6:41 am 36I am haunted by the memory of Wild Wild West, a beloved television series of my childhood that was destroyed so utterly by the big screen version with Will Smith that there is no hope of a good film being made of this series, ever.
The idea of a big Sherlock Holmes franchise is thrilling. I hope Ritchie doesn’t turn it into a big Wild Wild West crap sandwich.
maatkareon 02 Oct 2008 at 9:38 am 37abe-Watson always tells the story. He is Us. A stalwart, intelligent peerson who is nonetheless astonished at Holmes’ deductive skills. In a few stories he does get miffed that Holmes seems to take him for granted, but he’s a thoroughly good guy, and Holmes recognizes his loyalty and friendship. I hope they don’t go overboard with action–Holmes thrashed a few people and Watson always hefted along his trusty service revolver, but these are not beat ‘em up tales. Now…for the true Holmes geeks here–who should be Mycroft?
laconicon 02 Oct 2008 at 10:54 am 38Mr24P
If “”Snatch was one of the worst films you have seen in the last decade, assuming you have seen more than 3 in that time, then your comment is self exclusionary for any film discussion
Robert Downey Jr’s years of preparation in the “substance ” of Holmes should help with the authenticity of his portrayal and I agree with GINA. Hugh Laurie would have been an inspired choice for Watson.
Morganon 02 Oct 2008 at 10:59 am 39A tough order to fill, finding someone to play Mycroft, a recluse by deliberate choice whose own deducing and observation skills make Sherlock seem like Watson in comparison.
How about William Hurt? Or Brian Cox? Wait, I’ve got it! Mel Gibson!
Mr24pon 02 Oct 2008 at 11:37 am 40“laconicon 02 Oct 2008 at 10:54 am 38
Mr24P
If “”Snatch was one of the worst films you have seen in the last decade, assuming you have seen more than 3 in that time, then your comment is self exclusionary for any film discussion”
As I stated it was just my opinion. Granted I haven’t watched films like Redacted so I know there are some horrible films out there but I haven’t watched those. And if I have to like Snatch in order to be part of a film discussion then I will exclude myself because that’s not a discussion I want to be a part of.
laconicon 02 Oct 2008 at 12:19 pm 41Mr24p,
The point I was making was not how brilliant Snatch is, though its one of MY favorites in the last 10 years, but if its one of the worst you have seen then you should get out more.
In theaters right now, Bangkok Dangerous, Swing Vote, Meet Dave, Death Race, Hamlet2 (the original was funnier), and the Miracle at St,. Anna, even Burn after Reading (burn before watching?), are all vastly inferior movies to Snatch. Perhaps you are more discerning than I in choosing movies to watch and avoided the mind numbing “Illusionist” and the “Queen”( I thought it was Elton Johns life story, so disappointed) and missed “Georgia Rule” ( about delivering a Mystic Pizza to a house on Golden Pond which is surrounded by Steel Magnolias)
If You didn’t like Snatch, there is so much garbage out there its hard to believe you haven’t had to sift through some of it. and then that you found none of it worse than Snatch is a little hard to believe, this after all being a movie fan site.
maatkareon 02 Oct 2008 at 3:58 pm 42Morgan, I was totally thinking Brian Cox!