My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

Currently reading...

Personal favorites

Search my library


Library Thing


Victorian Studies

Authors

Fine Arts

Buy Books!

Sitemeter

Amazon

« Important note to self | Main | Signs that you may have become exasperated during the course of your research, #3291 »

May 19, 2009

Comments

Anabelle

It looks like a Victorian version of James Bond. With Watson.

Lazygal

Yeah, I don't remember Watson describing Sherlock as "ripped" (or having a great six-pack). And wasn't Holmes more cerebral than physical?

The good news is that Michael Bay isn't directing, because then we'd have Lots of Loud Explosions, too.

MARIA GRAZIA

It sounds as if they've changed Holmes into a Victorian superhero. Has he also got superpowers? He "flies" into the Thames! Anyhow, I'm really curious to see the whole film and I'm sure teenagers will like it. Maybe the'll start reading Conan Doyle. Wouldn't that be nice?
Maria Grazia

Bill Tozier

If nothing else, somebody should learn something about letterpress type. The logo is annoying.

Also comes to mind: Wild Wild Holmes

SEK

I'm really glad I wasn't the only one so shocked by the trailer I couldn't help but post it. I mean, I wanted to add some intelligent academic-blog-type commentary to it, but, I mean, look at that monstrosity!

nbm

Sure, it's not authentic, but it began to grow on me as I watched the trailer, and eventually reminded me of the Richard Lester Musketeers films, in the way that it kind of throws itself wildly at the material and has a good time. By the end of the, what, four and a half minutes, I was looking forward to the film.

emily

Hilarious! Speaks for itself. I can't help but agree with both SEK and nbm: it's so monstrously inauthentic one can only drop the academic hat and just have fun watching it.

jkcohen

Guy Ritchie has done for Sherlock Holmes what J.J. Abrams did for Star Trek -- and I don't mean that in a good way.

The comments to this entry are closed.