[carboy]

Originally Posted by blackasta

Not quite true - Sherlock was always known to take on ragged disguises, conduct experiments in his room and was not really 'immaculately' dressed.
Its the portrayal of Sherlock wearing that mackintosh with a pipe and bowler hat thats not really reflective of his character.
Please read the opening lines of 'The Musgrave Ritual' for Watson's description on Holmes' character.
And yes - holmes is a trained boxer - please read 'The sign of four' and 'Gloria Scott'
This film depicts Holmes very close as described by Conan Doyle himself, and no - I won't consider that a 'character assassination'
And I would rate that film as 4/5.

Agree with you about Holmes portrayal. Conan Doyle never described Holmes a good locking, cleancut neat guy. I vaguely remember that his description of Holmes wasn't as a particularly good looking guy. It was always Watson who the ladies man.
Holmes was someone whose room used to be in a state of disarray whenever Watson wasn't living with him. Holmes was also a cocaine user - supposedly it was because he was bored whenever he didn't have anything to work on. He was also a person with wierd habits.

That said, I didn't particular like the Guy Ritchie movie.

[mobike008]

Originally Posted by blackasta

Not quite true - Sherlock was always known to take on ragged disguises, conduct experiments in his room and was not really 'immaculately' dressed.
Its the portrayal of Sherlock wearing that mackintosh with a pipe and bowler hat thats not really reflective of his character.
Please read the opening lines of 'The Musgrave Ritual' for Watson's description on Holmes' character.
And yes - holmes is a trained boxer - please read 'The sign of four' and 'Gloria Scott'
This film depicts Holmes very close as described by Conan Doyle himself, and no - I won't consider that a 'character assassination'
And I would rate that film as 4/5.

Originally Posted by carboy

Agree with you about Holmes portrayal. Conan Doyle never described Holmes a good locking, cleancut neat guy. I vaguely remember that his description of Holmes wasn't as a particularly good looking guy. It was always Watson who the ladies man.
Holmes was someone whose room used to be in a state of disarray whenever Watson wasn't living with him. Holmes was also a cocaine user - supposedly it was because he was bored whenever he didn't have anything to work on. He was also a person with wierd habits.

That said, I didn't particular like the Guy Ritchie movie.

Could be but, majority of us have been brought up on the Jeremy Brett potrayal of SH and he was never portrayed unkempt but, was rather neat. I do agree his weirdness is his trademark but, somehow RD potrayal was not convincing enough.

Pray, why does a brit director has to choose an american actor? Couldnt he have choosen a british actor to play that role? Someone with chiselled and almost gaunt features like how Holmes was supposed to have looked?

Robert's accent itself was not convincing forget the character potrayal. And, i am a big fan of Robert Downing Jr.

Well, above is just my opinion and everyone can have their own opinion. For me, fact remains it was not a good movie.

[Abhay]

I actually stopped watching it after 15 mins. And it really does matter with the accent, e.g in the Harry Potter movies all major actors are typically British which was one of the major conditions put on the film being adapted to screen by the author.

[carboy]

Originally Posted by mobike008

Pray, why does a brit director has to choose an american actor? Couldnt he have choosen a british actor to play that role? Someone with chiselled and almost gaunt features like how Holmes was supposed to have looked?

I don't remember Conan Doyle describing Holmes as having chiselled features!

[blackasta]

Originally Posted by mobike008

Pray, why does a brit director has to choose an american actor? Couldnt he have choosen a british actor to play that role? Someone with chiselled and almost gaunt features like how Holmes was supposed to have looked?

Robert's accent itself was not convincing forget the character potrayal. And, i am a big fan of Robert Downing Jr.

Well, above is just my opinion and everyone can have their own opinion. For me, fact remains it was not a good movie.

Chiselled? holmes was described as sharp but never chiselled!.
And I guess you meant Downy ?

[Wolfheart]

Originally Posted by chevelle

Long and dragging narrative is not a flaw. Its how suppose to be in the movie. The dreams which lasts more than the reality. May be that's why you found it long and narrative.

Dude what you're referring to is the plot while I'm complaining about the execution. Totally different aspects!

Originally Posted by chevelle

Regarding the fight, projections were suppose to be furious against the dreamers and designers and that's what is shown. So i think its perfectly acceptable. You may consider it commercialization or pointless, but it forms a part of story and it was essential to have fight near a protected fort/castle.

It's part of the story alright! However the suspense keeps building up tantalizes the audience. You want to find out what's going to happen next. Suddenly the director decides to force you to watch a mediocre gunbattle in the snow like some lame and cheesy '80's action flick. And it's just bloody irritating! Doesn't lend much to the plot and deviates from the storytelling. And that's just one of the many flaws! This movie had potential to be much better!

I'm glad you enjoyed the movie. Everyone has different tastes. However, I don't feel that there's anything groundbreaking about Inception. Definitely not a milestone by any means! Heck some folks are alleging that the plot is ripped off from a Donald Duck comic! Check this out, it's hilarious:

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansit.../news/?a=21055

[tsk1979]

I once saw a Sunny deol movie trailer on youtube.
Sunny is facing the bad guys.
The first guy comes forward.
Sunny gives a punch, and that guy slides 100 meters into the sand.
Second guy comes, and sunny hits him on top of his head, and they guy is in sand upto his neck.

Now imagine such a movie with 5 sunny deols and machine guns.
Entertainment...? Well yeah.
There is no sense, and there is no story.
Its just ramboX5.

So if you like a movie where 5 people keep shooting and bodies fall 100/minute, this is the kind of movie you should watch.

[PAVAN KADAM]

Take your kids for this one

Had gone with my Kid, wife and Mom @ INOX Mantri Mall-Malleshwaram

Clean plot, 3D effects are not the best, but good enough.

1 hr 30 mins of pure entertainment.

A kid would rate this 10/10

[blackasta]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Now imagine such a movie with 5 sunny deols and machine guns.
Entertainment...? Well yeah.
There is no sense, and there is no story.
Its just ramboX5.

So if you like a movie where 5 people keep shooting and bodies fall 100/minute, this is the kind of movie you should watch.

It is said that there is so much testosterone packed into ths movie, you can grow muscles by simply watching it!

[mobike008]

Originally Posted by blackasta

Chiselled? holmes was described as sharp but never chiselled!.
And I guess you meant Downy ?

There is a fine line between Sharp and Chiselled. And, his name is

Robert Downey Jr.

Originally Posted by Abhay

I actually stopped watching it after 15 mins. And it really does matter with the accent, e.g in the Harry Potter movies all major actors are typically British which was one of the major conditions put on the film being adapted to screen by the author.

+1. Accent can make or break the movie. Just take Brad Pitt as an example who played that Irish gypsy in "Snatch" and what a wonderful difference it made to his character. I couldnt figure out a single word he spoke until i went through the subtitles and it was very much apt for his characterization and BP did an excellent job there

Anyways, enough about Sherlock Holmes. Folks who liked this newer version can buy themselves a DVD and we folks who hated it will burn the DVD that we bought

[chevelle]

Originally Posted by Wolfheart

Dude what you're referring to is the plot while I'm complaining about the execution. Totally different aspects!


It's part of the story alright! However the suspense keeps building up tantalizes the audience. You want to find out what's going to happen next. Suddenly the director decides to force you to watch a mediocre gunbattle in the snow like some lame and cheesy '80's action flick. And it's just bloody irritating! Doesn't lend much to the plot and deviates from the storytelling. And that's just one of the many flaws! This movie had potential to be much better!

I'm glad you enjoyed the movie. Everyone has different tastes. However, I don't feel that there's anything groundbreaking about Inception. Definitely not a milestone by any means! Heck some folks are alleging that the plot is ripped off from a Donald Duck comic! Check this out, it's hilarious:

Is Chris Nolan's Mind The Scene Of The Crime? Inception/Scrooge McDuck Comparison!

I am not sure if you understood what i meant to say. But i can't explain to you without giving a spoiler alert for which i have been warned by mods.

But if the 80's action scenes was not included in the film, it would have not taken the story forward - that is, the limbo scene wouldn't have come, neither the characters would have died to return to previous dream and neither Saito would have gone into his limbo state. So from my POV, it was necessary either to show a fight between them and death or blowing everything apart to show the death thereby returning to previous dream.

Anyways, it seems you are nitpicking here just to make it sound as if movie was nothing but crap. As i said before you are entitled to your opinion and so am I.

[manolin]

i just watched Tekken. Waste of time, unless you are a die hard fan of the game. Even then it might be a bad idea since it does deviate from the game.

Also saw Salt. The story line is too coldwar novelish - like those cheap far fletched thrillers which came out in the 80s. USA-Russia deep undercover spy stories just dont excite anyone now; not unless Putin actually shows some world domination aims.

[Wolfheart]

Originally Posted by chevelle

Anyways, it seems you are nitpicking here just to make it sound as if movie was nothing but crap. As i said before you are entitled to your opinion and so am .

Dude I've already made my point. Twice! Why are you going around in circles? I wasn't terribly impressed by the movie nor were a few other guys here! Learn to live with it!

I'm sure Nolan himself wouldn't get so worked up due to crticism. Relax and enjoy your cinema. Cheers!

[chevelle]

Originally Posted by Wolfheart

Dude I've already made my point. Twice! Why are you going around in circles? I wasn't terribly impressed by the movie nor were a few other guys here! Learn to live with it!

I'm sure Nolan himself wouldn't get so worked up due to crticism. Relax and enjoy your cinema. Cheers!

I can't mention directly because of warning from mods. It seems i posted a detailed explanation before and it was deleted.

On the other hand, since you are turning a blind eye to what i have been trying to say, I don't want to pursue further.

As for Nolan and criticism, it always goes hand in hand. Since every coin has two sides, i can see which side you are on.

Aaah, never mind, i am enjoying it more than you ever thought

P.S: Try to stay away from 'The Expandables'. Its suppose to be a wham-bham-thank-you-mam kind of movie which was a norm in 80's - the era you seem to hate.

[Wolfheart]

Originally Posted by chevelle

P.S: Try to stay away from 'The Expandables'. Its suppose to be a wham-bham-thank-you-mam kind of movie which was a norm in 80's - the era you seem to hate.

Not at all! I'm a horror movie buff and the best horror films were made in the '80's. Never generalize my friend! Life's not as simple as heads or tails!