If you’ve already seen Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (and the box-office figures suggest as much — it made over $100 million internationally on Wednesday) — then you’ve already seen the “new” trailer for Robert Downey’s Sherlock Holmes. I say “new” because it’s the same trailer as before, only it has a new ending, where Jude Law cockpunches RDJ in the face. Is it worth sitting through two minutes and 14 seconds of a trailer you’ve probably already seen?
Absolutely. Not because the end punch is that magnificent, but because this is a trailer I could watch at least another 23 times before I got sick of it. RDJ is everything that Jeremy Brett is not, and I think I love him for it.
Rachel McAdams...oh dear god...I'll be in my bunk.
As for the movie itself, I was disappointed when I heard it's going to be PG-13. One, because its Guy Ritchie. Two, because it means they cut out all the drug use. I hope Ritchie does one of those directors cuts and keeps it R.
Otherwise, that bare-knuckle boxing match looks fantastic, and the look on RDJs face when he got clocked at the end of the trailer was worth the wait.
Didn't you see the part where RDJ releases a little puff of smoke/powder(?) and it floats through the crack in the wall? Detection indeed!
Posted by: MM at July 17, 2009 5:32 PM
Yeah, as much as this trailer rocks and I love everyone involved, I'm still concerned by the lack of detecting (except for that smoke, MM, good catch). I just keep telling myself that it's a Sherlock Holmes movie, there must be detecting. It would be like making a Steven Seagal movie without roundhouse kicks. Or ponytails.
Posted by: Macafee at July 17, 2009 5:38 PM
When you said 'cockpunching, I was expecting to see something a little more...penis-y. Jude Law punching his penis toward RDJ's face, for instance. Hot.
Posted by: Pinky McLadybits (aka Dangle McGee) at July 17, 2009 5:40 PM
They're saving that for the red-band, Pinky.
Posted by: Macafee at July 17, 2009 5:43 PM
It would be like making a Steven Seagal movie without roundhouse kicks. Or ponytails.
Posted by: Macafee at July 17, 2009 5:38 PM
--------------------------------------------
..or Seagal rocking a muu-muu.
It's Jeremy BRETT, jerk-nut, and he's the only Sherlock who'll ever matter to me. I like RDJ but fuck this happy-go-lucky bullshit interpretation.
Posted by: A at July 17, 2009 6:08 PM
Gee, I thought Sherlock Holmes stood around wearing a funny hat, smoking a pipe, playing the violin, and said things like 'indubitably.'
I had no idea there was UFC action.
Posted by: Lindsey with an 'e' at July 17, 2009 6:27 PM
It would be like making a Steven Seagal movie without roundhouse kicks. Or ponytails.
Posted by: Macafee at July 17, 2009 5:38 PM
---
JCVD invites you to have a punch in the face and a kick in the nads.
Posted by: , (the commenter formerly known as bucdaddy) at July 17, 2009 6:35 PM
I agree with Macafee. Sherlock Holmes is not Steven Segal.
But I'm all for Steven Segal as Watson
.
Imagine...Wat-gal grabs random asian people off the street, pummels them until weird sounds come out of their bodies, and Sherlock holmes, deduces from their moans of agony who stole the diamond of tripoli.
Posted by: "Luker" the barbarian at July 17, 2009 6:38 PM
I think i'm on to something here. Hell, let's put steven segal in EVERY detective movie. Tintin solving the mystery of the jade dragon...BOOOOOORING. Tintin solving the mystery of the jade dragon fighting against his nemesis Mr. Kick-Tail (played by Steven Segal) = AWE-TACULAR.
Fuck, why stop there. Let's replace EVERY movie with Steven Segal. Air Bud 6: the Karate Dog, he can fight Steven Segal.
Television isn't safe from the segal man...
Rock of Love with Steven Segal: when he kicks you out of the house, he KICKS you out of the house. This Friday at 8PM.
Posted by: "Luker" the barbarian at July 17, 2009 6:50 PM
For fuck's sake, people... you bitch (rightfully so) about the current trailer-trend of revealing the whole film in the trailer, and then you bitch because they chose not to reveal the whole film (e.g., the "detecting")?
Make up your fucking minds, huh?
Posted by: Rykker at July 17, 2009 6:55 PM
Mr. Suz leaned over to me in the theatre when this trailer was on and said: "Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is rolling in his grave." I don't care though, it has RDJ and that man is FINE.
Maybe. But maybe if he were still alive, he'd be happily cashing huge checks from Hollywood.
Just because we think of them as "classics" doesn't mean the creators didn't do it for the cash.
Posted by: Dave at July 17, 2009 7:30 PM
A friend sitting next to me at the HP show said it best after the Holmes trailer. Two words. "Fuck yeah."
Posted by: Kiddo at July 17, 2009 7:43 PM
Just because we think of them as "classics" doesn't mean the creators didn't do it for the cash.
I love you, Dave. And I mean that in a totally non-gay way. Non-gay, unlike this trailer, which is ragingly homosexual, which is awesome. Jude Law even cries out heartbreakingly for his true love Holmes when he sees him kissing some hussy! How. Sweet.
Am I the only one who's really pleased that Mark Strong actually got to be one of the featured cast members? He's just so fantastic.
Posted by: Mimi at July 17, 2009 8:40 PM
Definitely enticing and want to see, but have to agree with A and Suz and Dave that this certainly looks (just from the trailer, will withhold judgement till seeing the full picture) to be so far from the spirit of Sherlock Holmes that it is almost farcical....Sherlock John Holmes meets Tropic Thunder. It will make $500 million tho...so who cares, I guess. The "Pimp my Classic" genre usually sucks but RDJ gets some slack.
Posted by: Will at July 17, 2009 8:50 PM
Television isn't safe from the segal man...
Well, certainly the Food Network isn't.
Posted by: branded at July 17, 2009 8:59 PM
mmmmmm....Mark Strong.
Posted by: Claire at July 17, 2009 8:59 PM
Y'know, when you said "cockpunches" I thought you meant the Sherlock Holmes movie would actually involve punches to the cock. And if it was Watson doing it, then more reason to see the movie. Because Watson doesn't get nearly the credit he deserves.
*Sigh* Maybe next time.
Posted by: Sara at July 17, 2009 9:05 PM
jeremy brett IS sherlock holmes.
that is all.
Posted by: grenadine at July 17, 2009 9:06 PM
I love Sherlock Holmes. Love. RDJ as Sherlock Holmes? I may be arrested for lewd behaviour on Christmans Day. I cannot be held responsible.
Watch out, Maryscott. "Greatest. Trailer. Ever." on this site might accidentally bring up Pajiba in some Google searches by Britney Spears or Jessica Simpson.
Posted by: Landon at July 18, 2009 1:54 AM
Mr. Suz leaned over to me in the theatre when this trailer was on and said: "Sir Arthur Conan Doyle is rolling in his grave."
Who are you kidding? We've had a bowdlerized, genteel version of Holmes for so long that we've all gotten used to it, but who Holmes and Watson really are is right there in the text.
When we first meet Watson, he's a former British Army doctor, one campaign (Afghanistan) under his belt, wounded in action and forcibly retired with a pension. In Victorian times, that would put him at about 24-26. Holmes is described as a "few years older" than Watson, so he's 27-29.
We are repeatedly informed that Holmes is "no gentleman," indulges in education more than most people consider seemly (and etoserically, at that; no proper professional degree for Mr. Holmes). He further offers consulting detective services, which were even less proper in Victorian times than they are now, and he has a shocking disregard for the British class system. Oh, and he's an opium addict.
So let's sum up: with all due respect to Jeremy Brett, Holmes is not a gentleman. He's a perpetual grad student (and a bachelor!) who has a disreputable side-business to fund his need for study and opiates. Watson is not a fat middle-aged bloke; he's a lean Army man, a survivor of one of the great disastrous campaigns in British military history.
That's who Holmes and Watson are. That's why RDJ and Law are a lot closer to their spirit than we've yet seen.
(Shakes fist impotently, walks slowly back inside)
Posted by: UncleJR at July 18, 2009 6:04 AM
I've just read my first batch of Holmes stories, and I expected the genteel version I'd briefly seen in movies and TV. Uh, no.
The first story made it very clear that Holmes has two modes: Genius and Keith Richards. So I'm okay with this version of Holmes.
That said, I distinctly remember the story where Holmes tells Watson he 'has the grand gift of silence', and there definitely wasn't any punching. Watson was way too deep in the man-love for that.
Posted by: ScienceGeek at July 18, 2009 6:18 AM
Dear guys, come here !! *******Cougar circle.com******** a place to
date Sexy women and rich men will bring you fun and happiness ! If you are
over 2 2 years old, you will have more chance to be the focus of others
because of your Maturity !!!
Posted by: william at July 18, 2009 7:09 AM
Seconding the general awesomeness of Basil Rathbone - he was the best Holmes by far. Huzzah for the Queen's English. I wish we all did speak like that. I'd like to think if I did, it would encourage me to drink more cocktails and swan around London in a Hackney Cab wearing fabulous outfits. Instead I'm just sitting here drinking a can of Coke and burping. FAIL.
Posted by: orangina at July 18, 2009 10:40 AM
This trailer makes me like Jude Law again. Playing the bitchy sidekick suits him.
This is going to make Sherlock into Bond, but sorry; Clive Owen as Holmes, and no other. Anyone else seen that Masterpiece theater?
(i mean really, he's got the accent and everything)
Posted by: Alethena at July 18, 2009 2:39 PM
SaBrina: Agreed! That blatant homosexuality was precisely what I loved so much about the actual books (god bless you, Sir A) and got me all giddy when I saw this trailer. I would gladly shell out the big bucks if this movie had some Holmes-Watson liplock wet tongue action going on, getting my panties in a bunch and tee-hee-heeing in a fit of horny glee. Alas, I doubt it, but I'll still shell out the bucks to catch this flick anyway.
Posted by: keenerweiner at July 18, 2009 3:17 PM
Well, I don't know abut y'all, but MY Christmas Day just lost a lot of its suckiness.
Posted by: Az at July 18, 2009 3:40 PM
Are there really (straight, I presume) women who go for gay male semiporn like this may aspire to be? I'm asking as a card-carrying member of the I Like Chick Lickin' Club.
Posted by: , (the commenter formerly known as bucdaddy) at July 18, 2009 4:07 PM
with all the "i'll be in my bunk" talk, has there been any discussion of films that had the opposite effect?
here's my list of films that caused me to feel uncomfortable & unsexypantish:
1. the brood (the baby licking scene at the end)
2. happiness (or anything by todd solondz)
3. son of sam (john leguizamo & mino sorvino = blech!)
4. the baby (1973 weirdo-horror film that was so bad i felt the need to apologize to my husband for bringing it home)
5. straw dogs (i haven't seen it, but read about it here and then on wiki. i'm gonna guess it's anti-bunk material.)
ok, i'm curious to see what movies killed everyone else's sex drive!
Posted by: , (the commenter formerly known as bucdaddy) at July 18, 2009 4:39 PM
Nice one, glittergirl. I was just about to ask , to hijack this thread.
And I don't think anyone wants to fuck after "Requiem for a Dream".
Posted by: Optimus Rhyme at July 18, 2009 5:01 PM
"uncomfortable & unsexypantish"
Okay, I'm stealing this, there's nothing you can do about it.
Posted by: BarbadoSlim at July 18, 2009 5:14 PM
Haven't seen it but I imagine "Teeth" would be rather unsexypanettiere-ish.
Posted by: , (the commenter formerly known as bucdaddy) at July 18, 2009 5:32 PM
Are there really (straight, I presume) women who go for gay male semiporn like this may aspire to be? I'm asking as a card-carrying member of the I Like Chick Lickin' Club.
Might I direct your attention towards 98% of slash? A quick search on fanfiction.net pops up a dozen or so Holmes/Watson story. Plus, RDJ and Law are both mighty pretty...
Posted by: Shay at July 18, 2009 5:42 PM
It's funny, (comma), Teeth was the first movie my girlfriend and I watched together. We thought it'd be funny. She thought it was but God was I wrong.
Still, fond memories there.
Posted by: Optimus Rhyme at July 18, 2009 6:10 PM
Is it just me or does Rachel McAdams look like she got photoshopped into the banner picture? It's like whoever made it thought there was a little too much longing in RDJ and Jude's eyes and tossed McAdams in there to straighten it up.
Oddly enough, this is exactly how I feel about this movie: homosexual undertones agogo featuring TITS!
Yeah. You like that don't you. Them gay detectives scare you don't they middle America, dont cry, Rachel McAdams' voluptuous busom is here for you
Posted by: Ponsk at July 18, 2009 6:18 PM
How does Moriarty fit into this? (See what I did there?)
Posted by: , (the commenter formerly known as bucdaddy) at July 18, 2009 6:26 PM
"RDJ is everything that Jeremy Brett is not, and I think I love him for it."
Like inappropriate for the role?
Good actor though RDJ is, he reminds me of a yappy, hyperactive little mutt. Love me! Love me!
Posted by: janis at July 18, 2009 8:08 PM
How does Moriarty fit into this? (See what I did there?)
Posted by: , (the commenter formerly known as bucdaddy) at July 18, 2009 6:26 PM
-------------------------------------------------
Hehehehehehe, my guess is it will be... tight? That it won't be easy to...slide him in?
Posted by: BarbadoSlim at July 18, 2009 9:36 PM
with all the "i'll be in my bunk" talk, has there been any discussion of films that had the opposite effect?
Showgirls. The pool scene. Kyle McLachlan and Jessie Spano made me want to never have sex again. You know how when something bad happens, and guys are like "That made my testes crawl back up inside me"? Yeah, my *vagina* crawled back up inside me. Talk about uncomfortable.
well, i guess my AvB silent treatment is over, because i just have to second that pool scene.
i was like, holy shit, she's gonna drown. and then when she started flopping around EVEN MORE, i thought it was certainly because she had taken too much water in and was in some bizarre death throe and he was still fucking her because her impending doom had made her SOOO TIGHT.
when she was up, walking around breathing in the next scene, i was sure it was because they had filmed out of sequence.
so yeah, Anna, i would totally make love to you. like a baby left in the bath tub while its mother answers the doorbell.
Posted by: gp at July 19, 2009 10:05 AM
Guys and Dolls,
I went over to Skitz/Wendell's at 1313 Mockingbird Lane this a.m., after an hour at Pajichurch asking holy Godtopus to bless and comfort and heal and enrich and bestow goodness and kindness and mercy upon all my wonderful friends and send my enemies express to the deepest bowels of hell in a fiery Radio Flyer, and the lawn looks like it hasn't been mowed in two months and there's 10 days of newspapers and mail and bat guano piled up on the porch. Plus there's a reeeeeeally bad smell coming through a cracked basement window. It's hard to see inside, though, what with the tinfoil and dried blood covering all the windows, and I couldn't stay longer to investigate cause something inside started growling at me, something that sounded large and hungry, so I'm asking y'all's opinion:
Time to be concerned?
Posted by: , (the commenter formerly known as bucdaddy) at July 19, 2009 12:18 PM
relax, that's normal.
Posted by: gp at July 19, 2009 12:26 PM
Word, absolute word to Showgirls. That movie is so full of unintentional comedy and unsexypantish moments it's unreal. I'd love for someone to RTR that one. It has to be the unedited version though. The pool scene is out of the edited version.
On another note, currently the SciFi (yes, I know it's spelled different, but it's stupid and I refuse to acknowledge it) channel is showing some stupid Highlander sequel and I am being forced to watch it. This is not how I wanted to spend my Sunday.
Posted by: Melody at July 19, 2009 1:55 PM
Are there really (straight, I presume) women who go for gay male semiporn like this may aspire to be? I'm asking as a card-carrying member of the I Like Chick Lickin' Club.
hmmm, a real-time review of showgirls?
i could try but it might be kinda faggoty, and i don't want you guys to laugh at me as i've never written a review. *ponders*
also today i am going to see hp5, finally.
AND THE BEST NEWS OF ALL: when looking up showtimes, i discovered MOON is finally playing in tulsa! *going wednesday*
Posted by: gp at July 19, 2009 2:19 PM
Are there really (straight, I presume) women who go for gay male semiporn like this may aspire to be?
Oh, hell yes. Just as straight men like to fantasize (or better yet, watch) women getting naked and intimate with each other, straight women like to imagine (or watch, or read about) men getting familiar with each others' parts. In fact, we probably spend more time thinking about it than actual gay men do. Start with unresolved sexual tension, draw that out until we're sweating a little, then finally allow the buggers to go at it, and we are happy, happy campers, all up in our bunks with the covers over our heads as we relive that moment to our own sounds of pleasure.
Oh, wait. Was that a rhetorical question? My bad.
Posted by: Reba at July 19, 2009 2:56 PM
Time to be concerned?
Posted by: , (the commenter formerly known as bucdaddy) at July 19, 2009 12:18 PM
----------------------------------------------
*cough* *cough*
Herr Skitz' vhereaboutz are of no concern...to you.
Posted by: BarbadoSlim at July 19, 2009 3:09 PM
Herr Skitz' vhereaboutz are of no concern...to you.
And Slim would know, he spent months locked up in TK's basement.
Posted by: Optimus Rhyme at July 19, 2009 7:03 PM
well, i guess my AvB silent treatment is over
Hooray! And I'm not sjust sayng that 'cause of all the gin.
so yeah, Anna, i would totally make love to you. like a baby left in the bath tub while its mother answers the doorbell.
That is so hot. Again, not 'cause of the gin.
a real-time review of showgirls?
Cash money, friend. Cash. Money.\
Which may be in the form of some shiny pennies. I'm justg sayign. "cause I'm nt gin drunk At all. but if you wre to do this real-time reviesw and thaen expect cash money, I thikn I can' t really be held respoonsilbe for my promises. at this point. 'cause of the gin. gin makes promises that peoplke can't bnecessaruly keep.
*kisses your gin-soaked cheek*
*steals your wallet and pushes you down*
HEY! you implied you had money!
so here's the thing, i found my showgirls dvd today. it's the nc-17 version (i had thought it was unrated, there are an awful lot of tatas flying at me, giving me jazz hands and telling me they're on the rag.)
is there actually an unrated version somewhere/i mean, i know every damn pg-13 movie that comes out nowadays has an "unrated" version that comes out, but i think i got the foulest Showgirls when it came out back in the day.
fuck it, i'm drunk-ish too. i'll think about it tomorrow.
Posted by: gp at July 19, 2009 10:58 PM
As far as cockpunching goes, there was a scene in the trailer where Sherlock kicks the guy he's fighting in the groin.
Personally, while I think RDJ brings the right cocaine addict / slob baggage to the part of Holmes, I don't like that they are trying to make him an action hero. He was all brains and stakeouts and disguises, not fights.
Posted by: BWeaves at July 20, 2009 9:18 AM
Unsexypantish. Similar to uncocktastic for boys?
Posted by: Captain Steve at July 20, 2009 11:11 AM
-thumb-220x142-3051.jpg)
Rachel McAdams...oh dear god...I'll be in my bunk.
As for the movie itself, I was disappointed when I heard it's going to be PG-13. One, because its Guy Ritchie. Two, because it means they cut out all the drug use. I hope Ritchie does one of those directors cuts and keeps it R.
Otherwise, that bare-knuckle boxing match looks fantastic, and the look on RDJs face when he got clocked at the end of the trailer was worth the wait.