<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: My Dear Watsons</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.moviefanfare.com/staff-notes/my-dear-watsons/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.moviefanfare.com/staff-notes/my-dear-watsons/</link>
	<description>The Movie Collector&#039;s Blog sm</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 01 Aug 2010 04:14:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>By: This Week In Film History 3-21-10 &#124; MovieFanFare</title>
		<link>http://www.moviefanfare.com/staff-notes/my-dear-watsons/#comment-3376</link>
		<dc:creator>This Week In Film History 3-21-10 &#124; MovieFanFare</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 29 Jun 2010 23:08:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moviefanfare.com/?p=6145#comment-3376</guid>
		<description>[...] 1939: Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce make the first of 14 screen pairings as Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson (Related Article) in The Hound of the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] 1939: Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce make the first of 14 screen pairings as Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson (Related Article) in The Hound of the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marilyn Penner</title>
		<link>http://www.moviefanfare.com/staff-notes/my-dear-watsons/#comment-1036</link>
		<dc:creator>Marilyn Penner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jan 2010 22:45:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moviefanfare.com/?p=6145#comment-1036</guid>
		<description>After reading comments on the Sherlockian lists before the film was out about Downey&#039;s lack of stature to play the six-foot, cerebral sleuth, I was pleasantly surprised by his and Law&#039;s Holmes and Watson.  All right, he should&#039;ve shaved and dressed with more of the &quot;cat-like cleanliness&quot; that Conan Doyle&#039;s Watson said Holmes posessed; but then Conan Doyle&#039;s Holmes was a &#039;bohemian&#039; [meaning that he did not care to observe conventional behaviour], and had &#039;no taste for society&#039; [which certainly was Downey&#039;s Holmes&#039;s view of the restaurant where Watson forced him to meet his fiancee]. Conan Doyle&#039;s Holmes also fought a benefit round with a pugilist - refered to in &quot;The Sign of Four&quot;, and his opponent said Holmes should have fought professionally.
So, with some rough edges and leeway for Hollywood&#039;s love of spectacle, the Ritchie / Downey interpretation fits the books, in my opinion - and I have read all the books from covers to covers several times.  Watson and Miss Adler were close to their originals too.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>After reading comments on the Sherlockian lists before the film was out about Downey's lack of stature to play the six-foot, cerebral sleuth, I was pleasantly surprised by his and Law's Holmes and Watson.  All right, he should've shaved and dressed with more of the "cat-like cleanliness" that Conan Doyle's Watson said Holmes posessed; but then Conan Doyle's Holmes was a 'bohemian' [meaning that he did not care to observe conventional behaviour], and had 'no taste for society' [which certainly was Downey's Holmes's view of the restaurant where Watson forced him to meet his fiancee]. Conan Doyle's Holmes also fought a benefit round with a pugilist - refered to in "The Sign of Four", and his opponent said Holmes should have fought professionally.<br />
So, with some rough edges and leeway for Hollywood's love of spectacle, the Ritchie / Downey interpretation fits the books, in my opinion - and I have read all the books from covers to covers several times.  Watson and Miss Adler were close to their originals too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Phyllis Silvers</title>
		<link>http://www.moviefanfare.com/staff-notes/my-dear-watsons/#comment-1025</link>
		<dc:creator>Phyllis Silvers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 21:35:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moviefanfare.com/?p=6145#comment-1025</guid>
		<description>I was impressed and amazed by the pugilistic nature of Robert Downy’s Holmes, especially after having so often wondered how Holmes could have so easily came out the winner in all of his scrapes over all the years. I have been addicted to watching the Sherlock character in the movies and reading his exploits but the thing that I found so profound was the so even handed depiction Guy Ritchie gave his recent Watson. I had in the past always wondered why the brilliance of a Sherlock Holmes would have befriended, no less consulted with a fool as bumbling as most of the previously filmed Watsons had been. In Ritchie’s Holmes these two men are equals, both with foibles yet complimentary compatriots both playing off each others rather high IQ. Each of these men, offering the other information from their vast yet very different expertise which easily moves the action and therefore the case forward creating for me the most realistic and therefore truly most believable Holmes and Watson couple to date. I look forward to the next of the series and just hope that the staff and cast do not in the future become bored while so expertly bringing this duo to life again and again. I imagine, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle feels his creation has finally been done great justice by all involved in the Guy Ritchie effort. Kudos and thanks to all those who were part of this recent production especially to Guy Ritchie and to whoever designed the titles before and after they are in themselves masterpieces.  

Earlier in this decade we film goers were given a very contrasting glimpse into another pair of best friends, men who leaped from a series of 19 books written by the late Patrick O&#039;Brien onto the silver screen. In the 2003 film &quot;Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World”; which was directed by Peter Weir, starring Russell Crowe as Jack Aubrey, with Paul Bettany as Stephen Maturin and released by 20th Century Fox, Miramax Films and Universal Studios.  That film was adapted from three of the novels in that Aubrey–Maturin series by Patrick O’Brien. The books are about the adventures of two men who clearly bond while serving on all manner of wooden ships as they patrol the high seas in the wars between the English and the French for the Admiralty and the crown. In this very salty book series Captain Jack Aubrey, from his maverick way of creatively following orders from the Admiralty is portrayed as the larger than life adventurer, beloved by his crew and not just because his exploits on the high seas are making them well off, but because of his strong open heart and quickness of mind when under battle. The reader finds Aubrey, real enough to be seen as a fun and pun loving man&#039;s man. On the other hand his traveling companion, the ships doctor, Stephen Maturin is one of the earliest of nerds and a real land lubber also, who is actually a brilliant surgeon who chose to come aboard to see the world in an attempt to explore his studies as a naturalist like Darwin. His lack of athletic prowess, his gawky looks, and his ignorance of stylish dress or his lack of attention to how he eats all easily covers up his talents as fine surgeon and as a multi-lingual spy for the English. In the books he is the true bumbling doctor who is as such an ongoing source of humor. Despite his untidy dress and lack of prowess around anything afloat; after just a few operations and  miraculous recoveries of the crew members from formidable battle injuries he becomes the well cared for pet of the crew and a topic about which they brag when ashore. Fumbling as Dr. Maturin is, his strength is also clearly exhibited in the many novels of the series. I found it very sad as well as a true opportunity missed that the film goer was deprived from getting a clear glimpse into the fun personality and  real quality of brotherly love that these two men so easily shared in the book series.
So after the disappointment in the 2003 film rendering of Aubrey and Maturin I found it doubly refreshing to meet such an athletically capable and intellectually well matched pair as Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock and Watson.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I was impressed and amazed by the pugilistic nature of Robert Downy’s Holmes, especially after having so often wondered how Holmes could have so easily came out the winner in all of his scrapes over all the years. I have been addicted to watching the Sherlock character in the movies and reading his exploits but the thing that I found so profound was the so even handed depiction Guy Ritchie gave his recent Watson. I had in the past always wondered why the brilliance of a Sherlock Holmes would have befriended, no less consulted with a fool as bumbling as most of the previously filmed Watsons had been. In Ritchie’s Holmes these two men are equals, both with foibles yet complimentary compatriots both playing off each others rather high IQ. Each of these men, offering the other information from their vast yet very different expertise which easily moves the action and therefore the case forward creating for me the most realistic and therefore truly most believable Holmes and Watson couple to date. I look forward to the next of the series and just hope that the staff and cast do not in the future become bored while so expertly bringing this duo to life again and again. I imagine, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle feels his creation has finally been done great justice by all involved in the Guy Ritchie effort. Kudos and thanks to all those who were part of this recent production especially to Guy Ritchie and to whoever designed the titles before and after they are in themselves masterpieces.  </p>
<p>Earlier in this decade we film goers were given a very contrasting glimpse into another pair of best friends, men who leaped from a series of 19 books written by the late Patrick O'Brien onto the silver screen. In the 2003 film "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World”; which was directed by Peter Weir, starring Russell Crowe as Jack Aubrey, with Paul Bettany as Stephen Maturin and released by 20th Century Fox, Miramax Films and Universal Studios.  That film was adapted from three of the novels in that Aubrey–Maturin series by Patrick O’Brien. The books are about the adventures of two men who clearly bond while serving on all manner of wooden ships as they patrol the high seas in the wars between the English and the French for the Admiralty and the crown. In this very salty book series Captain Jack Aubrey, from his maverick way of creatively following orders from the Admiralty is portrayed as the larger than life adventurer, beloved by his crew and not just because his exploits on the high seas are making them well off, but because of his strong open heart and quickness of mind when under battle. The reader finds Aubrey, real enough to be seen as a fun and pun loving man's man. On the other hand his traveling companion, the ships doctor, Stephen Maturin is one of the earliest of nerds and a real land lubber also, who is actually a brilliant surgeon who chose to come aboard to see the world in an attempt to explore his studies as a naturalist like Darwin. His lack of athletic prowess, his gawky looks, and his ignorance of stylish dress or his lack of attention to how he eats all easily covers up his talents as fine surgeon and as a multi-lingual spy for the English. In the books he is the true bumbling doctor who is as such an ongoing source of humor. Despite his untidy dress and lack of prowess around anything afloat; after just a few operations and  miraculous recoveries of the crew members from formidable battle injuries he becomes the well cared for pet of the crew and a topic about which they brag when ashore. Fumbling as Dr. Maturin is, his strength is also clearly exhibited in the many novels of the series. I found it very sad as well as a true opportunity missed that the film goer was deprived from getting a clear glimpse into the fun personality and  real quality of brotherly love that these two men so easily shared in the book series.<br />
So after the disappointment in the 2003 film rendering of Aubrey and Maturin I found it doubly refreshing to meet such an athletically capable and intellectually well matched pair as Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock and Watson.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gary Cahall</title>
		<link>http://www.moviefanfare.com/staff-notes/my-dear-watsons/#comment-1023</link>
		<dc:creator>Gary Cahall</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:33:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moviefanfare.com/?p=6145#comment-1023</guid>
		<description>Elementary, my dear Mr. Leistner. You can follow the links in the article, or go directly to www.moviesunlimited.com for a listing of all Sherlock Holmes titles currently available on home video.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Elementary, my dear Mr. Leistner. You can follow the links in the article, or go directly to <a href="http://www.moviesunlimited.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.moviesunlimited.com</a> for a listing of all Sherlock Holmes titles currently available on home video.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill Leistner</title>
		<link>http://www.moviefanfare.com/staff-notes/my-dear-watsons/#comment-1019</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill Leistner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:52:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moviefanfare.com/?p=6145#comment-1019</guid>
		<description>As a guest, I&#039;m asking &quot;Where  can I purchase the entire S&gt;H&gt; films on DVD???</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As a guest, I'm asking "Where  can I purchase the entire S&gt;H&gt; films on DVD???</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill Leistner</title>
		<link>http://www.moviefanfare.com/staff-notes/my-dear-watsons/#comment-1018</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill Leistner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:51:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moviefanfare.com/?p=6145#comment-1018</guid>
		<description>Where does one go to purchase DVD&#039;s of the SH films??</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Where does one go to purchase DVD's of the SH films??</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill Leistner</title>
		<link>http://www.moviefanfare.com/staff-notes/my-dear-watsons/#comment-1017</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill Leistner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:50:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moviefanfare.com/?p=6145#comment-1017</guid>
		<description>Where does one go to purchase all the SH movies or DVDs ?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Where does one go to purchase all the SH movies or DVDs ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chuck Clark</title>
		<link>http://www.moviefanfare.com/staff-notes/my-dear-watsons/#comment-982</link>
		<dc:creator>Chuck Clark</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jan 2010 17:28:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.moviefanfare.com/?p=6145#comment-982</guid>
		<description>I enjoyed the movie, after I got over the anger welling up in me for what Richie did to two of my favorite characters in fiction (?). I&#039;m a past member of the Paris, France chapter of the Baker Street Irregulars and I take Mr. Holmes and his companion seriously. Robert Downey Jr. is a great actor, and could probably play Holmes, but not Richey&#039;s Holmes, please.

Taking characters from real classics and taking them so far from their known characterizations is wrong in my book. Different takes on certain things or getting another slant on a story is one thing but having Holmes going into the public fight ring is just silly, and did Richie&#039;s character ever take a real bath, or shave. Come on... Jude Law is a super acter, but the role of Dr. Watson wasn&#039;t right. When I finally got over my fit... and just watched as if they were totally different characters. It was a fun movie, but too much Guy Richie gratuitous violence and repeated seems of the action, etc., ect.... We aren&#039;t all teenagers who are easily won with silly stunts. As the old adage goes.. &quot;If it ain&#039;t on the page, it ain&#039;t on the stage.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I enjoyed the movie, after I got over the anger welling up in me for what Richie did to two of my favorite characters in fiction (?). I'm a past member of the Paris, France chapter of the Baker Street Irregulars and I take Mr. Holmes and his companion seriously. Robert Downey Jr. is a great actor, and could probably play Holmes, but not Richey's Holmes, please.</p>
<p>Taking characters from real classics and taking them so far from their known characterizations is wrong in my book. Different takes on certain things or getting another slant on a story is one thing but having Holmes going into the public fight ring is just silly, and did Richie's character ever take a real bath, or shave. Come on... Jude Law is a super acter, but the role of Dr. Watson wasn't right. When I finally got over my fit... and just watched as if they were totally different characters. It was a fun movie, but too much Guy Richie gratuitous violence and repeated seems of the action, etc., ect.... We aren't all teenagers who are easily won with silly stunts. As the old adage goes.. "If it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage."</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
