About Author

Stephen Schleicher began his career writing for the Digital Media Online community of sites, including Digital Producer and Creative Mac covering all aspects of the digital content creation industry. He then moved on to consumer technology, and began the Coolness Roundup podcast. A writing fool, Stephen has freelanced for Sci-Fi Channel's Technology Blog, and Gizmodo. Still longing for the good ol' days, Stephen launched Major Spoilers in July 2006, because he is a glutton for punishment. You can follow him on Twitter @MajorSpoilers and tell him your darkest secrets...


  1. Lifeisaglitch on


    This one doesn’t stray more from the material than Holmes movies normally do, its just taking it in a new direction. Instead of removing the boxing and cocain and dumbing down Watson its removing the deer hunter hat and street urchins and adding some action.

    Also theres one thing i never got..why is Lestrade always portrayed as being dick in the movies?

  2. Holmes wouldn’t be that muscly or alluring (drug abuse does things to a man), and Watson as played by Law certainly doesn’t look like a veteran of Afghanistan wars. But it’s a good try nonetheless.

  3. Jeremy Brett will always be the best Sherlock Holmes, hands down. I love R.D.J. but this like “‘splosions… hur hur hur”. Hopefully it’s just the trailer that is dumbed down.

  4. Lifeisaglitch on


    Cocain not heroin or opium ;) But yeah.
    But really with the hygiene, pollution and diets of that time nobody should look completely healthy.

    But i do think Watson looks great, i mean he was always the tidy professional he isn’t supposed to look like a nam vet. Also the trailer does give us shots of him handling firearms and kicking in the door.
    Besides can you remember any Sherlock movie not taking Watson waaaay too lightly, at least thats not what they are doing this time. I mean besides the limp whats Watson really missing?

  5. ~wyntermute~ on

    I’m a huge Sherlocker, but I generally tend to avoid the movies (though, Matt Frewer (Max Headroom, Moloch the Magician) appeared in a decent adaptation of “Hound of the Baskervilles” I caught on FreeTV one random Sunday) because… Well… The stories don’t necessarily always WORK when you SEE what is going on…. That’s beside the point in this case, however, as this looks like a remake of Will Smith’s “Wild, Wild West” with two ostensibly “British Gentlemen”…. Yeah, and Holmes getting tied/cuffed naked to a bed????? *barrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrf* No. Sherlock does not think with his little Sherlock. He’s kinda, um, awkward with the ladies tosaytheVERYleast (let alone all the Holmes/Watson shipping). I hate to be all prejudgemental, because I normally get on people for that kinda thing, but this deserves to fail. When you’re relying on explosions, “trick guns” (I saw somebody using some kinda spring-loaded wrist holster), and “Sexlock Holmes”…. It is NOT a “Sherlock movie” any more. It’s an “action movie” with a franchise stapled to it.

  6. Lifeisaglitch on


    They are allowed to take an amount of liberties and though its more hollywood, there are some areas where they seem to capture the books better than almost all oter adaptions.

  7. It looks a bit too blockbuster-y… too much action, not enough actual consideration of moral decisions. However, I believe Jude Law’s mustache will reinvigorate his career.

  8. I suppose I’m no Holmes purist, but I’m really excited about the film. Holmes has deserved a good re-imagining, and personally, I’d like to see how Downey pulls it off.

  9. ~wyntermute~ on

    Glitch: They can take all the liberties they want. It doesn’t mean that I’m going to like it when they do. I mean, that time I took liberties with [insert random girl here], she TOTALLY did not like it. ;) Yeah, I get what you’re saying: Hollywood can do what it wants, and usually does. But that’s why I don’t go to many movies: What Hollywood wants to do is NOT what I want to spend money on. This is a (barely?) carefully crafted attempt to separate people from their money with “Hey look! It’s Iron Man in Olde Englunde!” I do not think there is any “love” for the property on behalf of the studio; I do not think there was a great popular outcry for Sherlock Holmes on film; I do not even think that anybody said “Hey, why don’t we make a spiritual sequel to ‘The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen’!”. :D It just seems like they’re slapping the name “Sherlock Holmes” on an action-movie character, and Holmes is NOT an ‘action-hero’, despite his detective skills and occasional fistfight. THAT’s where my problem is with this. If they had called the film “Septimus Smith”, I’d probably look at it like “OOoooh! This might be neat! I have no preconceived notions, and they are not being terribly violated by what I have seen.” However, when you put “Holmes” on things, people are likely to expect the deerstalker hat, the half-hearted violin scrapings, and the slipper full of tobacco on the mantelpiece. If you suddenly give him a baseball cap, a pair of turntables, and an eighth of marijuana…. MC Holmeslice?

  10. ~wyntermute~ on

    Hah! So I wikied after, and it turns out “Septimus Smith” is ANOTHER literary character. So, like, please mentally amend my post to contain some COMPLETELY MADE-UP name that’s not related to anything or anybody that has ever been published. :D

Leave A Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.