USA Today has let loose nine new images (one is old) of Guy Ritchie's upcoming "Sherlock Holmes," a would-be summer-looking blockbuster now set to come out during Christmas (the 25th to be exact).
There's lots of little tidbits of info in the piece, teases to the fact that this picture will likely be the beginning of a franchise (the end teases a possible sequel, naturally), but it's interesting to hear the rumor that Russell Crowe was going to play Watson before Jude Law scored the role was true, which is interesting especially since it came from the British gossip "press" which is usually just making shit up on the fly ("Originally, Russell Crowe was on board to play Dr. Watson, Ritchie confirms," is the exact quote if you're curious).
Other tidbits:
Jude Law was apparently "reticent" to take the role, but eventually relented when he was convinced by Robert Downey Jr. who talked to him like, "two serious actors about the craft."
- There was a lot of improv between Downey and Law and they "jazzed up the dialogue on the spot."
- It's obviously a PG-13 film, and the "language has been tamed."
- "I met with every young Hollywood actress in Hollywood,' Ritchie said of casting the con artist and thief Adler, the role of which went to Rachel McAdams. "She has the chops to keep up with him." We concur, she's consistently excellent.
- Famous duos that influenced the pairing of RDJ and Law include, "The Odd Couple," "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid," "Withnail and I" and "Laurel and Hardy."
- The film shot for 73 days, which is relatively long.
- Producer Joel Silver sounds as reptilian as ever. "We are always looking for branded ideas. Audiences are interested in seeing something they know," he says of selling the film and possible franchise to audiences.
- The word "bromance" is thrown around again. "They complete each other," says producer Lionel Wigram, who was key in reviving the Sherlock Holmes brand, sorry, franchise. "We are trying to make a fun adventure movie," he says. "My favorites are the Bond films. Raiders of the Lost Ark. I want to make a movie like that."
Anyhow, if you haven't already seen all the pictures. Here's the ones we like the best. No need to post nine photos now is there? We've been down on this Guy Ritchie film because the script was such fluff and his quotes and thoughts on the film haven't exactly instilled a lot of confidence in the picture being more than a fun, dumb dash (and Wigram's aforementioned quotes don't help either, frankly), but we will say the look of the film, based on these pics, are well-done and gives us a bit more faith. Either way, kudos to USA. Today, because this piece is really in-depth, so if you're really looking forward to "Sherlock Holmes," you should read the entire thing.
"Sherlock Holmes" is due December 25. And it's unfair, but tough: "Star Trek," has set the bar for summer blockbusters this year, even during Xmas, so 'Sherlock' will have to be on par for it to be considered a success... at least in our prickly minds...
5/06/2009
Guy Ritchie Confirms Russell Crowe Was On Board To Play Watson With New Feast Of 'Sherlock Holmes' Images
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Subscribe To The Playlist
Posts
Comments
3 comments:
Everybody: "We look forward to making money."
Jude Law: "We did some coke together."
lol
The charity 'Raising Malawi' (PR firm) founded by Madonna AND TWO OTHERS in '06' held fund raisers for over two years before finally getting registered as a non-profit. In other words, Madonna and the others were free to squander that funding any way they saw fit for those first two years. In fact, they still havn't accounted for the 3.7 million raised from a single event in the fall of '07' (The grand opening of a Gucci flagship store in Manhattan.). She also pleaded with her fans worldwide for donations along the way. In the meantime, she toured the world to promote her latest CD and raked in another $280,000,000 gross in just over 12 months. To date, the basic financial info for 'Raising Malawi' still hasn't been posted on the website or anywhere else. The 'progress' page only tells of the collective works by over 20 seperate charities. Each of which have their own sources of funding and may have recieved some sort of promotion or support from 'Raising Malawi' in order to be considered 'partners'. But no indication is made how much of their funding came from 'Raising Malawi' or how much of their progress if any could be directly attributed to 'Raising Malawi'. The fans/donors have no clue how many millions of dollars were raised in that first two years, no clue how much Madonna herself chipped in, and no clue how the money was spent before they finally registered as a non-profit. No clue what fraction of funding or works listed on that 'progress' page could be directly attributed to 'Raising Malawi'. Nothing to go on but the vague and misleading word of Madonna. For example: She states in her latest promotional video that she will match any contributions made to her charity (PR firm) "dollar for dollar". However, there is a disclaimer posted on the website for 'Raising Malawi' that Madonna's total contribution will not exceed $100,000. Thats not per donation. Thats a maximum of $100,000 TOTAL. Less than a single days pay for Madonna. Also much less then she will surely rake in by promoting her own CDs, DVDs, and 'for profit' merchandise through this massive worldwide publicity stunt. So I called the office of 'Raising Malawi' in an attempt to verify some sort of efficient financial operation (310) 867-2881 or (888) 72-DONOR). These details are ALWAYS made available by legitimate charities. But not in this case. I got nothing but recorded messages and hangups. So I did some research on my own. 'Raising Malawi' still hasn't been given any kind of rating by ANY independent charity watchdog like Charitywatch.org. The vast overwhelming majority of 'celebrity' foundations never are. In general, they are inneficient and riddled with corruption. Like the promotion of CDs, world tours, commercial websites, entire lines of jewelry (not just the single piece from which proceeds are donated), and high end retail flagship stores. Its far less expensive to promote your image and product with a contribution to your own charity (PR firm) than it is to buy commercial airtime worldwide. This is why its become such a trend. Celebrity foundations are also notorious for squandering much of their funding on private jet rides and super high end accomodations for their managers, PR crews, and celebrity figure heads. Its legal even for a nonprofit but not noble or efficient by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, non-profits are not actually required by law to be efficient. This is why the independent rating is so important. In general, 'celebrity' foundations never even get one. They are a twisted inefficient mutant of charity, self-promotion, exotic travel, and PR crap. Still, they compete for funding with more efficient legitimate charities. The celebrity figure heads often disregard the primary donors, co-founders, and managers, take personal credit for any collective work done, and seek maximum publicity shortly before or after the release of their own commercial projects. Its a sham. So if its not rated, then don't support it. Instead, support a top rated charity like any of those given high ratings at Charitywatch.org.
Post a Comment