Talking of preconceptions

...you'd think by now I would stop being surprised by them, right? Nuh-uh.

Take this film, for example.

It got rented out a while back, because it looked interesting, and it had an interesting mixture of stars. Then, on reading the synopsis a little more, I assumed it was going to be too serious and melancholia-inducing, and decided I was only going to watch it when I was ready for it.

Which meant not when I was already depressed, not when I was very happy either, not in the night so I'd go to bed miserable, not on a Sunday evening because I really don't want to make those worse than they already are - just a very neutral day when things had been just medium-tedium.

Yes, picky. And don't you judge me for not wanting to watch hard-hitting films - sometimes you can have too many of them, and all you want is popcorn brain-numbers. Or a re-run of O Brother (Pop quiz: Is it possible to have watched that too many times? A: Irrelevant query).

Anyways, in the end I got fed up of having it around (plus those nice people from the rental firm were sending out polite reminder emails), so on it went.

And it was....lovely.

Quirky, and funny, and not too cloying or too preachy, and Rickman being typically snarky Rickman, and....just lovely.

So (Shyam, since you were asking), yes, I'm thinking of not seeing the description of an unknown film either and just watching it.


Of course, since we're on preconceptions and films, I have to bring this up.

Am I the only one who had no clue whatsoever that this film had been made?

And after watching the trailer, and taking into account the discussions of the past two posts, should I not be too quick to be yelling "Travesty!" at the top of my lungs and refusing to go watch the film or even stick around when it's being discussed? Despite the nice little boxing hat-tip, and despite RDJr (Jude Law....meh)?

Should I not give it the benefit of the doubt? And, even if I'm right, and the reviews find that it totally tarnishes the entire vision that Doyle created, should I still not put that aside and just go watch it as just an extremely drug-induced interpretation of his work?

Will you?


Falstaff said...

I don't know. I think RDJr as Holmes is a wonderful idea, and I can see how this film could be a hell of a lot of fun. I'm a little wary of the supernatural bits though.

Then again, this may just be because I've never much cared for Holmes anyway.

km said...

Alan Rickman makes anything worth watching.

Echoing Falstaff's comment about Downey Jr. That could potentially be a lot of fun.

About that supernatural thing: Doyle is widely believed to be the man who perpetrated the Piltdown Man hoax, so I see this as the world screwing *back* with him :))

Tabula Rasa said...

i first saw o brother on a dvd borrowed from the public library. after that viewing, i renewed the dvd eleven straight weeks. the twelfth week, i was told there was a hold on the dvd so i wasn't allowed to renew it. the thirteenth week, it was back on the shelf with a sticker saying "no renewals".

approximately around the eighteenth week, a friend bought me a copy for christmas. on the big rock candy mountain.

Falstaff said...

P.S. Nice Ulysses motif, btw.

??! said...

That's what I'm leaning towards, too. Although I always found Holmes (not necessarily his detecting) fascinating, though I probably would be extremely irritated with him if I met him.

And that was quite unintended. Or maybe it was subconscious.

Aye aye. He even manages to make Snape seem funny.

Heh. A true brother, indeed. Now put your hand there and praise the name o' the lord!

Tabula Rasa said...

i have... no hand.