Here are the first exclusive posters for Guy Richie's "Sherlock Holmes" with my favourite actor Jude Law as Watson and Robert Downey Jr as the Baker Street detective. Rachel McAdams plays the main female role. The premiere is this December.
Friday, June 19, 2009
"SHERLOCK HOLMES" POSTERS
Here are the first exclusive posters for Guy Richie's "Sherlock Holmes" with my favourite actor Jude Law as Watson and Robert Downey Jr as the Baker Street detective. Rachel McAdams plays the main female role. The premiere is this December.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
downey generalo nije los, videmo. ovo mi izgleda previse inspirisano steampunkom, koga generalno volim, ali ne znam kako ce u ovo uklopiti. Nova interpretacija
ReplyDeleteThere is a lot of debate going on about this film since it does not depict Holmes the way people think he should be, quiet and reserved. I think it looks refreshing. It could end up not being a great film, but considering the cast I doubt it.
ReplyDeleteNi meni se ne sviđaju glumci, pogotovo ovaj što glumi Šerloka...ali će valjda film biti ok...sa vileikim VALJDA :D
ReplyDeleteSta je steampunk? :)
ReplyDeleteYes, I'm also not into Downey, but I never miss Jude Law's movies, so I'll give this one a go.
Ultra veliko VALJDA :)))
Pozz za Perina ;))
I've seen trailer and I will like this movie, without a doubt. Also, I have no problem with this new interpretation of Holmes. He was always an eccentric.
ReplyDeleteDowney and Law are both great actors, and the plenty of possibilities in such pairing in this film.
But for those to whom this movie doesn't hold appeal, maybe they should wait for Holmes as a comedy. Staring Sasha Baron Coen and Will Farell as Holmes and Watson. Its in the works.
And Dezz, use wikipedia (for once in your life :)) ). It would be unpractical to explain steampunk here.
I use way to much Wikipedia for work, so I have no strength in me to use for entertainment purposes as well :)) Besides, I like when you or Vladek explain things to me :)
ReplyDeleteWikipedia explains it better. :)) Both in terms on accuracy/contents and presentation.
ReplyDeleteNot Vladek nor me would be able to make it plain and/or comprehensible as it would be the case with encyclopedic article.
Wikipedia is usually very concise. Sometimes all you need to read are first (and maybe) second sentence in particular article.
Wikipedia is your friend, not (only) your chore. :)))
nya, don't undermine yourself, as I've just said to Vladek in a private conversation, there's no greater fun than reading his explanations (and his typing presentation of the same text :)))) )
ReplyDeleteGod save Wikipedia, without her wikipejesty, who knows where would my tranlator's guild be professionally :)))