|
Official Site IMDB Directed by: Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes: Robert Downey, Jr Dr. John Watson: Jude Law Lord Blackwood: Mark Strong Irene Adler: Rachel McAdams Music: Hans Zimmer I had the opportunity to see a sneak preview tonight, and I'll just say it now: If you didn't know it was a Guy Ritchie film going in, you'd figure it out rather quickly. The way the action was styled along with the camera work, it felt like a Guy Ritchie movie. At times it was a very intense fast-paced movie with plenty of setup. There is plenty of humor, some of it macabre. I mention Hans Zimmer because you'll recognize him right off the bat. With the Ritchie factor being taken out of the equation, there were a lot of nods to, well I won't exactly say it was Sherlock Holmes canon (of which there are around 60 short stories and novels), but it felt like somebody trying to capture the spirit of the novels - lots of internalization over his potential actions, lots of deduction, lots of references that Arthur Conan Doyle fans would get. There was a definite effort made to make sure the audience was fully aware of how perceptive Holmes was supposed to be, and at times they would literally rewind the film to make it clear that Holmes had noticed certain things. 1880s London looked drab and dreary and very gray (or is that grey?). Lots of steam powered things if you pay attention, with a bit of electricity thrown in. Lots of London landmarks, including some still being built. As for the acting, I thought the cast was great. You don't need to worry about any weird accents. To be honest though, I could have easily handled Jude Law or Mark Strong as Sherlock, but that's just me. Downey was, well he was Downey. He was wild at times and paranoid at others. Ritchie teases you with the potential for Watson to get married and move out, and then he turns around and makes it clear that Holmes relied on and needed Watson more than Watson needed him. To his credit, not only did Ritchie make an effort to make it clear that Sherlock deduced all kinds of things from little details, but Ritchie tried to work in all of the major character details from the original novels - references to drug use, the whole "bohemian" thing, a very chaotic and disorganized lifestyle (and home), forensics/forensic science, financial problems, etc. As you've seen in the trailer, they make prolific use of the Holmes novels fighting either with pseudo-martial arts or bare-knuckle boxing. Rachel McAdams as Irene Adler, which is in fact a character from the older novels, was changed slightly for the movie. Just a side note, Mark Strong is a motherfucking clone of Andy Garcia. I don't know why it didn't bother me in other movies, but in this movie, all I could see is Andy Garcia. I also think he could have pulled off Holmes although maybe not as much of a maniac. Story/plot? Let's talk about the sequel instead. If anything, that's the one thing this movie suffers from - the story was lackluster at times, and it was made very clear that it was building up to a bigger more involved sequel. It was actually disappointing at times - they put so much effort into character development and then it's wasted on a plot that was almost casually dismissed at the end during the big reveal. Besides the effort to beat the audience over the head with the fact that Holmes could deduce all kinds of things from little details, they made it clear multiple times that certain villains from the Sherlock Holmes universe would be major players in a future film. In the end, it felt like it was just meant to be an introductory piece meant to get you through to the sequel. 3/5 tonelok fucked around with this message at 06:25 on Dec 22, 2009 |
#
?
Dec 22, 2009 06:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 23:00 |
|
|
I can't be quite as poetic as tonelok about the movie, but I will chime in and say that I did have kind of a hard time understanding Holmes sometimes. He tends to talk quickly and mumble, and on top of that using uncommon - for the US anyway - phrases and words at times.. there isn't anything wrong with that, but it did make it a challenge for me to completely understand what was going on. I probably understood 75% of what he said, but then again I usually have problems understanding dialog like that so take it for what you will. The storyline was quite good although, as tonelok noted, it was all about the sequel. At the end of the movie it doesn't feel like there was any closure whatsoever, as if the first movie existed solely for the purpose of providing the back story and advertising for the second. Lastly, some of the plot points are a bit gratuitous and don't fit in well with the rest of the flick. I will say it's a good watch, but just know what you're walking into. Most of the rest of what I was going to say has already been covered in the post above me. 3/5 TheMaskedMarauder fucked around with this message at 06:37 on Dec 26, 2009 |
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2009 06:35
|
|
|
I think the movie capture the spirit of Sherlock Holmes extremely well. As tonelok said, there are several references to Holmes's personality and character quirks from the books, but you're not beat over the head with them. The cinematography overall was very strong. I really enjoyed the look and feel of London and the gray/blue color palates, it felt authentic. Robert Downy Jr. plays a great Iron Man and an even better Holmes. I really can't imagine another actor portraying him better. Jude Law is great as Watson, through not as memorable as RDJr. For the camera work and score, I felt as if it was determined that they had a strong enough movie where they could play around with these a bit. For the score, they did very well and I enjoyed the quirky string-plucking music played during the action sequences, it felt oddly correct. The camera work was good, but some of it felt a little too playful. For example, one shot begins as if you're right side up, but then it pans outward to show the camera is upside down and then rights itself as it tracks the characters as they run toward, under and away from it. That is the most of my complaints about the movie however. I feel the story may have been slightly thin perhaps in order to make it feel accessible to a larger audience, but I think the meat of the movie was still there. The ending is set up for a possible sequel, but I don't feel that it's done so in an overt way. If I remember correctly, the books largely have some even larger overarching plot that Holmes may not completely figure out, and I think it's a similar idea here. If there is no sequel (but I hope there is), things were wrapped up well enough to allow the imagination to continue. Acting: 5/5 Directing: 4/5 Score: 5/5 Camera work: 3/5 Setting: 5/5 Overall: 4/5 I highly recommend that you go see this movie whether you're very familiar with Sherlock Holmes or just know him as a famous detective-of-sorts
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2009 06:55
|
|
|
Good action, good acting, good solid fun plot. I couldn't think of better casting for Holmes and Watson. And I'm really happy they didn't decide to put "Currently Popular Song X" into the soundtrack, something that tends to happen with holiday season blockbusters. Some of the action was a bit too over the top though. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2009 17:23
|
|
|
The impression that I have of Sherlock Holmes as a character is that he’s often presented more as a collection of eccentricities than as a character: the drug use, the violin-playing, the whole “I deduced by the way he took his tea that he had recently returned from the Amazon” thing at the end of every story, the snuff in the toe of the Turkish slipper, and so on. Robert Downey, Jr. plays Holmes as a character whose eccentricities- drugs, violin, bare-knuckle boxing- are there to keep his brain from driving him crazy. Jude Law gets to play Watson not as some clueless boob who tags along for the ride but as Holmes’ partner in crime-fighting who enjoys a good mystery almost as much as Holmes does. So that was lovely. It's a buddy action movie. Rachel McAdams. . . did not pull off the combination of brains, beauty, dignity, and toughness that the script required. She read the line “I’ve never woken up in handcuffs before” like the heroine of a romantic comedy. It’s impossible to imagine why Holmes would respect her; it felt more like he was allowing her to tag along. Mary was much more likeable and her relationship with Watson was as natural and believable as Holmes’ and Watson’s bromance. I REALLY hope they don’t kill off Mary, as Arthur Conan Doyle did, in the ineveitable sequel. I didn’t like Mark Strong- not that I disliked him either; he was just sort of there, adequately fulfilling the role of villain. His haircut and leather coat were too 1930s fascist-y for the period of the film (not that this really mattered, the film is set in 1891 and women are still wearing bustles? What?). In fact, the more I think about the whole plan the less sense it makes. The US is still weak from a civil war that ended twenty-five years ago? England is going to take over one of the geographically largest countries on earth which also happens to have crazy Teddy Roosevelt? What? And what was the point of keeping the audience thinking for most of the movie that Lord what’s-his-face had real magical powers; couldn’t Holmes have explained why he was licking rocks before the movie ended? Well, the plot works best when I don't think about it. Just get caught up in the fun, and when the movie sags, think of the last fun part and how much you enjoyed it. I sure did. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2009 05:01
|
|
|
Sherlock Holmes is bad. I mean, really bad. And this is not the fault of Guy Ritchie, though in his typical fashion, he turns in another frantically-edited tale of London criminals and their twisting, turning plots. Just this time in 1891. In two weeks' time, Sherlock Holmes will be looked at as another Wild Wild West, an overblown, effects-heavy "blockbuster" that has literally nothing in it. And I understand (I guess) why they didn't want to blow their ________Moriarty___________ wad right off the bat, but there was nothing about this villain that excited or even really made sense for me. Downey is literally mugging to the camera when he's not playing the same snarky playboy genius that he does in Iron Man, and the endless action scenes are literally distracting and boring. Holmes via Action Star makes no sense; Holmes as the slightly-unhinged CSI guy is far more compelling. This movie would make poor 'summer popcorn' fare; what it's doing as the Christmas Action Movie makes less than no sense. The movie isn't worthless; Jude Law is amicable, and Zimmer's score is awesome, but the lack of (see spoiler) and blatant "THERE WILL BE A SEQUEL!!1~"-ness of it just makes this movie seem like an absolute throwaway film, and it makes me sad. Related Note: Asylum Films (the Snakes on a Train and Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus guys) also released a Sherlock Holmes this week, one where he does battle with a machine-gun wielding dinosaur and chases a killer robot through a London graveyard. It sounds better - or at least, more honest - than this disposable, unremarkable snoozefest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2009 23:43
|
|
|
It was a fun romp. A quasi victorian-age-meets-the-matrix feel. I like the chemistry between Robert Downy and Jude Law, that's what helped hold the movie together. If anything I would say it seemed to be a little too heavy on action scenes. Luxurious sets and all sorts of nifty costumes. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Feb 14, 2010 09:22
|
|
|
First things first: I'm a Sherlock Holmes fan. I've read the books, I own the Jeremy Brett series on DVD and I was eagerly waiting this movie, because poo poo: Guy Ritchie, Robert Downey and Jude Law doing Sherlock Holmes? Sign me the gently caress UP! I knew going in that this version of Sherlock Holmes would be more action-based than most, but poo poo - they wouldn't use the Holmes license on any old poo poo, would they? As it turns out, they might as well not have called this Sherlock Holmes at all, because judging by the movie the writers' only reference material was a small card with names written on it. Aside from the setting and the licensed names there was nothing here to distinguish Sherlock Holmes from a dozen cookie cutter police action movies where over-choreographed fight scenes break out every five minutes, 70% of the dialogue is witty banter, half of London blows up and nobody stops for a moment to think. Which, you know, is what Sherlock Holmes mostly does, as opposed to all that other poo poo. It's incredibly disappointing that they chose to take the greatest detective ever and reduce him to a second grade Jack Bauer ripoff, because there was so much amazing potential, ESPECIALLY with the people attached. As an aside the few brief moments they diverted to actual detective work were nice and I wish they would've included more of that, I even liked the chemistry between Holmes and Watson, even though it was obviously and naturally turned up a couple notches for the movie. It's a shame the movie doesn't have balls to focus on that and instead tries to go for a bad Bad Boys ripoff. Now, obviously this personal disappointment weighs heavily on my judgment of the movie, but even if you detach it from the Holmes name, it's nothing special. It's all been done a hundred times before: a ruthless terrorist wants to take over the world and only two agents and their sassy lady friend can stop him. You can guess everything that happens based on the premise alone and the execution is very by the books as well, as is the over-CGId look of the movie. Disappointing. 2,5/5 Shaman Tank Spec fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Mar 14, 2010 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2010 20:56
|
|
|
I never watched the old Sherlock Holmes shows or read any of the books, but I hear the movie Holmes is pretty much exactly how the book Holmes was. If so I might have to read the books sometimes even though 19th century lit is fairly unrelatable to me. Anyway, this is a really good movie. Good action, good dialog, fun characters ect. Robert Downey Jr is possibly my favorite actor between this Iron Man and Tropic Thunder. 4/5
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2010 23:26
|
|
|
This was an okay action movie that really wanted to be a detective movie but just couldn't keep the action scenes out. Robert Downey Jr. plays a believable Holmes, and has good dialogue with all the other characters, gets through the action scenes nicely, and sets himself up for a big sequel. The detective aspects work great when they are used, but they're just not used nearly enough and the plot apart from that becomes rather predictable. It's still worth a rental and perhaps will lead to a better sequel now that the characters are mostly set up. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2010 17:41
|
|
|
It was such a good idea to give Watson a personality, he's such a drag on the stories. 4/5
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2010 16:45
|
|
|
4/5 I love the way Holmes and Watson were portrayed. This movie was much more about the characters than the plot. In fact, Holmes should have figured out one of the main plot questions immediately but that would have used up what little plot driver there was. They gave all the clues necessary about how Lord Blackwood "resurrected" himself if you were paying attention to Holmes' poor dog. This isn't necessarily a bad thing considering how much more interesting the characters of Holmes and Watson are than previous screen incarnations of them. The movie itself was very entertaining but I couldn't help feeling it could have been even better. Combine the new characters with a deeper story and you'll have a classic.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2010 05:09
|
|
|
Not having read the books, I can't say how well it captures the real Holmes (not a great deal, I suspect), but it was still an enjoyable romp and worth watching. Downey was good, though his fake British accent was... tolerable, at best. It just sounds like someone trying hard to sound British. (It was certainly not Dick Van Dyke bad, but Sherlock Holmes really should sound British.) Looking forward to Hercule Poirot, Ninja Warrior. 3.5/5
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2010 22:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 23:00 |
|
|
Thought this was very good. Someone above mentions it is an action movie which really wanted to be a detective movie. I don't think it even wanted to be a detective movie, myself. It was desperate to stay all action when some good old fashioned detecting seemed the obvious route. That said, Downey is a pretty good Holmes. And while I normally dislike Jude Law, I think he made this movie. Watson was decidedly more likable than Holmes, and I really like the direction they went making Watson able to handle himself rather than the affable oaf that the books sometimes make him out to be. 4/5
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2010 12:52
|
|
