View Full Version : Movie Sherlock Holmes [R]
Just went and saw this. Not my choice, but it wasn't as bad as I was expecting. Downey Jr. and Law have great chemistry, and it's a credit to them that they make an essentially pedestrian film relatively watchable. The less said about the female leads the better. But my biggest problem...
(Spoilers below, highlight to reveal)
The plot was overly complicated and just downright dog lazy. The whole supernatural/world domination thing has been done before, but that's not my major gripe. When we got to the final reveal-all monologue I was hugely let down. Whoopiee, a bunch of undetectable poisons and the main antagonist bribed everyone. Lame.
The way the door was left open for the sequel was I guess to be expected, and I don't have any major objections despite being a bit of a Holmes purist. It would have been nice if they'd just made it about some other 19th century adventurer though, since this Holmes bears merely a passing resemblance to his literary counterpart. It was fun, I guess. Which probably sums up this movie for me in five words.
red+black
26 Dec 2009, 20:37
It's a repeat? Or it's rated R? I'd be surprised at either.
toenail11
26 Dec 2009, 23:42
Dont know what you mean by the R..
Its definately rated M.
acooldude_au
27 Dec 2009, 01:23
Is this a porno you are talking about or the new movie? :D :p
Sorry, the [R] tag is a BigSoccer thing, it means Result Inside. Guess you don't do that over here. Old habits...
red+black
27 Dec 2009, 13:28
I have yet to hear good things about this film.
DeadlyAkkuret
28 Dec 2009, 04:23
Some of the "humour" looks very cringe-worthy. I wont be forking out $20+ (inc food & drinks) for this one.
Some of the "humour" looks very cringe-worthy. I wont be forking out $20+ (inc food & drinks) for this one.
I think that's the bottom line. It would have been a decent way to kill a couple of hours on DVD, but I kind of feel a bit ripped off paying to see it in the cinema.
scooterb
28 Dec 2009, 11:18
Some of the "humour" looks very cringe-worthy.
This always gives me the shits. It works in Schwarzenegger movies and that's it.
Characters making witty remarks every 5 seconds (especially in gun battles and sword fights) ruins movies for me.
Most of the 'witty repartee' between Law and Downey I thought was pretty decent, by and large. If there was a problem with it, it was more that it was mistimed and rushed, in the middle of action scenes and somewhat mumbled.
SunKing
28 Dec 2009, 12:25
Would have been far better to make one faithful to the original books but of course it would have been much less commercial..
TheColeTrain
29 Dec 2009, 18:00
Was a very bad movie.
I left half way through, it was just boring
Punchy Bassett
29 Dec 2009, 22:16
Would have been far better to make one faithful to the original books but of course it would have been much less commercial..
Disagree with that, I reckon there are plenty of people out there who would have seen it if it was faithful to the books, me included, I wont see this version that's for sure.
Saw it today. Law and especially Downey were very good, but the movie was just pretty crap..
gandaal
30 Dec 2009, 22:23
I thought it was a excellent film. It's doesn't pretend to be some kind of arthouse period masterpiece, it's a film designed to entertain and it does just that. The two leads were excellent and the retain Guy's flair for portraying physical violence.
As for people whinging about it being unfaithful to the books, the funny thing is that it is fairly faithful to the books even if it's more or less an original Sherlock Holmes story.
I'm looking forward to the sequel.
gandaal - the solution wasn't a letdown for you?
gandaal - the solution wasn't a letdown for you?
You would've preferred he had mystical powers instead?
Roobunny
1 Jan 2010, 18:31
I found it a bit slow to begin with but after the set up was complete I really enjoyed it. Found it to be a good old fashioned mystery/adventure film. It didn't set out to be more than an entertaining romp and I found it entertaining.
I thought it was a good storyline for a Sherlock Holmes film, it felt like it was definitely true to other stories but original enough to not be something we've seen on UKTV fifteen times previous. I also was very satisfied with the ending... I liked that it was all explained with science - I also liked that the imagery of the crow wasn't a supernatural twist
I also liked the way the possibility of the sequel was introduced while not making this film just a long preview for the next one (Pirates of the Carribbean 2 style).
My only real criticism was Rachael McAdams. She didn't have the maturity to pull off Irene for me.
You would've preferred he had mystical powers instead?
Hardly. But the fact that the ingenious 'tricks' were just a bunch of undetectable poisons, and the fact the antagonist bribed a bunch of prison guards, was pretty lame and unimaginative.
I also look pretty poorly on detective fiction that relies on 'unpresented' clues in the solution (like the liquid that the American was doused in - we never saw that happening except in flashback). It cheats the viewer out of a 'fair chance' of deducing.
I don't mind the departures from the literary characters, or the subpar supporting actors, or the fact it doesn't use a Doyle story. But the plotting was incredibly lazy, and IMO that's a dealbreaker for any movie.
Hardly. But the fact that the ingenious 'tricks' were just a bunch of undetectable poisons, and the fact the antagonist bribed a bunch of prison guards, was pretty lame and unimaginative.
I also look pretty poorly on detective fiction that relies on 'unpresented' clues in the solution (like the liquid that the American was doused in - we never saw that happening except in flashback). It cheats the viewer out of a 'fair chance' of deducing.
I don't mind the departures from the literary characters, or the subpar supporting actors, or the fact it doesn't use a Doyle story. But the plotting was incredibly lazy, and IMO that's a dealbreaker for any movie.
So you're going to ignore all the positives about the film because you couldn't work out how he did it based on the clues presented before the end. Your loss.
So you're going to ignore all the positives about the film because you couldn't work out how he did it based on the clues presented before the end. Your loss.
I see reading comprehension is not your forte. You may notice upon rereading my first post that I did actually say some positive stuff about it - mainly the choreographing of the fight scenes and the acting of the two leads.
However, it's not a sign of a good narrative if you have to introduce more facts at the end to make your solution work. I seldom deduce the ending of detective novels, but not to have the events flow logically is less than coherent and frankly, cheating.
And even leaving that aside, you really don't find it unutterably lame that the solution was so lazy? Undetectable poisons and bribery? My eight year old nephew can write stories with cleverer twists at the end.
Nato_Dog
2 Jan 2010, 11:06
I also look pretty poorly on detective fiction that relies on 'unpresented' clues in the solution (like the liquid that the American was doused in - we never saw that happening except in flashback). It cheats the viewer out of a 'fair chance' of deducing.Actually you do see him get doused in the liquid when he is knocking on the door of the place you can see that he is getting rained on. Which later turns out to be fake and done using a sprinkler system which you see in the flashback part.
I see reading comprehension is not your forte. You may notice upon rereading my first post that I did actually say some positive stuff about it - mainly the choreographing of the fight scenes and the acting of the two leads.
However, it's not a sign of a good narrative if you have to introduce more facts at the end to make your solution work. I seldom deduce the ending of detective novels, but not to have the events flow logically is less than coherent and frankly, cheating.
And even leaving that aside, you really don't find it unutterably lame that the solution was so lazy? Undetectable poisons and bribery? My eight year old nephew can write stories with cleverer twists at the end.
Why the hell should I bother reading through every single one of your posts because you decided tor reply to one of mine? :rolleyes:
Your mistake is that you see this as a detective film. It's called Sherlock Holmes but it isn't a detective film. It's an action film with comedic and blockbuster elements. I didn't see it as lazy because it was irrelevent, and I was relieved that they weren't going with the villian having "real" supernatural powers angle.
Actually you do see him get doused in the liquid when he is knocking on the door of the place you can see that he is getting rained on. Which later turns out to be fake and done using a sprinkler system which you see in the flashback part.
And you see the copper pot filled with dead frogs in the lab, and you see the flower even if you don't recognise it (well they weren't going to have Holmes tell us all about the flower at the time and wreak the suspense were they?). Almost every thing he did was discovered by Holmes at the scene... he just doesn't explain it.
legitimatic
2 Jan 2010, 14:00
Awesome use of spoiler tags in this thread :rolleyes:
Was dragged along to this movie last night (didnt kick or scream tho :D) and must say tho I did enjoy it! Was pleasantly surprised.. and it helped not one person in the cinema uttered a word, talking and annoying everyone.
Those folk in Geelong are very polite. :thumbsu:
Awesome use of spoiler tags in this thread :rolleyes:
Everyone's seen it don't you know..:rolleyes:
Jonesy1987
5 Jan 2010, 22:52
I thought it was a excellent film. It's doesn't pretend to be some kind of arthouse period masterpiece, it's a film designed to entertain and it does just that. The two leads were excellent and the retain Guy's flair for portraying physical violence.
I'm looking forward to the sequel.
Agree 100% :thumbsu:
popathon
6 Jan 2010, 09:48
It was alright. I was happy to see it end though which isn't a good sign, and i'm easily satisfied when it comes to movies. Spoilers i guess -> I don't like it when characters are introduced half way through a movie only to find out they play a big part in the end scheme. It reminds me of Scooby Doo episodes where you think it's the fired gymnast the whole time only to be introduced to the undertaker with 7 minutes left and find out he's the ghost 4 minutes later. <- The last scene was terrible and the whole movie seemed rushed, not that i'd want it to go any longer.
I thought it was good light entertainment personally. Went expecting very little, came out having enjoyed it.
Would've been better with a better mystery behind the plot but i'll definately see the sequel barring some transformers 2 style horrific butchering.
Abba Lonie
6 Jan 2010, 12:48
Moral of the story is if you expect anything more than a bit of fun, you are going to walk out disappointed.
I for one enjoyed it because I walked in with the right expectations, i.e. no stupid notion that it was a detective film.
midorigreenwood
7 Jan 2010, 10:30
so..... I'm taking my Mum to see a movie....and its looking like a choice between Avatar and Sherlock Holmes
I'd would like to see Sherlock because I've already seen avatar (and my mum doesn't really care that much what we see)....
however I'd prefer not to expose her to too much explicit violence because thats not her thing (she'll probably get nightmares) >,>
long story short..... is this the typical Guy Ritchie movie with gratuitous violence or has he sold out and tamed his ways for the mainstream?
Erm, theres some stylish artsy fistfighting and a chase seen or two but nothing OTT I wouldn't have thought. (although I may have been completely desencitised over the years :S )
bunsen burner
8 Jan 2010, 11:37
Some good fight scenes but apart from that it was rubbish.
Dirtywhirl
8 Jan 2010, 12:07
Went in with very low expectations so I thought it was a reasonably entertaining movie, the Downey Jr and Law chemistry being the highlight. I am a fan of Rachel McAdams but I think this wold have been better off with a tidier script and her removal.
The slow mo fight sequences were good, although I have never pictured Holmes or Watson as skilled fighters. Is this touched upon in earlier works or something that Ritchie chose to include for entertainments sake?
It was certainly watchable if only for Robert Downey Jr.(God I love him)
Thought it was too 'actiony' though, and also too long.
Not the worst movie though and some enjoyment can be had out of it.
Contra Mundum
14 Jan 2010, 10:42
This always gives me the shits. It works in Schwarzenegger movies and that's it.
Characters making witty remarks every 5 seconds (especially in gun battles and sword fights) ruins movies for me.
I'd watch Bob Downey reading out the telephone book - the visuals of Victorian London were fantastic - reminded me a lot of "From Hell" though
Some good fight scenes but apart from that it was rubbish.
i thought the opposite. Pretty good film despite the fight scenes.
Call me a purist, but do we really need Sherlock Holmes as a Tyler Durden reincarnate?
Surely it is possible for Hollywood to re-do a Victorian classic without martial art scenes.
what a load of crap, honestly...complete rubbish
Mr Eagle
17 Jan 2010, 20:31
The main characters were very watchable (Holmes as a bit of an eccentric worked quite well for me) but the story was a joke, which just can't be when you're dealing with a classic character of literature like this. And somehow I doubt the sequel will be improved in this respect.
TheColeTrain
18 Jan 2010, 13:04
what a load of crap, honestly...complete rubbish
Couldn't agree more, steaming pile of shit
adelaide_40
18 Jan 2010, 18:48
I am kinda pissed that I had to pay to see it, was more a dvd movie.
hawksfor2010
28 Jan 2010, 23:38
Just saw it and was a little disappointed. I don't see why they made a big deal about it. Its more a movie to watch at home then at the cinemas.:)
DoubleO7
29 Jan 2010, 10:09
The slow mo fight sequences were good, although I have never pictured Holmes or Watson as skilled fighters. Is this touched upon in earlier works or something that Ritchie chose to include for entertainments sake?
Doyle’s novels do mention Holmes as an accomplished fighter. He is said to be an "expert boxer and Swordsman" in "The Study of Scarlet"; in "The Sign of the Four", it is mentioned by a prize-fighter that he fought as an amateur that Homes could have became a pro; and in the "The Adventures of the Empty House", Holmes states he has some knowledge of "Bartitsu, or the Japanese system of wrestling".
He's also cited as an expert in singlestick at some point, IIRC.
Big Blow Hard
29 Jan 2010, 11:29
The main characters were very watchable (Holmes as a bit of an eccentric worked quite well for me) but the story was a joke, which just can't be when you're dealing with a classic character of literature like this. And somehow I doubt the sequel will be improved in this respect.
Why not? I would rather see someone put a new spin on an other wise oft repeated story, and change it up a bit rather than retell it exactly the same way each time. Sherlock Holmes novels regularly bordered on the mysterious and pushed the ideas of supernatural themes. I did notmind this take on it. It was about a 6/10 for me. Like with Russell Crowe's new Robin Hood movie, I am looking forward to a new and interesting interpretation on an old tale
Tht said, I will blindly go into any Robert Downey Jnr movie without even knowing about the film, as Iknow he always delivers. To me, still one of, if not the best actor out there.
.
it is a dumbed down version of Sherlock Holmes for 14 year olds
ExTasDeeMan
31 Jan 2010, 12:44
More proof that Guy Ritchie has no business making films.
magic_johnson!
31 Jan 2010, 12:55
Was OK, nothing special. Slow at the start as others have said.
Did anyone else have trouble understanding what Holmes was saying at times? It just seemed to all blur together...
Big Blow Hard
1 Feb 2010, 12:17
More proof that Guy Ritchie has no business making films.
Should have pulled the pin after Lock, Stock an Snatch. They were awesome. I blame madonna. She completely sapped his talent.