highly enjoyed it. Ritchie knows how to comedy and action sequences very well. The story left some to be desired but overall it was a great way to spend 2 hours and would love to see a sequel.


B+

I wonder how the Sascha Baron Cohen/Will Ferrell version would have been received. I do think Ritchie was a much better fit for the material than Adam McKay. The film is peppered with many creative shots - including one of the more creative uses of explosions and slow-mo I've ever seen. RDJ is as charming as you'd expect given the source material. More impressive is Jude Law, who has the most fun we've seen out of him in awhile. McAdams and Strong are both a bit lacking, as is the mystery. But overall it's much less stupid and much more stylish than it could have been.

It wasn't a perfect marriage, but I did think Guy Ritchie's style in the Sherlock Holmes setting worked better than I thought it would going in. The acting was solid all the way around, and I had no complaints there.

I think I would have liked to see the movie a little more slanted towards Sherlock Holmes solving problems with his brain power, then with large action/fight scenes. In the scenes were Holmes did solve a piece of the puzzle with his mind, it felt like he was too omnipotent and was just feeding the answers to the audience quickly to move onto the next action scene. There really wasn't a lot left for the audience to ponder.

Other than maybe wanting it to have a little more weight to the movie, I'd be nitpicking to find other flaws. Overall it was an enjoyable expierience. Grade: B

B+

It's a good movie but i felt it went a little too long.

A
Great flick.
Disagree with you all and don't see any of the complaints.
Fantastic for the winter.
Joins well with my 2005 triumvirate and the first Bond reboot.
Stylish, great chemistry, I thought McAdams was great in her role, could have expanded but was still really good.
Another actress could not have done so, people here forget Kirsten Dunst and Katie Holmes.
In fact, I don't really care since everyone here loves Spiderman and I thought it was average as hell.

Loved it. Saw it twice.

So, I know that House & Wilson on House MD were inspired by Holmes & Watson. But... I've never read the books, though I am currently working my way through A Study in Scarlet, so I don't know how much of the House/Wilson dynamic is based on the book!Holmes/Watson dynamic. So I don't know how much of the H/W relationship in this movie was based on the books....

All I can say is that my sister and I both swear the writers had to have been influenced in some way or another by House MD, because DAMN if Holmes and Watson weren't almost perfect reflections of House and Wilson. It was downright *strange* how often I kept thinking of House when watching Downey Jr's Holmes.

Anyway, GREAT movie, can't wait for a sequel. And despite having never read the books (and the only film I've seen related to Sherlock Holmes was The Great Mouse Detective), even *I* knew the name Moriarty and was THRILLED to hear it.

Grade: A

I think it was a pretty entertaining film that was different than what I'm used to seeing for holmes. I think its only problem is that it wasn't meant for blockbuster status or hype, its a little small scale, which I think works well, afterall the next one could be epid in story. I can't wait for a sequel. I felt cheated never getting a glimpse of Moriarty, I thought that would have been a great closing shot.

I would like Hugh Laurie in the sequel. lol

9/10 -> A-

A very charming, breezy (although a bit predictable) mystery solved by world's most famous detective. I was completely surprised by how enjoyable and fun this movie was, although I had a lot of doubts about it.

I think the spirit of Sherlock is completely here and it's a nice refreshing embodiment of a character more than a century old.

I have to say that I loved the music. It's definitely this years' best from what I've seen/heard. It's similar to Amelie, though not quite as good as it, but it's up there...

Sherlock Holmes is a good mystery film though it goes too much into action story at times and loses some of the roots that makes Holmes, Holmes. Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law both do well enough in their roles as Holmes and Watson respectively as they bring enough character and comedic value to their characters. Rachel McAdams was miscast as she could never really fulfill her role to the best. The special effects were decent at best as alot of scenes were shown to be pretty obvious when a green screen was used. The film also lacked its time on Blackwood's story and although Mark Strong was good in the role, it could never be fully appreciated due to his lack of time on air. The mystery solving angles however were wonderfully done. In the end, Sherlock Holmes is a good mystery film and if it took out a couple of annoying elements and blended in a little bit more of original Holmes, it could of been a truly great blockbuster. **1/2

People don't know anything, even those who are educated.

I was talking about Julius Caesar, and my sister and some of my friends looked at me like I was making stuff up. Considering how deeply he is in our culture, I find it shocking.

The Calendar?? Whole Stab In the Back Thing?? Shakespeare, Endless Tv shows and movies

Moriaty's name, is hard to recognize if it is written. If you say the name, I would imagine you would recognize it from somewhere.


Movie itself is fun and could expand greatly in sequals especially with a lot more great villain actors like Brad Pitt or even Johnny Deep getting involved...

Agreed. This was surprisingly boring and unfunny. D+

I watched it again. It was actually more fun this time. I definitely think the sequel will be even more great.

Watchable but not particularly memorable.

McAdams was either miscast or played the character wrong. She needed to have an element of danger and a sense of domineering IQ and worn experience about her - Like a female Sherlock. Instead she played it as the loving, innocent sweetheart - yawn. I felt the Mary character had more allure and danger about her, I thought she'd turn out to be a villain of some sorts

SHERLOCK HOLMES - 4/10 (D+)

Now this was absolutely EXCRUCIATING to sit through. I was bored out of my fucking mind. Thank God I didn’t see it in theaters. I will pass on the sequel.

Yeah, I thought it was terrible as well. Ugly to look at as well.

Compared to Friday the 13th movies which feature gorgeous art direction and cinematography.

Watson mentions that she is the only one to ever outsmart holmes, twice. And then we see a clueless damsel in distress for an hour and a half. Irene is easily the weakest link in a rather entertaining and comical experience.

Those are horror movies; they're supposed to look like that. Even saying that, the F13 remake looks miles better than SH.

The 2009 F13 is hideous. Random shots throughout go in and out of focus, as if Vaseline was smeared on the frame. I thought it was a projection mishap when I saw the film on the big screen, but the annoyance is also featured on the Blu-ray. Pure laziness. What a crap, crap, crap, crap x100 film.

Guy Ritchie may not be a director in love with peaceful landscapes and super-vivid colors, but his direction here is atmospheric, confident, stylish, and tight.

You obviously didn't see the TCM remake, directed by the same guy who made F13 and sporting a similar look. You also must still be denying your true self to not enjoy some of that movie.

It seems very strange that a film with multiple flaws, and there are quite a few, you would pick on one of its biggest strengths "the look", that is art direction, cinematography, set design, costumes, and so on. It is not meant to be "lavish" however it is quite beautiful albeit subdued in the depiction of late 19th century engeland.

I wouldn't even compare the cinematography in F13 to that in the TCM remake. The TCM remake looked GORGEOUS! One of the best looking horror films in recent memory (though there are quite a few horror films with great cinematography, IMO, so I don't get the "it's a horror film, it's supposed to look like that" comment). Based on that, I was expecting the same from F13. That definitely wasn't the case. It's not HORRIBLE, IMO, but it's not that good. I expected much better.

Joe, please do not refer to my "true self" ever again. Creepy.

And I am well aware of who Marcus Nispel is and, yes, his Texas Chainsaw Massacre was a very attractive film. I particularly enjoyed the sunbaked, idyllic-yet-unnerving visuals during the first half.

F13 was nowhere near as competent and memorable in regards to visuals. And to enhance my point, here's a quote from the official Blu-ray.com review:



It's ANNOYING.

Blu-Ray.com is a not particular authority on, well, anything (it's just another home theater review website of questionable worth, and certainly not 'official,' as you state), but, regardless, that author is critiquing the HD transfer, not the cinematography itself.