|Page 2 of 61:||           |
|Index||606 reviews in total|
I am still reeling from the sheer terror of enduring this movie. It was
a masterpiece of horror. It was a collection of platitudes and nonsense
on a level that you rarely see in movies with this kind of budget. I
can not find a single redeeming quality. Nothing at all.
Bad acting is excusable here, and I won't cover the obvious stiffness and discomfort of Jude Law. I'd be too if I was him. That wasn't the bad part though.
Holmes. Drug addict. Manic depressive perhaps. Prone to lock him self up in his room for weeks on end. Not good for the old physique. But oh, he's a veritable Bruce Lee meets the Karate Kid. Are you joking? Are you serious? I can suspend my disbelief with the best of them, but that is just too much of a stretch. It is actually too bloody stupid to even contemplate.
For half the movie you think you are watching some kind of a "Harry Potter has Grown Up" production. It is uncanny how much like Harry Potter they tried to make this thing. If I want wizards, I'll go see Harry Potter, the real one, thank you very much. No, Harry Potter is not an improvement on the old Dickensian movie look. Really. It's not.
Oh, and who let bloody Dan Brown into the script writers room. Honestly. The only thing missing was a bad cut to some medieval knight fighting some secret society in Jerusalem.
I hereby nominate Sherlock Holmes for the Turkey of the year, and I doubt any other will come close to this junk.
Guy Ritchie's Recipe For One Terrible Movie: *Take perfect classic
story, then knead it until mixed randomly *Add 3 heaping Tablespoons of
good actors; peel off talent and discard *Mix in 3 tons of nasty dead
pigs from ceiling *Sprinkle in a dash of bro-mance with zero chemistry
every now and then *Put a lame ninja-like fight scene not related to
the non-existent plot in with loud noises to wake audience up every 15
minutes *Throw in obvious set-ups for the upcoming sequel every three
minutes to remind the audience that this won't be the last 2 hours and
8 minutes they will spend in a drooling plot less, senseless, endless
Gee, I can't wait for "Sherlock Holme2" (where the 's' in Holmes flips to a '2' shaped like a cheesy smoking CG pipe) to throw away another two hours of my life that I could spend on something more useful like painting my house with a Q-tip or reviewing a movie online (that I'd give a negative number rating were it possible!)
For the half of you think this movie was the best thing since string cheese and are marking these low reviews as unhelpful, seek help. Seriously. I'm not a Holmesabookaholic who's saying 'the movie was ruined because the bloody horse carriages were driving on the right hand side of the road when they should have been on the left in London, so this otherwise brilliant picture has been tainted for me!'; I'm illiterate, so that's impossible. This was just a baaaaad movie. Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaadddddd movie. Please take my word for it if you haven't seen it.
... me, i imagine, not the movie. the modern movie viewer obviously
likes this "edgy, action-packed, gratuitously violent" junk because it
permeates the screen these days. i knew i was in trouble after five
minutes in my seat watching the previews of soon-to-be-released movies
-- all pubescent shoot-em-up, blow-em-apart nonsense. i might have
given it three stars except for the obvious set up for the sequel
"Sherlock Holmes Two: Moriarty Teaches Calculus Badly."
let's see ... too loud, too exaggerated, too violent, too edgy, too much.
i'm tired of looking at actors standing in front of computer generated screens. at some point, maybe modern audiences will stop saying "oooh aah," and look for some artistry.
one could hardly call this a
as the next remake of "Bambi" will, no doubt, contain the obligatory checklist of "action-packed adventure" scenes, but i'm really tired of fight clubs, explosions, burning bodies, slow motion mutilation of human faces, etc.
if they can actually sit through it, Arthur Conan Doyle fans will enjoy the variety of allusions to his work. i had fun picking out lines and, during the too infrequent scenes where people were actually trying to talk to one another, noting traces of character in the characters. at times there was a glimmer of rapport between Holmes and Watson (Irene Adler was weak, the rest of the cast cardboard cutouts). unfortunately, i suspect Arthur Conan Doyle fans will be spending most of their time cringing.
please, do yourself a favor, if you really have an interest in the Holmes stories and, if you haven't done so already, read "a study in scarlet" and "the adventures of Sherlock Holmes." then go rent a few of the Granada television adaptations with Jeremy Brett and David Burke. you will enjoy some first-rate detective stories; well-written, well-adapted, and well-acted. i know that's where i'm headed right now to get that nauseating taste out of my mouth from bad popcorn and a bad movie.
Buried underneath a ton of special effects and obligatory action (to keep the audience riveted) lay a poorly devised character of a a 19th-century consulting detective, with an 18th century hair-do, and late-20th-century weapons, poorly disguised to look like something from steam-punk. (Psst- they didn't chrome-plate their pistols in those days.) Another Hollywood butcher job, re-writing history, and the intentions of the authors who originally presented it. The plot could not have been more transparent had it been made of glass--exposing the metaphysical as tricks of science and engineering. And Irene Adler... would have been arrested for dressing the way she did. But, of course... that's Hollywood. And Downey should be ashamed of himself... trying to make Holmes look like an Einstein Emo. He looked like a heroin addict, not like someone who took a 7% solution of cocaine when feeling bored. Totally disappointing.
I grew up reading Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's novels and I could still read them. This is because his novels can wake up imagination of the child and yet they have style and class to involve any adult into the story. I can say that this is the case with most of the Sherlock Holmes movies I had seen before I saw this one as they engage you by using the intelligent plot, first of all. 2009 Sherlock Holmes is a ridiculous attempt to turn a legendary detective into a Mission Impossible character and Dr. Watson into James Bond, Sean Connery style. Fast actions with special effects and very poor plot development are typical failures of this sterile Hollywood style project which has nothing to do with Sherlock. As I already mentioned partly, character of Dr Watson overpowers must dominating figure of Sherlock Holmes, which is sooo amateurish. Sherlock Holmes casting is a total failure, this guy matches Sherlock Holmes character as much as Sylvester Stallone. All in all, this is the bad time for Sherlock Holmes lovers.
Since too much has already been written about this crap, I'll confine
myself to some key points:
- Story: Thin to non-existent. Plot holes and logical blunders abound.
- Script: Complete failure. Just a succession of scenes without a coherent narrative.
- Acting: Mediocre and miscast (although I usually like both Law and Downey).
- Chemistry between characters: Completely non-existent.
- Action: Too many boring fight scenes, just for the sake of it.
- Humor: Got very thin very fast. Tried to be witty but failed miserably.
- Length: About two hours felt like three. Boring. Paralysing.
- Visuals: Some good shots of industrial London. CGI became quite dull soon, however.
Seriously, save your time and money!
If I were a supercomputer built to ruin Sherlock Holmes I could not
have done a better job. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle came back to life just
to die again of embarrassment. Maybe if anyone in Hollywood ever
bothered to read the source material tragedies like this would happen
Even though Holmes is one of the most recognizable names in literature they decided that he wasn't bad ass enough and turned him into a frigging UFC fighter. Instead of solving cases he just beats the crap out of everyone.
If you liked this movie, you are the problem with American cinema. Have some standards people.
I guess what is more depressing than this abominable movie is the many
laudatory reviews I have read here. Are audiences today so jaded, so
utterly disconnected from even their recent past, so completely
lobotomized that they would find kind words to say about such dreck as
this? I had thought that the unspeakable 1979 pastiche of HOUND OF THE
BASKERVILLES with Dudley Moore was about as low as one could get in the
filming of a Sherlock Holmes story. I was clearly wrong. This is the
end, the limit, the bottom of the calcium-encrusted barrel. Holmes
admirers (those who understand and appreciate the fine originals) will
stay away in droves if for no other reason than the hilarious
miscasting of the lead characters. Mr Downey as Holmes and Mr Law as
Watson rank right up there with such inspired casting choices as Tony
Curtis playing a medieval knight and Sharon Stone playing a gunfighter
of the old west. Ridiculous.
I doubt that Hollywood's renowned contempt for its audiences can be better illustrated than by this movie. Do moviegoers really enjoy having their intelligences insulted with such grand insouciance?
It is both pointless and useless to go on. We have given up what little culture we have left by allowing these amateurs to take great classics and turn them into idiotic roller-coaster rides. A paying public that can applaud, let alone part with the money to see, such a movie is clearly a public that can no longer recognize quality.
Some years ago, just before he passed away, the great producer Darryl Zanuck said "I know audiences feed on cr_p. But I cannot believe we are so lacking in ability that we cannot dish it up to them with a little style". Why bother, Mr Zanuck? Apparently anything thrown out to movie audiences today will be lapped up like cream.
Stay home and read a Conan Doyle original.
It's elementary Guy - keep it simple and develop your characters with a
plot that people can relate to.
I am trying to think where this film went wrong and I have reached the conclusion that it was just about everywhere.
What the hell Jude Law was doing in this load of tripe I will never know but you could say that his talent was completely wasted in endless predictable action and fight scenes.
If there was ever a one joke or one theme movie this was it. My God, didya ever guess that Sherlock Holmes has an amazing power of deduction? If you didn't, Guy Ritchie demonstrated this to us five hundred and ninety five times.
And Guy if you cannot come up with a feasible plot and have to ham it up - it HAS to be funny. And your villains HAVE to make you scared. My 8-yr-old grand-daughter was more frightened of Mrs Tweedy in Chicken Run than she was by Lord Blackwood in over-baked pad of codswallop.
I can only say that Basil Rathbone must be turning in his grave.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I am so very tired of people reviewing movies, which are subjective by nature, as blanketly "best ever" this and "best ever" that. That's simply a case of small minds and big egos at work. There are so many great Holmes films and portrayals out there, that it's asinine to declare any one film or one actor as "the best". Most reviewers who rave about this film claim how it finally got "it" right. Got what right? Your personal interpretation of Sherlock Holmes in your mind? What about Jack's mind? What about Sally's? Some go so far as to claim this film merits something extra because it debunks the very debatable myth that Holmes never wore the famous deerstalker cap. For the record, Holmes was described as wearing a hat made of "cloth" that was an "ear-flapped traveling cap" in the story Silver Blaze. Original illustrator Sidney Paget saw that as meaning a deerstalker in his mind and an image even more famous than the writing on the page was born. Sounds like Paget made a pretty sound deduction too if you ask me. Regardless, if you personally don't think Holmes ever wore a deerstalker in the stories would facts like that alone or in combo boost a film so much as to make its interpretation "the best". Equally valid claims can be made that Basil Rathbone, Jeremy Brett, Arthur Wontner, Douglas Wilmer, Peter Cushing, Clive Merrison, and others depending on your taste are the best. The question is, was the movie any good on its own and were the performances fun. I don't give a hoot if it was exactly how you pictured Holmes in your mind or if you thought it was better/worse than other Holmes' films or that it somehow isn't as authentic because it wasn't a verbatim dramatization of a Conan Doyle tale, etc (Jeremy Brett fans, you know what I'm talking about). If you liked the movie, great. If you like other Holmes' a lot better, more power to you. I personally think the new Sherlock Holmes film took a lot of hinted at bits of Holmes' personality and skills from the canon and gave those characteristics the spotlight. That's fine. Those aren't the qualities that took reign when I read the stories, but who cares? Why would I want to see the exact same thing I saw when I read the books? That would make for a monotonous world. Hurray for everybody's various interpretations and subjective and wonderfully different tastes! There are no gospel truths about movies or books or art, so please just say you "liked it a lot" instead of it was "the best". That's so unhelpful. Just tell me what you liked about it as a film on its own without comparing it to any books, or other versions/interpretations. That's like saying one food item is "the best". It's ridiculous. On a final note, this new interpretation is a welcome addition to the world of Sherlock Holmes. It doesn't diminish any of the older films or television series. It stands on its own as another fun ride for fans of mystery, action, and those who love many things Sherlock.
|Page 2 of 61:||           |
|Plot summary||Plot synopsis||Ratings|
|Awards||Newsgroup reviews||External reviews|
|Parents Guide||Official site||Plot keywords|
|Main details||Your user reviews||Your vote history|