IMDb > Sherlock Holmes (2009) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Sherlock Holmes
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guide
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Sherlock Holmes More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 2 of 63:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]
Index 629 reviews in total 

17 out of 24 people found the following review useful:

Sherlock Who?

2/10
Author: wespain from United States
26 February 2011

I avoided this film in theaters. The trailers indicated I wouldn't see a Sherlock Holmes I'd know or like. And the DVD justified my fears. I didn't want to sit through "Sherlock Holmes---Superhero!" I wanted a plot that had at least some plausibility. It's hard to believe this was directed by an Englishman. It doesn't feel true to its period, or English society in general. I wanted a version of Victorian-Edwardian England I'd at least recognize. This concoction plays like Michael Bey mugging Arthur Conan Doyle. I will give Robert Downey Jr credit. He does bring some genuine panache to ole Sherlock. In fact, his performance makes it all bearable. The rest of a pretty good cast is wasted in a hyped-up video game version of Sherlock Holmes.

Was the above review useful to you?

23 out of 36 people found the following review useful:

Basil Rathbone must be turning in his grave

1/10
Author: jandcmcq from Sydney Australia
24 January 2011

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

23 out of 36 people found the following review useful:

Indiana Holmes and the Masonic House of Lords

2/10
Author: ShippedCutOut from United States
12 April 2010

Rarely have I hated a film as much as I did this rendition of Sherlock Holmes. Blame the script, and to some extent, the director for willingly filming this mess. They have completely misinterpreted one of the greatest characters ever, presenting Holmes as an Action Figure. What is it about Hollywood that thinks we want to see vast conspiracy cults, intent upon taking over the city, the world, the universe? Why do they continue to turn already entertaining stories into total mishmashes of roller coaster, smash-boom-bah adventures? Whether "Dragnet," or "Temple of Doom," or "National Treasure," it seems that the Suits in Hollywood want every film to imitate the original Indiana Jones with a measure of Da Vinci Code on the side.

Granted, I have been a major Holmes fan ever since seeing the Basil Rathbone version of "Hound of the Baskervilles" long ago and then reading "Red Headed League" in grade school. Since then, I've read the entire collection and enjoyed more Rathbone and the wonderful Jeremy Brett interpretations on PBS, as well as some other more forgettable "consulting detectives." What they all have in common-- what makes Holmes such a memorable character-- is their reliance of the cerebral to solve the crime; not the physical.

Ritchie gives us a few inklings into Holmes deductive reasoning, to show us that the little details can contribute to an overall portrait of who, what, when, etc. But he also more frequently has Holmes punching villains, brawling in the betting ring, dodging a massive ship's hull as it lumbers towards him in dry dock, leaping head first out an upper window of the House of Parliament into the Thames, and concluding with a literal cliff hanger atop the then under construction London Bridge. By coincidence, today my cable was also showing a recent James Bond film, and that film offered fewer explosions and violent encounters per minute than SH.

I love Robert Downey and Rachel McAdams is a fetching actress-- but both are wasted in this film. I am reminded of a comment made long ago about the filming of "Gone With the Wind" which more or less said, "The audience will forgive you for what you leave out, but they will have a hard time with what you put in." I'm sorry, but everything that was put into this mess was a travesty to everything that Sherlock Holmes has been for all these years. What were they thinking?

Cerebral Holmes=good; Action Holmes=BMW ad. Ugh.

Was the above review useful to you?

34 out of 58 people found the following review useful:

Sherlock gets re-imaged for the MTV generation.

4/10
Author: Spikeopath from United Kingdom
16 May 2010

You know, come the finale of Guy Ritchie's "update" of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's much loved super sleuth I was not only bored to almost impending sleep, but also struck with one overriding question; why not just make a Victorian piece about a couple of swanky buddy sleuths and leave out the name Sherlock Holmes? The answer of course is obvious, to me at least, it's a name that sells. Mr Ritchie would most likely tell us that he wanted to bring the great detective to the attention of a whole new generation, whilst simultaneously making it appealing to the "youth" of today. Not elementary my dear Mr Ritchie, it's a cash in if you please. A cash in further aided by the casting of the talented and in vogue Robert Downey Jr as Holmes. Whilst casting Jude Law as Watson {so effectively a secondary role that suits Law perfectly} also carries some aesthetic weight for a younger audience.

The film does pretty much what one expects of a family blockbuster, in short, simple frothy fun that's sadly devoid of any mystery or intelligence befitting the once Deerstalker attired one. There's action and explosions, even good old fist fights given the Ritchie slow-mo make over, but these are either preceded or followed by long bouts of tedium. Not helped by an unadventurous & dull plot involving Mark Strong's {value for money performance} black magic shenanigans as Lord Blackwood, and the pointless inclusion of the anonymous Rachel McAdams as Holmes' ex love interest Irene Adler. All of which comes together for a rather uninspiring show down on a half built Tower Bridge. The set design is smart and on the money (Sarah Greenwood), as are the costumes (Jenny Beavan), but the same can't be said for the sound mix, which is quite frankly skewy and renders some of Downey Jr's brainy ramblings inaudible. Same for the score, Hans Zimmer goes for bombastic, which would have worked if it wasn't in conjunction with diddly day-diddly doo Celtic music. I mean this is Victorian England right? You could have set the film somewhere Celtic Mr Ritchie-since you have changed most of the essence of the character anyway. Hmm.

The sequel is inevitable given that the film has made monster amounts of cash, and no doubt about it, Law & Downey Jr have great chemistry. But this is comic book Sherlock, an attempt at an action comedy mixing brains with brawn. The end result being almost a cure for insomnia. 4/10

Was the above review useful to you?

34 out of 58 people found the following review useful:

The most painful experience of my life!

1/10
Author: Ad Love from United Kingdom
5 May 2010

Believe it or not there were 8mins 36 seconds of credits on that pile of turd. That means nearly 1000 people wanted their name to be associated with it. And some of those must be requested credits like 2nd associate directors assistants executive producers dogs hair dresser.....kind of thing. Now correct me if i am wrong but don't people usually shy away from being associated with criminal activity. Like on crime watch do they not blur out peoples faces? And this film is the BIGGEST crime known to man. How? Why? was it made. It lacked several key elements required to make a film. Namely Characters, Plot, Script, Action, Relivance etc... I mean i have no actual idea what this horse **** excuse for a film is about. Who was the bad guy? Why was he bad? When did Sherlock Holmes become a ninja assassin? Who was the girl? What was she doing? Did she also study ninja in 1800 London? Why did they all have American accents? It is set in London or the wild west? Is Jude Law stuck in the role of that android he played in the other really pooh movie? He sure moves like a robot and acts totally emotionless! Didn't Sherlock Holmes smoke a pipe? Well i think Robert Downey junior must have been smoking a crack pipe when decided to make this film. And throughout making it....

And do you know what the most offencive part about it is? THEY HAVE ALREADY PENNED A Sequel! How can you have a follow up to a film where nothing happens? Don't you first need a story in order to follow it up with a second story? And who on earth would desire to watch a sequel to a film so terrible it is actually offencive... Its beyond the point were you can amuse yourself with how bad it is. The only way i can describe the feeling of how i felt afterwards is when peter griffin grazes his knee.... THAT IS HOW I FELT, it was a nagging pain that still hasn't gone away! Seriously all copies of this movie should be exiled to Cuba where no-one will ever watch it again because they still use VHS! Painful Don't EVER WATCH IT!!!!

Was the above review useful to you?

35 out of 60 people found the following review useful:

Guy Ritchie will only be remembered

1/10
Author: JoeB131 from United States
28 April 2010

for being Madonna's 59th boyfriend.

Judging by this cinematic piece of filth, he certainly won't be remembered for anything else.

Hey, what a neat idea. Let's take these iconic characters who've been around for a century and totally screw with them. Let's make Holmes a dysfunctional slob, and Watson a gambling jerk, and give them some kind of frustrated bro-mance, with no chemistry.

Yeah, we'll use Jude Law and Robert Downey Jr., but it will still stink.

Okay, the CGI looked good, and they did some great set direction, but deep down, you don't care. These aren't the Holmes and Watson Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote about. They are at best clichés...

Was the above review useful to you?

42 out of 74 people found the following review useful:

What a piece of junk

1/10
Author: Terje Bergesen from Los Angeles, CA
13 January 2010

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

57 out of 104 people found the following review useful:

Sherlock Hates Irritating Theatrics

1/10
Author: mjpaulo-743-624105 from Redding, California
19 May 2010

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 coma

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.

Really bad.

Was the above review useful to you?

62 out of 114 people found the following review useful:

The Sign of the Bore

4/10
Author: moviedoors from United States
26 December 2009

I've finally figured out Guy Ritchie's fatal weakness as a filmmaker. He doesn't actually care about character, theme, or even storytelling. He just wants to be cool. He only wants characters that quirky, badasses, or sex godesses. Because they're cool. He employs flashy cutting, hyper-stylized cinematography, and fractured time lines. Because, they're cool!

This worked for the bonkers Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, and Snatch. Those movies were cool and it felt natural, easy. Things took a turn for the ugly with Swept Away, this decade's Isthar. Revolver was dreadful, and RocknRolla dances in your faces practically screaming "look how cool I am" and is then forgotten before you've even unlocked the car to leave the theater.

Which brings us to Ritchie's desperate-to-please, big-Hollywood style stab at Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's timeless icon. The production values are excellent. Period-appropriate London is completely convincing. Downey's Holmes captures the mad intensity of Doyle's character, withdrawn, depressed, and self destructive when he's has nothing to occupy is never ceasing ming, burning life and frantic energy when the case does arrive. He does however, straight up mumble for half the picture, rendering what might of been neat instances of observation/deduction/knowledge, but I couldn't tell. Couldn't understand him.

Ah, the case. When it comes to adaptations, remakes, re-imaginings, etc, I'm a pretty forgiving fellow, as long as the soul is intact. Change the race, change the gender, change the setting, but don't lose the essence. The mystery, the case, is the soul of a Sherlock Holmes tale and I'm afraid this is where Ritchie's film falls flat. Sure, there's something dastardly afoot, but solving the puzzle is beyond the audience to predict. We're not made a part of the unraveling. Stuff goes on that we don't understand, and it's all explained in the end in smash cut flash backs, filling us in with details that were never foreshadowed, many of them feeling like afterthoughts to dig the screenplay out of the hole it dug for itself. Doyle's stories invite us to narrow our brows and read carefully. One feels include in the unraveling. We're right there with Watson (who in this movie, is quite spry for a man with a permanent war injury) Here, Ritchie holds out on us, keeping the mechanics of the mystery entirely to himself. The larger mystery afoot exists for no other purpose than to make a sequel.

Why such failure in maintaining the soul of Holmes? Because Ritchie doesn't care about the mystery. He drowns the film in cool, in showy camera angles, manically (and confusingly cut) action and the whole affair is drummed up with buddy-movie comedic angle that falls flat. It's just not funny. The shifts in tone from funny, to mysterious, to thrilling, to dramatic, are jarring, barely held together at the seams. It's ultimately a crushing bore, lacking any sort of narrative momentum.

Guy Ritchie has undeniable talent as stylist. He'll can make a worthwhile movie. No one who works that hard with that much raw talent will just fade away. He needs to another round at bat to prove that too us again.

Was the above review useful to you?

67 out of 124 people found the following review useful:

An insult to Arthur Conan Doyle

1/10
Author: dctatner from United States
1 May 2010

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.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 2 of 63:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Plot synopsis Ratings
Awards External reviews Parents Guide
Official site Plot keywords Main details
Your user reviews Your vote history