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

Reviews & Ratings for
Sherlock Holmes More at IMDbPro »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 3 of 61: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]
Index 606 reviews in total 

82 out of 153 people found the following review useful:

my god

Author: (Cestus-635-979040) from United States
15 January 2010

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 less.

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

84 out of 157 people found the following review useful:

the nadir

Author: guenzeld from United States
4 January 2010

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 14 people found the following review useful:

Oh dear!

Author: Sjhm from United Kingdom
17 November 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This has to rate as one of the most infuriating, frustrating films I think I have ever seen.

The good bits: Robert Downey Jr turns in a very credible and intelligent performance as Holmes.

The bad bits: It was a great pity that his performance is all at sea in a script that is a complete mess, and his back up is Jude Law -- the second most annoying and irritating Dr Watson I have ever come across.

The bad guy -- now there is an infuriatingly over the top villain. The constant fights, the heavy-handed suspend-disbelief stunts. The film never "settles" long enough for me to get into it. It leaps wildly from highlight to highlight without even a corresponding lowlight to slow things down a bit. It's just too much.

Was the above review useful to you?

17 out of 24 people found the following review useful:

Basil Rathbone must be turning in his grave

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?

20 out of 30 people found the following review useful:

So tired of subjective "best ever" reviews

Author: Jeremy Fredrikson from United States
11 January 2010

*** 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.

Was the above review useful to you?

26 out of 42 people found the following review useful:

Sherlock gets re-imaged for the MTV generation.

Author: JohnRouseMerriottChard 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?

30 out of 50 people found the following review useful:

Guy Ritchie will only be remembered

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?

39 out of 68 people found the following review useful:

What a piece of junk

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?

10 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Sherlock Who?

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?

21 out of 33 people found the following review useful:

Bad movie, most of all not for Sherlock Holmes fans

Author: vittorix from Chicago - United States
2 February 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

This movie was extremely boring (my friend slept through most of it) and irritating.

I've been a real Sherlock Holmes stories fan for many years (first place visited in London? 221B Baker Street - I've read all of the stories 6 times).

I was very disappointed by the shame that movie makes of itself by transforming the noblest of men (Watson and Holmes) into two idiots punching each other (!!!). Mary Morstan that throws a cocktail in Sherlock's face? ARE WE CRAZY?! The noblest men into two idiots and the best friendship into a ridiculous series of insults.


If you are not a Holmes fan it's just still a mediocre modern movie full of action and with an horrible story.

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 3 of 61: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

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