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 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
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 4 of 63: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [Next]
Index 621 reviews in total 

63 out of 117 people found the following review useful:

out of step ...

2/10
Author: coxeter11
1 January 2010

... 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."

ugh.

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

**spoiler alert**

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.

Was the above review useful to you?

12 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

Oh dear!

1/10
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?

19 out of 30 people found the following review useful:

Boring and slow.

4/10
Author: Seersha1 from Sydney, Australia
15 January 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I didn't know what to expect going into this movie. My friend had free tickets, which is really the only reason I went. I don't know anything about Sherlock Holmes (aside from vague details), haven't read the books or researched the history of his character. So I go in with a blank slate, willing to enjoy the ride if the movie is good. Unfortunately it is not. In fact, it's bad. It's so bad and so boring that I literally fell asleep during the film. I think I missed a good 30 min chunk somewhere in the middle. Before you say, "Well then you can't possibly judge the film since you didn't see it all," let me say this: I didn't miss much. Because when I woke up, I was still able to follow the story just fine. I was at that stage, however, praying for the end to come quickly. The plot is bad, the acting is not much better. I hated the filming style, all that ridiculous slow-motion, fast-motion, fast cuts, narrating the fight scenes – all CRAP. And terribly distracting. I think RDJ is a good actor, Jude Law is fine and Rachel McAdams is good, too. So why did they do this movie? I place a lot of blame on Guy Richie who just seems self-indulgent and determined to be 'stylish' instead of actually making a movie for audiences. My advice: Don't bother seeing this movie, even if you are a fan of Sherlock Holmes. I don't know his backstory, but I'm told they pretty much ruined his character in this movie and turned him into some weird-ninja-dude.

Was the above review useful to you?

22 out of 36 people found the following review useful:

exactly what i feared

3/10
Author: marquisoftranbeam from United Kingdom
5 May 2010

When I heard that Guy Ritchie was making a Sherlock Holmes movie I shuddered. I had a horrible idea of a stupid, glossy action movie that had nothing to do with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's writing.

The casting of Robert Downey Junior and Jude Law did little to reassure me.

The movie was everything I feared..a steampunk version of Holmes for American teenagers with Holmes' "woman" Irene Adler shoe-horned in.

There are action scenes galore, some of them are decently staged but this is not a Holmes story.

I went in with low expectations and my worst fears were realised.A better disappointment.

Was the above review useful to you?

56 out of 104 people found the following review useful:

Unrelated to the detective of the same name

2/10
Author: drrap from United States
25 December 2009

I love Robert Downey Jr., and he's funny and engaging as always in the role he takes on in this film. Unfortunately, his character, though named after the "Sherlock Homes" invented by Arthur Conan Doyle, has almost nothing in common with his literary ancestor. This film's "Holmes" is a hyper-kinetic pugilist who excels at swinging numchuks, swan-diving into the Thames from second-story windows, and leaping about city buildings in a manner reminiscent of the Assassin's Creed video game franchise. For that matter, the hyper-real Victorian London of the film's exterior shots has a very similar computer-generated feel to it, one amplified when it vividly depicts the Tower of London on the wrong side of the Thames, among other gaffes.

There is none of the cerebral intensity, none of the subdued emotion, essential to Holmes as a character. A pipe appears precisely three times, and a cigar if proffered but unsmoked. Jude Law's Watson shows little affection for or understanding of this nouveau Holmes, and their little bits of stage business evoke nothing of the vital feeling between them.

That said, if a steam-punk action-adventure film that's built around three or four elaborate chase sequences appeals, this film may be a fun way to spent an afternoon -- it's certainly a decent "popcorn" flick. But anyone who knows anything about, or cares very much for, Conan Doyle's immortal character would be better off staying home and popping a few Jeremy Bretty DVD's into their player.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 9 people found the following review useful:

Dull, over-bearing update of classic literary series

4/10
Author: davideo-2 from United Kingdom
14 September 2010

STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning

Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) finally catches the elusive Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), who's been responsible for a series of murders and occult black magic use in 19th century England, and sees him, or apparently sees him executed. But when it appears the super-villain has mysteriously risen from the grave, Holmes and his nagging but ever loyal sidekick Dr. Watson (Jude Law) must use all their detective know how and skill to solve the mystery while dodging obstruction from every corner of London society.

A big screen adaptation for 21st century audiences of Arthur Conon Doyle's legendary literary detective was an unusual change of direction for southern hot shot Guy Ritchie to take on, but he's gone at it with his usual gusto, leaving no stone unturned and striving for the most professional job he can get. Unfortunately, his SH is a bewildering mess, a long, heavy, humourless affair that is curiously short on entertainment value.

Much of the dialogue is probably true to the style Doyle originally used in his novels, but it is nonetheless baffling and over-whelming even to someone like me who isn't much of a lover for slang. It manages to be a lot of style with no real substance, and for a 'blockbuster' doesn't give you a lot to be on the edge of your seat about. Performances wise, Downey Jr. tries to get under the skin of the lead character, but doesn't stand out and does a questionable cockney accent, while Law is as bland and unremarkable as ever as the sidekick. Even support like Eddie Marsan and Kelly Reilly can't do anything. Strong is good as the villain, practically playing the role in his sleep, and things do perk up a bit at the end. Overall, though, Ritchie should stick to gangster films. **

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 8 people found the following review useful:

Visually stylish, otherwise totally bland

4/10
Author: paulj_ from United States
2 March 2011

As with most of Hollywood "blockbuster" cinema these days, the film suffers from an inescapable, one-dimensionalism. It is all about style; the cinematography, costuming, digital sets and effects, etc. are all top notch. As well, the quippy dialogue betrays a certain shallow, slick stylism that the script suffers from in general. However, far from being a clever distillation of the best of Holmes and Watson, the film instead suffers throughout from a post-modernistic reductionism that flattens our heroes into effete, world-weary caricatures of their literary counterparts.

In a nutshell, for Holmes enthusiasts particularly, the film--in spite of the stylishly depicted action sequences--is dull and soulless, almost as if bored with its own pointlessness. Telling of our times, perhaps, but far from great storytelling.

Was the above review useful to you?

26 out of 46 people found the following review useful:

Sherlock ADHD

1/10
Author: alfa-624-376688 from Netherlands
2 January 2010

Why did I find this movie totally boring?

The acting: None of the characters could hold my attention. All of them lacked a soul. Watching Robert Downey Jr is like watching a brick wall, nothing happens, only a negative radiation and a view in a bottomless lake. The 2 leading ladies were also a big disappointment, catwalk faces with zero expression. Ow, how I missed a Hitchcock heroin. I always love Jude Law but here his sparkles also die and it's not his fault, he was still the best of them all. Btw, Jude looks very sexy with mustache.

The directing: Guy Ritchie probably focused only on the visuals and the story. As far as scenery and so on the movies is okay. The story however is way too blurry and unnecessarily complex and far-fetched. A typical boy's story, -now this happens now that happens- -this is fun that is fun- with no thoughts about the feelings to trigger with the viewer. Everything we get to see is brainy and rational. 19th Century London could have been breathtaking atmospheric if only this product wasn't aimed at the ADHD generation.

Digital filming: it is obvious this movie was not shot on celluloid but digitally shot which saves a lot of money. The problem with digital shooting becomes clear during action scenes, they are not fluid but shaky. Also the dynamics between light and dark are very limited. The whole movie is covered in a boring grey scale which even covers the girls make up.

The editing: It is way too fast, so none of the scenes make it to the unconsciousness or can become iconic.

Music and sound: I can't remember any tune anymore, except that left and right speakers continually gave dis adjusted sounds.

Was the above review useful to you?

6 out of 7 people found the following review useful:

Seems to be based on non-Sherlock Holmes material

5/10
Author: ravenosa from United States
10 June 2010

Where to start? My main problem with the film was there being NO Sherlock Holmes or Watson characters, and NO mystery plot. Seemed more like some strange action/fantasy hybrid.

I have a feeling we'll find out where there going with this in the sequel. Perhaps Jude Law is actually playing Sherlock Holmes? I think Robert Downey may be covering for him, as Jude seemed to be the one more likely to be the Sherlock type.

Other than the lack of plot and characters, I had a major problem with the ridiculous action scenes. I guess I should have been ready for them from seeing the trailers/commercials but there's more ridiculous action than I could tolerate. Especially for a film labeled as a Sherlock Holmes film.

1/10. Can't recommend it for any reason.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

Insipid and boring

3/10
Author: oarch from e.g. London, England
6 April 2010

Maybe I'm getting old, but maybe this movie is just stupid.

Most of the time various people just run around like headless chicken. Any B-movie from the 80s had a more solid plot than this waste of celluloid.

The only difference is the production, but not even that is very impressive.

I guess this is the way Hollywood movies are made these days, but I think when our kids see this in 20 years time they will think "how could you watch this junk willingly?" I could forgive over the top acting, I could forgive over the top everything else, but I can't forgive that they forgot to conceive a plot for this.

It's one of those movies that you struggle to remember whether you've seen it or you've just seen the trailer and someone warned you not to waste time with it. Well, I've seen it and I warn you not to waste time with it.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 4 of 63: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [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