Anyone see Sherlock Holmes yet?

[Adar Tallon]

I saw it and I loved it. It was one of the more accurate portrayals of Holmes on screen. The whole giant Calabash pipe and deerstalker hat were things made up by the movie industry. All of the things that make people baulk and say this movie isn't "Sherlock Holmes" are actually just BS constructs the movie industry fabricated out of thin air anyway back in the day.

In the stories Holmes is a drug addict, not very friendly, and only interested in difficult cases. He's kind of a dick and doesn't really care about the money or the client only the puzzle of the case. He was also a fighter something the movies never really touched upon before. I mean he was a boxer and a marksmen. They didn't get his look quite right though because while he's described as being Bohemian he's also described as being fastidious and neat in the way he dresses, but otherwise they got the book spot on.

darth myeek I think you had a bad projectionist because mine looked rather clear.

 

[Solo4114]

People who get irked by Holmes not wearing the deerstalker cap and having the pipe are the same people who get irked that Bond movies don't have enough gadgets and one-liners. They aren't in it for the literary version of either character (who is INFINITELY superior to the film version). They just want their cartoon version of the character.

I haven't seen this yet and, based on the reviews here, I suspect I'll just wait for DVD. It doesn't seem to be the kind of film you HAVE to see in theaters. I'm glad they translated the "Holmes is kind of a jerk, a druggie, and absolutely in it for the puzzle rather than anything else" part. That's important to Holmes' character and a nice tip of the hat to the literary figure.

Anyway, if you want literary Holmes brought to life, the Granada TV version with Jeremy Brett is it. To me, Brett will always be the definitive Holmes.

 

[chris_s]

Wife wanted to see it. I'm a big reader and usually have a hard time with movie takes on books *cough* LOTR *cough*
But I liked this take on Holmes. The movie did leave you feeling a little empty for some reason. But I loved the way Holmes is portrayed - they did a great job showing you his thought process. And that he is a touch crazy I thought was also fabulous - that his overwhelming power of observation just makes him a bit off.

This was a great Watson! And the interaction between all of the characters was great. Especially between Holmes and Irene. It wasn't the usual shallow play you get between the male and female leads.

I think you'll enjoy it. I'd go see it the theater.

edit - Should say this take on Holmes was very different than my views on him. But it was different in a very good way!

 

[wuher da brewer]

I like Sherlock Holmes a lot. I've got a few Cushing movies and all the Rathbone movies. The trailers for this kind of put me off. It just looks like another Eighties style buddy cop film stuffed with gratuitous action sequences. I'll see it. I just haven't been in a hurry to see it.

I haven't seen a Guy Ritchie film since he married Madonna. I absolutely loved Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, but thought Snatch was a disappointing big name retread of Two Smoking Barrels and liked it far less.

 

[ob1al]

Anyway, if you want literary Holmes brought to life, the Granada TV version with Jeremy Brett is it. To me, Brett will always be the definitive Holmes.

Quoted for truth.

Brett was such a perfect Holmes it is nigh on impossible to better him. A long list of actors have played Holmes both before and after Brett's untimely death but, despite some very memorable offerings, not one has come close to Brett's definitive portrayal.

 

[Treadwell]

I liked it.

 

[dbuck]

Wife and I saw it today and I must say.......meh.
I will say I did like most of the atmosphere, the cast was better than I thought they might be, and I liked the lively banter.
But the banter creates a tempo the film does not match, making it feel longer than it was, with both my wife and I shifting quite uncomfortably in our seats a fair amount.
I will not bother with this movie again on dvd or tv.

edit: forgot,

they showed a whopping 7 trailers before the movie. Seven full trailers. And I timed them. 18 minutes.

Iron Man 2
Datenight (or something like that)
The Wolfman
Cop Out
The Bounty Hunter
The Sorcerers Apprentice
Clash of the Titans

The audience was a bit nonplussed by the time the movie really did start.

 

[Zombie_61]

I saw it last weekend; good performances and a good script hampered by a weak and uninteresting story.

I do agree with the previous comments about the chemistry between Downey and Law; it's almost worth seeing just for that. Mark Strong as Lord Blackwood is a solid presence, and Rachel McAdams as Irene Adler delivers in what could easily have been a thankless role. Unlike most "mystery" films, this is more of a "how he done it" than a "who done it", but by the time they get to the obvious sequel set-up it makes the entire film seem like not much more than one long sequel set-up.

Since it has been mentioned, thankfully the film is not an "action" film. There are a few action sequences, but they're relatively brief.

Also, I've never read any of Doyle's novels or seen any of the previous Sherlock Holmes films, so I have no frame of reference for comparison. I have seen only two other films directed by Guy Ritchie--Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, and Snatch--both of which IMO were better executed than Sherlock Holmes.

Overall I enjoyed the film, but IMO the story (or perhaps the storytelling) left a great deal of room for improvement.

 

[JD]

I enjoyed the heck out of it. Maybe it was the low expectations I went in with that helped me enjoy the film that much more.

Yeah, I guess there are some of us out there that think they are above a good popcorn flick; but, sometimes you just gotta sit back and let the movie do the work and entertain you. But, I also think it was a bit more than your average popcorn flick.

Sherlock Holmes worked for me on many different levels. Mostly, I think Downey Jr. and Law were amazing and I thought the effects were pretty spiffy too - pretty seamless bringing old England to life.

Personally, I think Holmes was by far the superior movie over Avatar... or just about anything else I've seen this year (ok, ok.. there were some other good flicks this year too!)

 

[Risu]

Somebody mentioned earlier that something about the movie left them feeling a bit let down, I felt the same way. I did really enjoy it though. Beautifully shot, great acting, had enough deduction, and I can never complain about a movie with Rachel McAdams in it. I've never read the books, just seen a few of the Rathbone movies, but I thought this version of Holmes was great.

The unexpected brutality of the action scenes was strangely appealing. You don't often see a movie where somebody just hauls off and kicks a guy in the face for trying to get back up.

 

[Servo]

I saw it yesterday and somewhat enjoyed it. True, it was closer to the books than the older films. It was a good waste of an afternoon.

My wife asked me to describe it to her to see if it's a film she'd go see... the best I could come up with was it was like a 2-hour episode of HOUSE, MD set in London with House as Holmes and Wilson as Watson - but with fisticuffs.

I can't tell if it was the CGI that just didn't scale right, but some scenes were in focus, other scenes weren't. So it wasn't a soft focus for effect, it was just inconsistent.

I thought the same thing. At one point, I was almost ready to go complain that the projector was out of focus. (It was out of focus during the first trailer and they fixed it -- I thought it might have slipped out again.)

 

[KnightAsylum]

While I did not love the film (as I said earlier) I did enjoy the dialog between Holmes at Watson, Although I think the overall story itself falls flat for me, I think it was very well written in that regard - although I do think they were playing it in a way to encourage the questions about how close their relationship really was. I know RDJ has been teasing that part of the film in public, if for no other reason then to get press, but I did not know that when I saw the film, and still questioned the level of their relationship. Regardless of the intent of true back story, it works, and the quality of those two actors in the parts is what made the film something I did not regret seeing, although I would not likely go see a another if they make it.

 

[Solo4114]

While I did not love the film (as I said earlier) I did enjoy the dialog between Holmes at Watson, Although I think the overall story itself falls flat for me, I think it was very well written in that regard - although I do think they were playing it in a way to encourage the questions about how close their relationship really was. I know RDJ has been teasing that part of the film in public, if for no other reason then to get press, but I did not know that when I saw the film, and still questioned the level of their relationship. Regardless of the intent of true back story, it works, and the quality of those two actors in the parts is what made the film something I did not regret seeing, although I would not likely go see a another if they make it.

Wait.

There's a movie you DIDN'T like?!

 

[yodakiller1138]

While Downey captured the character of Holmes perfectly I was thinking as I was watching the film;why they didn't get Mark Strong to play Holmes? He looked like the living embodiment of the Sydney Paget drawings of Holmes.

 

[KnightAsylum]

Wait.

There's a movie you DIDN'T like?!

A few actually including off the top of my head...Deathproof (so bad I wanted to ask for my money back) , the first few times seeing TDK, Bladerunner, Drag me to Hell, a Boy and his Dog, Cabin Fever, Twilight, The Day the Earth Stood Still (remake), Shawshank Redemption, The Godfather fillms, 2001, and so on...:rolleyes

But back on topic - I did like the fight scenes - very well done.:thumbsup

 

[Zombie_61]

My wife asked me to describe it to her to see if it's a film she'd go see... the best I could come up with was it was like a 2-hour episode of HOUSE, MD set in London with House as Holmes and Wilson as Watson - but with fisticuffs.

That's funny--the same thing crossed my mind at one point while I was watching the film! :thumbsup

 

[Uber Fett]

I saw it and I loved it. It was one of the more accurate portrayals of Holmes on screen. The whole giant Calabash pipe and deerstalker hat were things made up by the movie industry. All of the things that make people baulk and say this movie isn't "Sherlock Holmes" are actually just BS constructs the movie industry fabricated out of thin air anyway back in the day.

In the stories Holmes is a drug addict, not very friendly, and only interested in difficult cases. He's kind of a dick and doesn't really care about the money or the client only the puzzle of the case. He was also a fighter something the movies never really touched upon before. I mean he was a boxer and a marksmen. They didn't get his look quite right though because while he's described as being Bohemian he's also described as being fastidious and neat in the way he dresses, but otherwise they got the book spot on.

darth myeek I think you had a bad projectionist because mine looked rather clear.

Spot on...

 

[rocketeer25]

Finally saw it tonight and loved it! Great chemistry between Watson and Holmes... Decent story... Great action.

I'm up for a sequel!! :thumbsup

Spoiler Question!!

Spoiler

Did Holmes have Irene Adler arrested at the end? And if he did, did he give the jewel she had stolen to Watson's fiancee?

 

[rollerboi]

Spoiler

Edit: thanks for using the tags.

 

[punisher]

Finally saw it tonight and loved it! Great chemistry between Watson and Holmes... Decent story... Great action.

I'm up for a sequel!! :thumbsup

Spoiler Question!!





***

You should put spoiler in the title. I scrolled down and read under the black part assuming the spoiler was "blacked out" :unsure
Really not cool. I was avoiding spoilers.