The movie just came out, any of you guys seen it? I just saw it with some mates, i thought it was pretty good. Robert Downey Jr. ++

For those of you that haven't seen it, or heard of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUQbmFAE5WI

 

Cage fight, are you serious?

 

Yeah, it's pretty good. I watched it before yesterday in the cinema, it's not exactly as great as the books, but in its own right it's a good thing to watch. Spoilers below in form of pros and cons:











Pros:
Excellent humor from Holmes and Watson, though Holmes was a bit hard to understand at times.
An enemy in Blackhelm, and a nice mystery to go through the movie as the two men sleuth.
Holmes/Irene interaction was rather good, as was his interaction with the French giant.
Actress who played Irene was rather hot.

Cons:
The romance Holmes finds himself in that gets half-resolved in the end.
The last twenty or so minutes of the movie debunking all the "magic" that appeared in the rest of it, was very rushed and didn't absorb it well enough to leave the movie completly understanding what the hell was happening. Which also removed the point for the fucking raven flying around everywhere.
Professor Moriarty. Why the hell was he involved? It made the movie seem like little more than a prologue for a sequel with the bastard.

 

Saw it yesterday, rather good. Music was superb.

Hashasheen, dunno if you've seen any of the TV Holmes stuff, but the whole ending debunk is pretty much tradition. Though it was still rushed. Holmes always, in the TV versions of the novels, had a nice little ending exposition speech

 

Debunking it isn't what upsets me. Its how built up the idea of magic was in-movie (Watson even contributing), and then the last twenty minutes rushes quickly through the debunking of everything that happened. Had they instead taken the villain into police custody and then had Holmes take the police through the steps, it might have been better paced. And it would have explained how Moriarty took what he wanted from the machine while Watson was still in the damn tunnels.

Meh, it was a good movie, and defenitly one I wouldn't mind watching again.

 

Saw it today. Was entertained.

*has read all the original Sherlock Holmes stories*

 

Then the movie is not terrible to the eyes of a Sherlock Holmes fan? I'm pretty much a Holmes fanboy, and I was a bit surprised and unsure by the way Guy Richie had decided to take on the mythos.

 

No, it was actually pretty good. The plot is not canon, but it was done pretty well.

Downey Jr. captured a lot of Holmes eccentricities pretty well and really seemed to fit the role. The only major gripe I have with the movie is Holmes being portrayed as this super!martial artist and Watson as a doctor with a gambling problem who can handle his own in a brawl. I can't remember if Watson had a gambling problem in the original stories, and I don't remember him fighting all that much; he usually carried a firearm, which the movie did get right.

Those things were easily overlooked though, because it's just Hollywood being Hollywood and it doesn't really detract from the movie too much.

Oh, and Irene Adler = :awesome

 

I liked it. I never read the books, so I don't really have a problem with things like Holmes winning fights and stuff. It's kind of funny that every hit he makes is a critical.

 

I'm pretty sure Holmes was a competent martial artist in the books as well. Boxing, fencing, a Japanese martial art, and cane fighting if I remember correctly were all listed as part of his rather varied fighting style. Wasn't there a prize fighter who said Holmes wasted his talents in fighting? I was thinking a boxer told him that at some point. I find it to be rather odd when people complain of Holmes being a good fighter as if they expect him to above such brutish displays due to his unusually high intellect.

 

Bartitsu was the martial art Holmes trained in. Fencing principles, Boxing punches and footwork and Jiu Jitsu are part of the system.

 

Well, as a great Holmes fan, I can say this movie isn't as bad as most of the purists make it out to be...

Scratch that. I think one of the major, even the only saving grace of the movie is Robert Downey Jr. who played Holmes really well, fleshing his intelligence. There was a scene where Holmes was in a diner and he couldn't help noticing all the details of the people, to the point he gets a headache. I was quite impressed by that scene.

That aside, I did like the chemistry between Watson and Holmes. Demon of the night: Watson had a military background, so I think that's what they are trying to portray. Besides, I did get sick of Watson being an idiot, since Holmes chose him for SOME reason. The books seem to portray him as intelligent, at any rate.

Irene Adler was exactly my image of her, yet I feel they didn't do as much as they could have with her. She seems to be there JUST to set up the sequel, while turning into a damsel in distress. Which I absolutely hated.

The plot was rushed, the pace draggy, only the wit of Holmes and Watson while they were interacting helped. The antagonist was typical, though that has more to do with the characterisation than the actor.

At any rate, tl;dr, Sherlock Holmes was good, but not nearly as great as it could have been. With Robert Downey Jr. and Holmes, it wasn't difficult to hit amazing. But this is just entertaining, and solid.

 

I really liked Downey as Holmes, but overall, I didn't really like this movie all that much. I can't think of any one thing that bugged me about, I just... didn't really like it.

 

A competent movie, but the mystery didn't need Sherlock Holmes to solve it. Not even Dupont.

 

Would you say it rated a Marple?

 

I saw this movie yesterday and I enjoyed it immensely, one of the better movies I have seen in a year. I liked Watson, Holmes and the woman Irene Adler played but whose name escapes me right now and I did not think she was damsel in distress, I rather liked what she did and how she behaved.

Also I liked the scenes where it slowed down so that we could experience Holmes' thinking process and the way he planned in fights.

I haven't read all of the Holmes books and those that I have read, I read five-six years ago but did Holmes behave this antisocial? Which was the only part that miffed me a bit. I mean you might as well have him replaced with Dr. House. Now I know that House was based on Holmes but in this they are identical, I thought Holmes was someone who did not like offending people or at least did not go out of his way to offend someone. He made people uncomfortable with his observations but I don't remember him being this gleeful about it, but I may remember it wrong though.

Now I love House and I loved this Holmes but it just struck me as weird.

But all in all, great movie, 5/5, would watch it again anytime and I am looking forward to the sequel.

 

I really enjoyed it - I'm not sure how close to the books it was (I've only read '...Baskervilles', to my shame), but it was a damn good film regardless of that. I'd definitely be up for a sequel.

Just so long as they actually include the scenes with Rachel McAdams in a corset this time. Yes, I'm shallow

 

You don't think they're planning a sequel?

That was one of my major problems, it reeked of cash cow franchise setup. I didn't mind Moriarty staying in the shadows - Mark Strong was a fine villain, imo - but the prequel vibe was a bit excessive sometimes.

The other problem was with the action. The slow-motion fighting is cool, with an intellectual touch, but they spend most of the film running around, brawling and exploding things. Makes you wonder about the whole sleuthing part. The plot construction suffers a lot too; Guy Ritchie usually does better when he writes his own screenplays.

I also wasn't satisfied with the exposition at the end, but I don't really know why. Maybe it just wasn't properly set-up.

Still entertaining though, and the lead actors are great, so if they do the sequel properly it could be epic. Or not.