# Rate Sherlock Holmes (2009)



## Krug (Dec 25, 2009)

So what did you think of Guy Ritchie's interpretation of the great detective?


----------



## Crothian (Dec 25, 2009)

THe characters were fine, the story was a mess and just tried too much.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Dec 26, 2009)

Action Sherlock does not work, they tried too hard to the effect that it just seemed jumbled.  Felt they dumbed down the character with the action.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Dec 26, 2009)

Hand of Evil said:


> Action Sherlock does not work, they tried too hard to the effect that it just seemed jumbled.  Felt they dumbed down the character with the action.




I disagree completely. I thought it worked just fine.

It wasn't a perfect movie, by any means. I thought it dragged in a few places, and while I enjoy convoluted plotlines, this one felt a bit convoluted in the wrong ways.

But I enjoyed the movie as a whole, enough to want the DVD, and I thought the performances--and yes, the portrayal of Holmes--were the high points.


----------



## Goodsport (Dec 26, 2009)

I liked it. 

The production values were very good (there's no doubting that it's set in late Victorian-era London), Robert Downey, Jr. and Jude Law did very well in their roles (this version's Sherlock Holmes was a bit more disheveled than past film versions and maybe even in the books, though this version's Dr. John Watson was more the former army surgeon from the books rather than the bumbler of past film versions), and Rachel McAdams as Irene Adler was absolutely stunning! 

The story was pretty good and the immediate story arc was completed  by film's end, though a few loose ends remained and it's obvious at the end that a sequel toward the "bigger picture" of the arc is implied (though whether said sequel will happen depends on this film's box office returns, I'm sure).

It certainly would've been worth the regular price of admission or even the discounted price of most early showings, but it was _totally_ worth the price for me since I got to use the first of my two pre-paid movie passes I received at my work's Secret Santa party last week, so all I had to pay for today was my popcorn and drink. 


-G


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Dec 26, 2009)

Not the worst Holmes movie that I have ever seen (I reserve that for The Adventure of Sherlock Holmes' Smarter Brother (1975) directed and starring Gene Wilder), and a trifle better than Without a Clue - which is to say, it was still really, really bad.  It was a step up from the treatment of Wild, Wild West, and had decent sets. Downey as Holmes annoyed the Hell out of me, but Jude Law was better as Watson than I expected. Both could have worked on their diction, and taken a little note of Victorian sensibilities. 

I would give it a 2.5 out of the 10 above. But, I didn't have to pay for it, so I'll live.  Plot was not so much convoluted as lost, but Doyle was guilty of that too, more than once. What I really did not like was the interaction between Holmes and Watson - it grated like sand in the gear box.

Brett remains the best Holmes, so far. If Jude Law had the diction a trifle closer he might be the best Watson, even though the movie itself is really not all that good. It did make me want to see a steampunk Sherlock movie sometime, though.

The Auld Grump, for that matter, I would like to see the Holmes & Russel series by Laurie R. King become a movie series....


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Dec 26, 2009)

I really want to like it.  I think it will be successful enough to spawn a sequel and followups will easily be BETTER than this one was.  I think the story was... okay.  What I thought was an issue was the editing.  I think the editing is responsible for the story itself seeming so jumbled and messy.  Still, it was reasonably entertaining.  I gave it a 7 and that seems to be the general reaction to it.


----------



## stonegod (Dec 26, 2009)

Great chemistry, lush scenery, interesting interpretation, but ultimately just entertaining. Could have done more & better.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Dec 26, 2009)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Downey as Holmes annoyed the Hell out of me, but Jude Law was better as Watson than I expected. Both could have worked on their diction, and taken a little note of Victorian sensibilities.
> ... What I really did not like was the interaction between Holmes and Watson - it grated like sand in the gear box.




Wow. I loved Downey as Holmes, and I loved the interaction between them. Thought those were some of the movie's highlights.


----------



## catsclaw227 (Dec 27, 2009)

I haven't seen it yet, though I am planning to see a matinee during the week this next week.  I need surgery on my arm next Wednesday, so I will be out of commission for a while and want to get a holiday movie in before then.



Goodsport said:


> Rachel McAdams as Irene Adler was absolutely stunning!




I love her.  She is the ultimate girl-next-door beauty, but smart-sounding.



Goodsport said:


> The story was pretty good and the immediate story arc was completed  by film's end, though a few loose ends remained and it's obvious at the end that a sequel toward the "bigger picture" of the arc is implied (though whether said sequel will happen depends on this film's box office returns, I'm sure).




The box-office is showing good so far.    And they are definitely going into this looking to build a franchise.  A series like _Pirates of the Caribbean_ or similar.



TheAuldGrump said:


> Downey as Holmes annoyed the Hell out of me, but Jude Law was better as Watson than I expected. Both could have worked on their diction, and taken a little note of Victorian sensibilities.



Ouch!  I heard from two different groups of friends that they were great(!) together and I look forward to enjoying their chemistry for myself.  Hmmmm.... I'll fill you in later after I go see it. 



TheAuldGrump said:


> Brett remains the best Holmes, so far.



I have heard this from more than one person already.  I need to see this Holmes.


----------



## carrot (Dec 27, 2009)

I thought it was great. The plot wasn't anything too spectacular and Sherlock didn't really get to show off his deductive reasoning enough, but the leads were really good fun and it was certainly a darn sight more entertaining than most other Holmes films I've seen.


----------



## Mark (Dec 27, 2009)

catsclaw227 said:


> (Re: Jeremy Brett) I have heard this from more than one person already.  I need to see this Holmes.





Netflix currently has almost all of the Jeremy Brett = Holmes work in the Instant View section.  Dozens of Holmes hours to watch as the holidays wind down.  Be sure to check the years and watch them in order, as they are largely in the order they were published as tales, IIRC, with the possible exceptions of the longer tales which are made more or less as television movies rather than as part of the various year long series.  Also, even if you only buck up for a month, make sure to get a package that allows for unlimited Instant viewing.

1984 - The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes

1986 - The Return of Sherlock Holmes

1987 - Sherlock Holmes The Sign of Four

1988 - Sherlock Holmes The Hound of the Baskervilles

1991 - The Casebook of Sherlock Holmes

1992 - Sherlock Holmes The Master Blackmailer

1993 - Sherlock Holmes The Eligible Bachelor

1993 - Sherlock Holmes The Last Vampyre

1994 - The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Dec 27, 2009)

I liked this movie but it wasn't by any means "edge of your seat awesome". I absolutly love the setting and environment the characters are in. I think that the thing this movie lacked most was more action. I can't help but feel that there is a better cut of this movie on a studio hard drive somewhere. I really enjoyed where in the relationship we enter their world. We're not given an origin story but instead hit the ground running with the characters already established in history and mythos. I also enjoyed how this movie laid the path for a sequal without being too clumsy. But again, I just felt back by the slow pace and feel what this movie really needed was _more_ action and more mystery and we'd have had an awesome movie.

It's also very possible that after seeing Robert Downy Jr in Iron Man that we're maybe spoiled or somehow expect something really awesome out of him. The potential was there but it just kinda missed, but only just.

While this isint a movie I'd say you MUST SEE, I will say that it IS a movie you SHOULD see on the big screen if you're gonna see it, if only for the awesome setting and enviroment. Then again if you've got 62" and blu-ray you might be fine.


----------



## Glyfair (Dec 29, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> But I enjoyed the movie as a whole, enough to want the DVD, and I thought the performances--and yes, the portrayal of Holmes--were the high points.



I heard from at least two different sources that they thought the beginning of the movie was too much like an episode of _House_.  Given that the main inspiration for House was Holmes, I suppose that the comparison would be made.

Personally, I liked the characterizations.  I did dislike the Holmes as a street fighter, but felt Downey and Law worked.  The story was just too muddled.


----------



## satori01 (Dec 30, 2009)

honestly I found the portrayl of Holmes and Watson to be very true to the books, which means some variance with prior movies.

Holmes was:

1) an accomplished swordsman (stated but never shown in the books)
2) a trained pugulist (shown in several stories )
3) an accomplished  practitioner of a Japanese martial art...the exact name escapes me at the moment (starts w/ a "B")

all of which implies some facility towards action.

I was also quite happy to see portrayed Holmes absolute mastery of disguise.

I was also happy to see that when Holmes was firing the pistorl in his rooms he spelled "VR" which is lifted straight from another story.

In fact the main flaw I found in terms of of the movie conforming to the books would be the fact the movie ignored that Watson met Mary during a case, so obviously Holmes and she would be acquainted.

As for Holmes dishelved appearance in the movie....Holmes is mentioned having stains under his fingers, and clearly his rooms are a mess, and I believe Watson actually refers to Holmes as being "Bohemian" which could easily imply a complete disregard for the fashion standards of the day.
The style imho was consistent with the books.
Practitioner


----------



## El Mahdi (Jan 3, 2010)

deleted


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jan 4, 2010)

satori01 said:


> The style imho was consistent with the books.



Aye.  The liberties taken were actually fairly few and could mostly be attributed to taking the pen out of the hands of Holmes' best friend and partner.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 4, 2010)

It wasn't Holmes directly as written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.  But, as I understand it, Sir Arthur was trying to write his day's version of pulp crime fiction, and as such, I found this to be a suitable updating to the current conception of same.

I had my expectations set kind of low - the commercials are all about the fight scenes.  So, when the movie itself turned out to be more intelligent than expected, to have far better acting, and more chemistry between the characters, I was pleasantly surprised.  I thoroughly enjoyed the film.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 4, 2010)

Saw it with my wife, loved it. My favourite Sherlock Holmes to date, with my favourite Watson to date too. Loved the chemistry between them. Loved the way they portrayed Holmes' quick thinking and deductive reasoning.

I was inordinately pleased that they didn't 



Spoiler



feel the need to go all supernatural, and instead showed the conjuring tricks behind the magic


.

Cheers


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 5, 2010)

A bit shallow compared to the literary characters.  As if Munsey instead of Doyle had written it, maybe.  Still, tons of fun.  8.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 5, 2010)

TheAuldGrump said:


> Not the worst Holmes movie that I have ever seen (I reserve that for The Adventure of Sherlock Holmes' Smarter Brother (1975) directed and starring Gene Wilder), and a trifle better than Without a Clue - which is to say, it was still really, really bad.



  How could anyone dislike _Without a Clue_?


			
				The AuldGrump said:
			
		

> What I really did not like was the interaction between Holmes and Watson - it grated like sand in the gear box.



I thought that was one of the aspects that worked _best_ in the movie.


			
				TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> Brett remains the best Holmes, so far.



  Basil Rathbone is easily the most iconic.  What to you mean by "best" exactly?


			
				TheAuldGrump said:
			
		

> If Jude Law had the diction a trifle closer he might be the best Watson,



You seem really hung up on diction.  Huh?


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 5, 2010)

Happened to see a Jeremy Brett 'Sherlock' on TV last night. It was "The Crooked Man" and we didn't like him as Sherlock much. Didn't seem to do much detecting or deducing in it either, as it pretty much seemed that he just talked to people and they explained everything significant to him!

Maybe it was just a bad example of him?


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jan 5, 2010)

Hobo said:


> A bit shallow compared to the literary characters.  As if Munsey instead of Doyle had written it, maybe.  Still, tons of fun.  8.



Perhaps I need to re-read the original Holmes books again, but they never struck me as all that deep, outside of the fact that Watson is clearly writing his journals of these events to cover up how whacked out Holmes must be most of the time.

I shall have to revisit.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 5, 2010)

They're not super deep, but they're certainly deeper than a pulp writer like Munsey.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jan 5, 2010)

I'm not familiar with Munsey, but I guess I don't see the pulp/non-pulp divide having much to do with depth.  Leastways not reliably.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 6, 2010)

I mean pulp as a literary aesthetic.  The whole point of the pulp aesthetic was that it was cheap thrills at a cheap price.  It reeked of shallowness.

Luckily for me, I happen to have rather shallow tastes, so I love the pulp aesthetic.


----------



## delericho (Jan 9, 2010)

I thoroughly enjoyed it, so gave it 8/10.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 8, 2010)

I thoroughly enjoyed it, so gave it 9/10.

I was pretty certain from the beginning that the "magic" was an elaborate hoax. I think the only part that I didn't like was the electro-shocker device that Holmes found. That seemed a little too "powerful" to feel believable. But that's an incredibly minor quibble, along with the fact that they used the Holmes-describes-his-combat-moves device only in the beginning. Though I do wonder if he did plan the final fight against Blackwood? 

I really liked the interaction and the teamwork of Holmes and Watson.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Feb 8, 2010)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> along with the fact that they used the Holmes-describes-his-combat-moves device only in the beginning.




Don't forget the pit-fight, they used it there too.

(admittedly not in any of the other plot-important fights though)

Cheers


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 8, 2010)

Plane Sailing said:


> Don't forget the pit-fight, they used it there too.
> 
> (admittedly not in any of the other plot-important fights though)
> 
> Cheers



I consider this "in the beginning". I think it was still before Blackwood 



Spoiler



left his grave


, and that's where I'd say the beginning is over and the "real" story started.


----------

