Is 'Sherlock Holmes' movie good?

D

dom_bk

New member
I know there are various thread about the film but i just want to know, is the movie good? It's been very publicised but had mixed reviews.

For those who have seen it, is it enjoyable and exciting to watch? :)
 
it was ok , the production design was excellent , London looked great , but the story wasn't so great , some of the comedy worked but some of it was just flat .
 
If you have absolutely no familiarity with the source material, have never read any of the books, or seen a TV adaptation and aren't looking for anything more than a brainless action movie, it's not too bad.

Otherwise, it'll be disappointing.
 
I thought it was great and not so far away from the source material as I expected. It's certainly not a completely accurate adaption of Holmes, but I felt it was faithful to the soul of the character, whilst injecting a little modern twist on him at the same time.
 
As Mark Kermode said "Its the most un-Guy Ritchie movie that Guy Ritchie has ever made"

Saw it on Monday night, thought it was good. The partnership between Jude & Robert make the film.
 
Never seen or read anything about Sherlock Holmes before in my life, nor have I ever seen a Guy Ritchie film before in my life). I know Sherlock isn't exactly how this movie depicts him (and Guy Ritchie films are much more violent and sweary from what I understand) but I have to say I quite enjoyed the film.

RDJ was great in it and there was a good mix of comedy, action and story which kept you guessing not only what way the whole thing was going to end up but also how Sherlock managed to suss it all out by the end of the film.

An enjoyable romp I would score it 8/10 (and already have done on IMDb!) I'm sure there are fans of the character who might loathe this film for its probable inaccuracies and character trait changes, but for your average Hollywood flick, it certainly isn't bad and I've seen a hell of a lot worse.
 
It's not what most people would expect from a Sherlock Holmes movie (it's nothing like the usual portrayals of the characters, for a start) but I really enjoyed it. It wasn't just a 'mystery movie', which I thought it would have been - there's quite a bit of action in it.

The best part is undoubtedly the relationship* between Sherlock and Watson - they really play off eachother and their dialogue together is great. I also liked the representation of Victorian London - they did a very good job with it, in my opinion.

As for inaccuracies with the characters, I've been lurking on the IMDb board for this movie, and apparently the representations in this movie are closer to the original material then in past series. I don't know how true that is as I haven't read any of the books in years, but I found that interesting - and maybe fans of the original books might not be so disappointed, if that is the case.

*Note - by relationship I mean frienRABhip/partnership. Just feel the need to clear that up. :p
 
I saw it just after I'RAB seen Avatar and I greatly preferred this.

OK, the plot wont be winning awarRAB for originality, but its well paced, looks good, is engaging and has a fantastic central performance from Robert Downey Jnr. The bromance between him and Jude law really sparkles. You cant fake chemistry and those 2 have it....

Its also a more conventional and less violent movie than Guy Richie usually makes, as the above poster correctly stated " the most un-Guy Richie movie that Guy Richie has made".

If it sinks under the shadow of Avatar (a FAR inferior film IMO) it'll be sad...
 
I found it remarkably like the TV show House. The relationship between Holmes and Watson is very similar to the one between House and Wilson.

I believe that House was always intended to be influenced by Sherlock Holmes, but this interpretation of Sherlock Holmes seems to be repaying the compliment.
 
I thought Robert Downey Junior as Sherlock Holmes was inspired casting and the interaction between him and Watson (Jude Law) was what made the film. The dialogue is sharp, intelligent and witty.
In some respects, Ritchie's style did the film justice and in other respects it didn't. I felt that the way the London scenes were shot were pretty good, Victorian London was gritty and brown and dark - which was complemented by the cinematography. However, the script didn't fit the direction Ritchie took the film, the humour was an uncomfortable juxtaposition with Ritchie's gritty style and I was left a bit underwhelmed by some of the action scenes. It felt a bit like a script designed for a family film, repackaged for the average early 20's male. It jarred a little for me.
It is worth seeing but I had higher expectations of it.
 
It wasn't bad, although there was a dull patch in the middle where the film lacked pace and excitement. What was missing was the cerebral Holmes who uses lateral thinking to solve mysteries, possibly because there wasn't really a mystery to solve. Holmes the dastardly-plot-foiler isn't as satisfying as Holmes the mystery-solver, somehow.
 
As an adaptation of Sherlock Holmes the classic character, it's very off base. People who say it's one of the more accurate adaptations must be mental, or have never actually read Holmes. If you can make your peace with that though, it's quite an enjoyable film.
 
The media are moaning that this film is too gay and homoerotic and not true to the stories by Conan Doyle.

Mind you, I didn't see anything gay or homoerotic in it. It was hardly gay porn or sexually exciting.
 
Back
Top