CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › SHERLOCK HOLMES Post Release
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

SHERLOCK HOLMES Post Release

post #1 of 214
12/21/09 at 6:49pm
Thread Starter 
http://chud.com/articles/articles/21...MES/Page1.html
Reply
post #2 of 214
12/21/09 at 7:28pm
Quote:
it's the Sherlock Holmes movies for jocks
Ooooh, just one typo shy of a great pull quote!
Reply
post #3 of 214
12/21/09 at 7:40pm
Devin, honest question, have you changed your scoring recently. I seem to remember you saying that 7.5 was a passing grade and this review, whilst being critical, suggested that it was at least a passing grade.

Slater's praise and Devin's review (in particular how the Downey/Law relationship work) has got me really psyched for this.
Reply
post #4 of 214
12/21/09 at 8:10pm
If Sherlock Holmes were a coke fiend, as has been speculated, this movie would be like his coke-addled version of his own adventures.

aaaand ticket sold. Great review, Devin, this should be a fun way to spend a night at the movies.
Reply
post #5 of 214
12/21/09 at 8:19pm
Quote:
If Sherlock Holmes were a coke fiend, as has been speculated, this movie would be like his coke-addled version of his own adventures.
Just like to take a moment to point out that it's not really a matter of speculation, as the canon has him regularly shooting up a 7% solution of cocaine whenever cases dry up. It's way more explicitly pointed out than his fighting abilities.

Anyway, I'm inclined to agree with ryoken about that line, ticket sold (as if it weren't already).
Reply
post #6 of 214
12/22/09 at 1:19am
Downey and Law are on fire, but I thought it lost steam as it went on -- mostly because Blackwood just didn't make for a very interesting villain. Still, sign me up for a sequel and more man-love chemistry.
Reply
post #7 of 214
12/22/09 at 1:19am
Quote:
There's an alternate reality where Downey didn't fuck up his career for a decade and Hollywood is a very, very different place.
Really?

Wouldn't that just mean a decade (so, realistically, say 4 or 5) of films exactly like this?
Aside from RDJ in Pirates of the Caribbean... I'm pretty sure the twain has met.
Reply
post #8 of 214
12/23/09 at 11:39am
“They were homos.” link
Reply
post #9 of 214
12/23/09 at 4:41pm
I can only imagine if Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid were released today.
Reply
post #10 of 214
12/24/09 at 1:22am
LOL ASYLUM

Reply
post #11 of 214
12/24/09 at 4:57am
I don't know, Holmes fighting a T-Rex and a giant squid and a dragon?

It's hitting my buttons.
Reply
post #12 of 214
12/24/09 at 5:25am
Just came back from a screening.

Basically this is LXG House. Downey playing the brilliant arrogent asshole that Hugh Laurie plays on the small screen. In fact the Holmes/Watson dynamic is very similar to the House/Wilson relationship on the show.

But all in all I enjoyed it. A bit more than Avatar in fact. It's old fashioned but i liked the way they made Moriarty that mysterious "No face shown" mastermind in Pulp tales. You also get a real sense of history between the characters. That there's a lot of stuff thats happened before and they're only hinting it now.

Rachel McAdams is the weak link here. Her Irene Adler just doesn't seem to belong in the proceedings. She's great eye candy but her character basically serves as a distraction for Holmes and not very important really.

Bits I liked-

1) Holmes reciting Adler's exploits in one scene- You get the feel that there's a sort of LXG type universe out there.

2) Holmes in a Kung Fu fight with a Chinese annoyamous henchman.

3) That invention at the end- a little fancy for some kind of primative Radio triggered detonator isn't it?
Reply
post #13 of 214
12/24/09 at 1:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by felix View Post
Basically this is LXG House. Downey playing the brilliant arrogent asshole that Hugh Laurie plays on the small screen. In fact the Holmes/Watson dynamic is very similar to the House/Wilson relationship on the show.
Considering House is based on Sherlock Holmes.. makes sense.
Reply
post #14 of 214
12/24/09 at 3:54pm
I really enjoyed the movie. Downey Jr. was great (as always)

FYI, here is (from wikipedia) the fighting information:

Quote:
Fist-fighting Holmes is described as a formidable bare-knuckle fighter. In The Sign of the Four, Holmes introduces himself to a prize-fighter as:

"The amateur who fought three rounds with you at Alison's rooms on the night of your benefit four years back." McMurdo responds by saying, "Ah, you're one that has wasted your gifts, you have! You might have aimed high, if you had joined the fancy."
Holmes engages in hand to hand combat with his adversaries on occasions throughout the stories, inevitably emerging the victor.[28] It is iterated in "Gloria Scott" that Holmes trained as a boxer.

Martial arts "The Adventure of the Empty House", Holmes recounts to Watson how he used martial arts to overcome Professor Moriarty and fling his adversary to his death at the Reichenbach Falls. He states that "I have some knowledge, however, of baritsu, or the Japanese system of wrestling, which has more than once been very useful to me." The name "baritsu" appears to be a reference to the real-life martial art of bartitsu.
Reply
post #15 of 214
12/24/09 at 5:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by DARKMITE8 View Post
Damn, it's only been six months since Gareth David-Lloyd was done on Torchwood... and he's already second banana to an Asylum Sherlock Holmes? This business is cruel, man.
Reply
post #16 of 214
12/25/09 at 4:58am
I really wouldn't mind seeing a sequel to this. But based on how Sherlock Holmes is tracking, this may only hit 3rd place behind Alvin and Avatar.
Reply
post #17 of 214
12/25/09 at 5:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by felix View Post
I really wouldn't mind seeing a sequel to this. But based on how Sherlock Holmes is tracking, this may only hit 3rd place behind Alvin and Avatar.
It will only hit third place. But does that really matter if it pulls in 40 million+?
Reply
post #18 of 214
12/25/09 at 7:12am
I wonder if Adler was working in concert with Moriarty when she stole that poison gas cannister.
Did Adler genuinely believe that was the valuable portion or was she given instructions by Moriarty to serve as a distraction?
Reply
post #19 of 214
12/25/09 at 4:46pm
Holmes said as much at the end of the movie, felix.
And you don't have to hide spoilers in a post release thread.

Wasn't really wowed by the story, but Downey Jr. and Jude Law make the movie fun. "Why wouldn't I be invited to my brother's country home?? Now're YOU'RE not making sense, Watson!!!!!!!" They have great chemistry and don't hide the fact that they're in love with other.

Eddie Marsan was also good. Mark Strong was....there. He basically says the same thing with the same expression on his face over and over again. The action set pieces were decent. They didn't blow me away, but they were easy to follow. Same thing with the hand to hand fights.
Reply
post #20 of 214
12/25/09 at 7:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by felix View Post
I wonder if Adler was working in concert with Moriarty when she stole that poison gas cannister.
Did Adler genuinely believe that was the valuable portion or was she given instructions by Moriarty to serve as a distraction?
Did you miss the part where Holmes realizes that Moriarity instructed her to steal the poison canisters, knowing Sherlock would give chase, thus leaving the device unguarded for him to steal the radio transmitter? They even freeze frame it while explaining it.

Really liked it. Could've used some tightening up in the middle, but the back and forth between Downey and Law is superb. Count me in for more adventures!
Reply
post #21 of 214
12/25/09 at 11:57pm
I really don't know where I stand on this. It certainly isn't a bad film, but it also didn't wow me, despite having a few pretty rousing moments (the shipyard fight in particular). The pacing felt a bit off, and there was one too many "No, this is what REALLY happened" moments for my taste. Downey and Law are great, and yes, McAdams is definitely the weak link here. She just felt out of place compared to the rest of the cast. The wife and in-laws liked it, my younger brothers-in-law especially, but at the end, it didn't feel that charge I get when I've seen something that really blew me away.

I will say that the theater I saw this in was kind of dreadful -- the sound wasn't very good and the picture was very dark, and more as if the projector bulb was a few watts too low and not because it was shot that way. So I may have to give this another chance with a better presentation.
Reply
post #22 of 214
12/26/09 at 3:17am
I didn't believe for a second that McAdams' Irene could have gone toe-to-toe with Holmes and won. Twice. Just think of what someone like Rachel Weisz could have done with this role. Or even Keira Knightley.

Apart from McAdams, I thought this was decent and fun. Nothing mind-blowing. The chemistry between Downey and Law hold it together.

If there is a sequel, I hope they go with a straight mystery and leave all the pseudo-supernatural stuff out of it. All that malarkey just made me want The List of 7 even more.
Reply
post #23 of 214
12/26/09 at 5:15am
This review is a slog...the guy cites the martial arts and the fisticuffs as a specific breakaway from canon.
Reply
post #24 of 214
12/26/09 at 6:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratty View Post
I didn't believe for a second that McAdams' Irene could have gone toe-to-toe with Holmes and won. Twice. Just think of what someone like Rachel Weisz could have done with this role. Or even Keira Knightley.
Agreed. She looks a little too clean cut and out of place in some of her scenes. But I did like how Adler understood the mechanics of that Radio Detonator device at the end. At least, they didn't make her some kind of dumb blonde. Rachel Weiz would be a better choice for the role.

But I suppose the Adler character will definitely be in the sequels. She's the only love interest Holmes has, literary wise.

I can't help feeling how House like this film is. In the Holmes/Mary/Watson dinner scene, just substitute Mary with Cuddy and you've got yourself a classic House episode. Holmes talking shit and deliberately trying to piss people off.
Reply
post #25 of 214
12/26/09 at 10:10am
Rachel Weisz is exactly who I brought up when we were discussing the movie afterwards.
Reply
post #26 of 214
12/26/09 at 12:38pm
We didn't care for it. The dynamic between Downey and Law was the only thing that worked for us: they were effortlessly charming and witty, providing some wonderful laughs and memorable lines. They were a joy to watch. The movie that they were in let them down, though.

Rachel McAdams turned in one of the worst performances of the year. I've really liked her in other films, but WOW...this was a terrible mistake in casting.

Mark Strong was effective to begin with, but he was a one-note character for the remainder of the film. Do another facial expression, already.

The plot? Didn't care for it. This was Dan Brown, not Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.

The pacing felt off, too. I was really quite bored for most of the runtime. The action sequences were ok, but even they lacked any real zing.

The look of the film was fantastic though. It was very immersive and convincing, and I'd love to see a better film uitilize this environment.

I'll probably be there for the sequel: Downey and Law were THAT good.
Reply
post #27 of 214
12/26/09 at 12:44pm
Does anyone know why Downey insisted on McAdams being cast? Do they have professional or personal ties? The interviews and articles I've happened upon so far make it seem like the production was against that casting--they thought McAdams was too young to be the love interest for Downey--but he wouldn't budge on it.
Reply
post #28 of 214
12/26/09 at 5:59pm
Very enjoyable. Downey and Law were aces. I actually prefer him as Holmes than Iron Man. Surprised how one-note Strong was. Not bad per say (not at all, in fact) but very Meh villain.

Looking forward to a sequel.
Reply
post #29 of 214
12/26/09 at 6:08pm
They definitely dropped the ball with the whole Holmes-vision fight analysis thing. He does it all of twice and both times quite early into the film. Would have been nice to spread it out a bit and have it factor in somehow into the finale.

Alternatively, they could have twisted it a bit with the large Frenchman fight. Have him start his crazy fight planning and then drop it when he utilizes the stun baton instead.
Reply
post #30 of 214
12/26/09 at 9:26pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by EnemyoftheStamos View Post
They definitely dropped the ball with the whole Holmes-vision fight analysis thing. He does it all of twice and both times quite early into the film. Would have been nice to spread it out a bit and have it factor in somehow into the finale.

Alternatively, they could have twisted it a bit with the large Frenchman fight. Have him start his crazy fight planning and then drop it when he utilizes the stun baton instead.
I really expected it to come back somewhere in the finale.

I really enjoyed it. I just thought it was good fun and worth it just for Downey and Law. I really didn't think McAdams was as bad as as you guys are making her out to be. I thought she was serviceable but nothing more. I really loved the fight with the french man. I'm not sure how my audience received it, but I don't know how most wouldn't find it at least enjoyable.
Reply
post #31 of 214
12/26/09 at 11:27pm
McAdams seemed fine to me. She's supposed to be a puzzle - that's why Holmes likes her. The Adler character just wasn't a heavy focus of the film. As part of the set-up for the sequel, by design she took a backseat to Holmes, Watson, and the fake-magic plot.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratty
If there is a sequel, I hope they go with a straight mystery and leave all the pseudo-supernatural stuff out of it.
Everything supernatural was faked. That nearly everyone short of Holmes and Watson believed it was magic established the world the movie resides in and who the heroes are. It seemed as 'straight' a mystery as could be to me...

I thought the movie was a blast. To reference the recent discussion about "turning off your brain" at the movies, this is the type of film where you don't need to. It's not a brilliant masterpiece, but it's a coherent and interesting plot to go along with the set-pieces. Thinking doesn't prevent you from enjoying the film like appears to be the case with many blockbusters.

As far as RDJr movies go, I liked it quite a bit more than Iron Man. Holmes is surrounded by more interesting people and challenges than Tony Stark was. Hopefully Iron Man 2 can remedy that, because anything other than a romantic comedy will get my money if Downey Jr's in it.
Reply
post #32 of 214
12/26/09 at 11:36pm
McAdams isn't terrible, she's just boring when compared to Downey Jr. and Jude Law.

I also have to praise the gypsy scene.
THE WAAAAAAAAAARTS!!!!!!!!!
Reply
post #33 of 214
12/26/09 at 11:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
McAdams seemed fine to me. She's supposed to be a puzzle - that's why Holmes likes her. The Adler character just wasn't a heavy focus of the film. As part of the set-up for the sequel, by design she took a backseat to Holmes, Watson, and the fake-magic plot.
The problem wasn't that she took a backseat to the plot. If anything, she's in it too much. I would have much rather had Watson be more involved in the finale than shoehorning Adler in.

As you put it, she's supposed to be a puzzle to Holmes. The problem, then, is that McAdams just cannot convey this. This is a character who can outsmart Holmes, and has done so multiple times already in this film canon. A role like this requires an actress with a large amount of charisma. We need to feel, solely from how the character handles herself around Holmes, that she earns the huge reputation before her. McAdams is just too much of a lightweight for that.
Reply
post #34 of 214
12/26/09 at 11:44pm
Well, she did outsmart Holmes with that champaign thing.
Reply
post #35 of 214
12/26/09 at 11:47pm
I went in with really high expectations, and came away a little disappointed. I didn't hate the movie; I liked it, but I really wanted to love it. I thought RDJ and Jude Law were fantastic in the lead roles, but the movie surrounding them was a bit boring, and the story often got overwhelmed by the direction. Lord Blackwood wasn't a very engaging villain, and the plot never really came together for me; the whole film felt like a series of vignettes that were just sort of strung together, rather than a complete narrative. Plus, McAdams was pretty weak, and the film sort of ground to a halt when she was onscreen. Of course, that could just be because she was trying to hold her own against Downey, and most anyone is going to look weak in comparison.

Having said that, though, there were times when it was great fun, and the two leads were so great that the film was able to coast along on their charisma alone. I'm looking forward to a sequel, but hoping that it's a bit of a step up from this one.
Reply
post #36 of 214
12/27/09 at 12:53am
I forgot to mention this in my original post but Zimmer's score is probably the best of the year. This is coming from a guy who usually finds Zimmer's scores derivative and lackluster.
Reply
post #37 of 214
12/27/09 at 12:54am
Loved it. Robert Downey Jr. owned his role, as did Jude Law. Thought Ritchie's direction was slick, but focused, and there was barely any fat left to shave off during the entire running time. What was really refreshing--the town, the people, the aura of living in the late 1800s--all felt natural and exciting.

And Hans Zimmer's score really brought the mystique of the story and the action scenes to life.

As for McAdams...adorable as she always is. Her role was the most listless of them all, so I don't blame her for the character's portrayal. Not her best performance this year (that would be STATE OF PLAY).
Reply
post #38 of 214
12/27/09 at 12:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Woods View Post
I forgot to mention this in my original post but Zimmer's score is probably the best of the year. This is coming from a guy who usually finds Zimmer's scores derivative and lackluster.
Yeah, I'm going to have to agree with you on this. The score was aces, and definitely one of my favorite things about the movie.
Reply
post #39 of 214
12/27/09 at 1:07am
just got back myself from seeing this...i give it a 6 out of 10...hey you guys did you have a shit ton of trailers before the flick...in the theatre i was in ...which was packed by the way...had no less than 10 trailers...i was like "fuck already"...anyways are the rumore true that moriarity is gonna be brad pitt
Reply
post #40 of 214
12/27/09 at 1:58am
Oh, Hi fleed.
Reply
post #41 of 214
12/27/09 at 2:51am
Didn't like this movie, which surprised me. Robert Downey Jr. is great (he'd have to work hard not to be though), Guy Ritchie's direction was pretty good and I liked the score quite a bit. But the script wasn't that great, Mark Strong was a boring villain, I didn't think Jude Law was as good as most seem to find him, and Rachel McAdams is as blah as everyone says she was.

Still, I'd be lying if I said I wouldn't give a sequel a try. I'm intrigued by the brief glimpses of Moriarty.

Oh, and

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
there was one too many "No, this is what REALLY happened" moments for my taste.
This. Especially at the ending. I know that is essentially how a lot of these stories end but that, I guess, is why I'm not a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes.
Reply
post #42 of 214
12/27/09 at 5:51am
I thought it was really fun. One of the best 'just for fun' movies of the year. Very open to nitpicks, I suppose, but there was nothing in this movie that particularly bothered me at all.

The fake magic plot was also very loyal to Conan Doyle, actually. There were at least half a dozen Holmes stories that revolved around just such a device, most famously Hound of the Baskervilles. Lord Blackwood (was he actually supposed to be a Lord?) worked pretty well for me as such, and could easily have sprung from the Holmes Rogue's Gallery.

I wasn't as enamored of Jude Law as everyone else, but he looked cool. And bitter lonely Holmes was fun, as it's a human dimension that's really just subtext in the books. Granted, I like almost any Holmes movie for some reason, so my favor comes cheap here.
Reply
post #43 of 214
12/27/09 at 1:31pm
I really liked it, but I have a feeling a sequel would be even better. Strangely, when Jude Law was off screen the movie fell a little bit. Downey and Law's chemistry together was wonderful and it was missed when Law was gone.

Is there anything after the end credits? Didn't stay to look.
Reply
post #44 of 214
12/27/09 at 1:38pm
Nope. I waited. Nada.
Reply
post #45 of 214
12/27/09 at 1:50pm
Loved it, loved it, loved it. The three things they absolutely, positively had to get right was Holmes and Watson and the chemistry between the two and they succeeded on all three counts. Everything else just kind of fell into place around them. I think Devin said it best when he said Downey Jr. is not only a fine an actor but a great movie star as well. He was sensational. I would watch him in anything at this point. I loved the slo-mo dissection of the fights. I loved the gambling problem that Watson has. I loved the big Frenchman. I loved the joke the constable told about his wife being a chamber-maid and the look on Holmes' face. I loved the unspoken words between Adler and Holmes at the end when they were on the bridge. Can't wait for the sequel and can't wait for Moriarty.
Reply
post #46 of 214
12/27/09 at 1:57pm
Took me a while to digest, but I liked it - though I wanted to love it.

Downey was a blast, but I thought Jude Law stole the show. The relationship between Holmes and Watson was indeed the best part of the film, and it really suffered when Law was absent for a big chunk of the climax. Rachel McAdams was really miscast - she's charming, but too young, and utterly incapable of making you believe Adler could outwit Holmes on any level. Strong glowered his way through a sadly one-note Lord Blackwood.

I thought the fight sequence at the beginning was clever as hell, giving you a glimpse of how Holmes mind works, but I didn't need to see it twice - I got it. The pacing seemed a little off, and the lack of actual detective work was a disappointment. The resolution was pure Ritchie, showing you what really happened, as opposed to what you thought you saw.

I'm definitely on board for a sequel, purely on the strength of Downey and Law, and providing they do something interesting with Moriarty. Overall, second only to Murder by Decree for me.
Reply
post #47 of 214
12/27/09 at 2:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob loblaw View Post
Loved it, loved it, loved it. The three things they absolutely, positively had to get right was Holmes and Watson and the chemistry between the two and they succeeded on all three counts. Everything else just kind of fell into place around them. I think Devin said it best when he said Downey Jr. is not only a fine an actor but a great movie star as well. He was sensational. I would watch him in anything at this point. I loved the slo-mo dissection of the fights. I loved the gambling problem that Watson has. I loved the big Frenchman. I loved the joke the constable told about his wife being a chamber-maid and the look on Holmes' face. I loved the unspoken words between Adler and Holmes at the end when they were on the bridge. Can't wait for the sequel and can't wait for Moriarty.
What, no love for Pig Joe??
Reply
post #48 of 214
12/27/09 at 2:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bob loblaw View Post
I loved the gambling problem that Watson has.
Which pretty much never gets addressed again after the pit fight.
Reply
post #49 of 214
12/27/09 at 2:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
Which pretty much never gets addressed again after the pit fight.
Yes it does actually. After Watson purchases the wedding ring he is tempted by the dice game in the alley. Holmes offers to hold the money for Watson.
Reply
post #50 of 214
12/27/09 at 2:24pm
Ah, right.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › SHERLOCK HOLMES Post Release