SHERLOCK HOLMES Post Release - Page 5

And the guy should not even think about reading the Conan Doyle stories.
The thing about Holmes' habit was that he never needed it when he was on a case; it was when he got bored between cases that he hit the coke.

Well, no shit, Sherlock... ok, I don't mean to be that harsh, but I couldn't help but make that all too obvious joke.

It's true that I haven't read any of the novels (as it's never been something I wanted to do), but that shouldn't mean anything. I just was rubbed the wrong way by the characters, and that's it. No need for anyone to get all emo about it and freak out because I really didn't care for it and thus I "stand out". I must not have paid that much attention to the trailers, either, but as I said before I only went to this on a lark.

I thought the reaction was pretty mixed, and I'm not sure who's getting 'emo'.

Fun, and the two lead performances do mostly carry it though I feel like Robert Downey Jr is having a lot more fun as Tony Stark than here and Rachel McAdams does drag things down when she's on screen. The script isn't great, the story is never as good as the rest of the movie, and while the set-pieces are good they eventually overstay their welcome in almost every case. The whole thing is too long for the story, basically, which didn't want more than an hour to ninety minutes in the telling and would have been a better episode of a Holmes TV series than a movie. I feel like the boxing match is kind of representative of what's wrong there; it's a good scene, but you could cut it out of the movie entirely without really losing anything. I said over in the Daybreakers thread that I wish I could have taken a half hour away from this movie and given it to that one, which I saw immediately before, as they both probably would have been better for it.

Reading Devin's review after seeing the movie, I really agreed that I wanted more of the bits where you see through Holmes's eyes, though, or rather that I wanted more of the scenes we already had to be like that. The scene in the restaurant where he is initially picking up little details, perhaps making deductions about the diners around him, but is soon overwhelmed by the sensory noise because he hasn't got anything to focus on, is great, the planning of the punches is great, and those things are let down a bit by the rest of the movie being, not stupid, but more interested in flying scenery and explosions than in Holmes and Watson.

Ultimately, I had a very good time watching it, but I wouldn't bother seeing it again and it didn't spark any interest in the sequel it spent so much time promising.

I dosed off three times watching this. I haven't done that in a theater since I was eight. I sat through fucking BEGOTTEN and didn't dose off. I don't know how it's possible that the story here was less engaging than AVATAR's, but that's what happened. RDJ and Law are good, but Christ, what a fucking bore. I can't imagine sitting through it ever again.

First for the negatives:

McAdams wasn't good. And the movie didn't give a reason for Holmes' and Adler's feelings for each other if you haven't read the books.

And I don't think that the whole 'Holmes picks up clues throughout the movie and explains everything in the end' structure works so well for a movie. For a long time it seems as if Holmes and Watson are just not very good at this detective stuff. A more gradual reveal would make the movie more like a chess game between Holmes and Blackwood instead of them constantly getting ambushed.

But the leads carry the film. Downey I knew I'd love but Law really surprised me. It's probably his most 'masculine' and fun performance yet. Thankfully it was a hit so I hope everyone is up for seconds. Because I really think that with everything already set up, a Holmes vs. Moriarty movie in Ritchie's hands will be great.

Super-fun. I would have said Rupert Everitt was the guy behind the mystery Moriarty-voice.

Agreed with everyone. Great Chemistry between the leads, but what's around them wasn't as great.
The foundation is there, i hope the sequel exploits it better.

Law was the clear winner for me, even better than Downey.
And i hate the movie for not making me like a Mark Strong performance.

Loved this one. Had I seen it last year it would have been the most entertaining film I had seen in 09. No problem with the slightly lame bad guy; this is the set up movie with Holmes and Watson front and center. Kinda bought Law as Watson more than Downey as Holmes, but it's Downey so who cares. Agree with the idea that had they pitted Holmes and Watson against a Rickman/Nighy kind of actor it would have probably been too much.
Loved the running gag that Holmes is shit house at picking locks.
I thought it was a great return to form for Law and Richie. The complaints about Adler being a bit naff is fair enough, but it's a Guy Richie film and he doesn't seem to know what to do with chicks on screen evidently.
Score was awesome. This feels like a movie that can lead into a really amazing, much more accomplished and satisfying sequel.

To me it felt like this was just a set up for a lot more awesome movies to come. A lot of the story just seemed like an excuse to establish the Sherlock Holmes universe and get us familiar with the people and gags and everything going on.

I did like it from the start but when I was just really getting into it and getting caught up in the lives of the characters it ended and I was left wanting more.

Moriarty will make a far more interesting villain than Blackwood, the battle of wits between Moriarty and Sherlock is bound to be a lot more entertaining since they are supposed to be intellectual equals so I have high hopes for the sequel.

I actually think that McAdam's handling of the Ritchie version of Adler is good. The scene where we see her from Holmes' perspective as she's approaching the coach makes her come across as ruthless and quick-witted as she is presented as in "A Scandal in Bohemia." However, the final scenes with her in them--and the earlier train sequence with Moriarty--seem to do a good job of putting forth that the reason she never holds her own with Downey in the film is that Adler is supposed to be in two conflicts: her conflicted feelings for Holmes and how Moriarty's machinations use and complicate them. With what she is given to put that across, I think she does it pretty well.

As for the mystery being kind of Scooby Doo-like in nature, I agree, but I submit that it doesn't matter. The film seems to be taking the same post-Hitchcock take on holmes that House does. That is, the central mystery doesn't really matter and isn't intended to matter, it's merely what puts the story into motion and brings the characters together. With film--or a television show--I think that's a good choice. While a mystery in a novel can be an enjoyable thing, plot doesn't really drive a film, characters do. I think the story is a good, character-driven Holmes story.

I hate this movie with a passion, in a way I haven't hated a movie in years.

Downey Jr. and Law are fun, but everything around them was the worst kind of shit - a shabby mystery you couldn't possible care about that lays still for almost a couple of hours before being resolved by the longest streak of "Oh, you know when that guy did that thing? Actually..." explanations I've ever seen. Complete with shots that flash back to all the stupid shit we're explaining to you right now, in case you braindead imbeciles didn't pay attention!

I know it's supposed to be a light, fun flick, but that's not an excuse for being such an underdeveloped, offensively stupid Detective Conan-like story.

As for the score, I usually disagree with the Hans Zimmer bashing I see on a lot of movie sites (I think he generally does and unremarkable but serviceable job), but somewhere around the part when Holmes and pals find Blackwood's WMD I couldn't help but bark an exhausted "Enough with this fucking racket!".

I needed something fun after a hard day's work and ended up more pissed off than before. At least it had Mark Strong hamming it up as a Dan Brownish take on Dracula.

Finally saw this a week ago, and only because I'm bored watiting for someone to give me a report this morning could I even be motivated to write about something so shatteringly mediocre.

It's god-awful as a mystery (comparing it to Scooby-Doo is generous). I think my favorite bit is when Holmes disguises himself to peer into Adler's carriage: we see it happen. Then, because we're too stupid to figure out what he did, we get to watch Downey re-enact how he put the disguise together (he looked like Michael Westin trying to evade pursuit in a shopping mall). And then later, we have to have it spelled out AGAIN when Adler tells us how he fooled her with the goddam eyepatch.

I'm no purist, but the allegation that they're somehow going "back to the source" for this is a complete load: yes, there are occasional allusions in the books to things we don't always associate with Holmes, but that's not the same as saying that what Doyle wrote were 21st-century CG-heavy action movies.

And even the CG was sketchy: enough of those computer-generated Londoners were walking around without faces that for a while I thought it was a plot point (just like I was wondering if McAdams' little neck moles were supposed to indicate that there were vampires involved).

It's also the only time I can ever recall not thoroughly enjoying a Downey performance: he reminded me less of Holmes and more of Dr. Who. Law was fun, but having chemistry between the leads is dampened by the fact that they don't spend that much screen time together.

Oh and I think we have a nominee for "Best Cinematography" here ;-)