Decent film.

A solid and enjoyable reboot of the famous detective. I'm already looking forward to the second one.

Robert Downey Jr was excellent as Holmes and never felt out of place. His chemistry with Dr Watson (Jude Law) was very good.

The very end was somewhat underwhelming and I'm sure will leave a lot of cinema goers feeling strangely ambivalent about the film. Needed more punch at the end. They resolved the story line of this one well, but the set up for the continuing story lacked power.

That's quite unusual for Guy Ritchie, he usually ends films extremely well.

I personally found the female characters somewhat grating, Watsons fiance in particular. He performance was significantly inferior to those around her and one scene in particualr came across as more than a bit amateur.

That's a personal opinion though.

Definitely worth seeing. A very good modernisation of the Holmes character I thought. It's never easy doing this kind of thing, but it was handled well IMO.

I saw this a few days ago and agree, it is well worth a watch.  I also thought the ending was a bit tame but then it leads it open for a second movie.

Downey Jr and Law did good jobs of Holmes and Watson, and I liked how Watson seemed to be more involved than earlier incarnations of the pair.

Quoted from alffy I saw this a few days ago and agree, it is well worth a watch.  I also thought the ending was a bit tame but then it leads it open for a second movie. Downey Jr and Law did good jobs of Holmes and Watson, and I liked how Watson seemed to be more involved than earlier incarnations of the pair.

Yeah. In the original stories Watson was an intelligent, military guy, who just happened to be not quite as genius like as Holmes (obvioulsy). In a lot of the interpretations he somehow became an idiotic, bumbling side-kick.

I've always thought he was underplayed in a lot of the versiosn made and I'm glad Ritchie developed him.

This was decent. Definitely better than expected. Despite this being a massive Hollywood movie, it was still very noticeably a Guy Richie movie. I was impressed that he was able to shine through as a director on something this huge. Naturally the performances were terrific. Robert Downey Jr.'s a no brainer but even Rachel McAdams whom I imagine would be perceived as the weakest link was pretty solid. One of the better actresses of her generation. The bad guy sucked though. I thought he was pretty boring and was a poor match for Downey Jr. and the Sherlock Holmes character.

My biggest issue was the poor balance between action and real detective work. I think they should've made the call as to whether they should stay completely true to the original stories and make Holmes an uber-observant, brain-over-braun sleuth or completely butcher the character and make him an action hero with fancy clothes and a slightly above-average intelligence. It was weary watching Holmes beat up bad guys than go off on a rant about how a cyanide dispenser or whatever it was works.

Not bad though.

I liked this one. Enough to want to read the script even.

I have never been a fan of the books, but I liked the movie a lot. They probably should have titled it something different because it can definitely stand on its own. Doesn't need the attachment of the famed  legend.

I watched this over the holidays. I thouroughly enjoyed the characters and the story. I loved that Holmes and Watson was not even near the stodgy stiff Brits I associate with Sherlock Holmes.  Downey was great as Holmes. A very interesting character that only Johnny Depp could have done better.

I especially enjoyed the slaughter house scene.

Definitely a recommended movie.    

Enjoyed this for what it was. The plot took a back seat to establishing the characters for the 21st. Call me cynical, but that was surely a ploy to get a series started.

The thing that made this work was the chemistry between the two leads, and Ritchie's rehab from that Madonna flick and 'Revolver' now seems complete.

Andrew

I was surprised, upon reading articles in Creative Screenwriting magazine and other sources, how accurate the film actually was in regards to the characters.   I've always had this image of Sherlock Holmes as this very tidy, well-to-do fellow, but he was actually a shrewd coke-head who was well trained in mixed martial arts, boxing, and fencing.  And as for Watson, I've always thought of him as a fat, bumbling side-kick; but apparently that couldn't have been further from the truth either.

I can't wait for the sequel, actually.  It'll be interesting to see Holmes go up against a better adversary.  

I saw this last week and actually really enjoyed it - I liked the look of the trailer, but the film was in fact better than I was expecting. Downey Jr. and Law had great chemistry, and the plot worked both as an action-comedy story and a decent detective mystery.

I think this series could run and run, and I'm already looking forward to the sequel. As to those who think Mark Strong was a poor villain - I think he did well what he had, but that wasn't a great deal. Then again, Dr. No was no Goldfinger, and that didn't stop the Bond franchise from taking off. In fact, this seems like it's aiming to do what Nolan did with Batman Begins / The Dark Knight; introduce your major adversary at the end of the first one, then have him be a central character in number 2.

I see that "Guy Ritchie declined to say who voiced the character of Professor Moriarty" (Wikipedia). Who do you think could be both a match for Downey Jr. energy-wise but also bring a darker touch to the sequel? I see on the net people talking about Brad Pitt, but I think that would be a bad choice - for me, Clive Owen or the ever-villanious Sean Bean would be better picks.

Quoted from dresseme I was surprised, upon reading articles in Creative Screenwriting magazine and other sources, how accurate the film actually was in regards to the characters.   I've always had this image of Sherlock Holmes as this very tidy, well-to-do fellow, but he was actually a shrewd coke-head who was well trained in mixed martial arts, boxing, and fencing.  And as for Watson, I've always thought of him as a fat, bumbling side-kick; but apparently that couldn't have been further from the truth either. I can't wait for the sequel, actually.  It'll be interesting to see Holmes go up against a better adversary.

Yes, unlike Pia I'm a huge fan of the stories. He's still the best detective ever created in my eyes. I love the fact that he has so many attributes. He lives like a mad man in a messy house, playing violin and getting high on injecting cocaine, he's a genius detective but also a bare-knuckle fighter.

The film is the truest interpretation of his character yet, whilst also being light-hearted and enjoyable. Ritchie has done a great job with it, managing to toe the studio line whilst keeping it's essential flavour.

The BBC versions toned down a lot of the more controversial aspects of his character for TV and they stuck over the years. The portrayal of Watson has always been a bug bear of mine.

In any adaptation, I can't stand when they change things that work well just to put in some inane nonsense.

It's a long term goal of mine to create characters like this who can live on indefinitely.

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films The BBC versions toned down a lot of the more controversial aspects of his character for TV and they stuck over the years. The portrayal of Watson has always been a bug bear of mine.

How did you feel about the undertones of homoeroticism laced throughout this version?  

I was really, really disappointed with this. It was VERY boring. I was actually looking forward to seeing it end. If I had paid to see it I would have been pissed. Bleh.

~Zack~

Quoted from dresseme How did you feel about the undertones of homoeroticism laced throughout this version?

I have to say that if someone hadn't mentioned it prior to my watching, I never would have come away thinking anything of the sort.  I saw no signs of Holmes and Watson being anything more than the best of friends.

Oh yes, and I liked the movie a LOT!

Quoted from dresseme How did you feel about the undertones of homoeroticism laced throughout this version?

Do explain, 'cos that was far away from what I saw in it!

Andrew

Quoted from Andrew Do explain, 'cos that was far away from what I saw in it!

I remember reading awhile back that the screenwriter planned on making the characters homosexual, but I don't believe he was going to explicitly state it.  This actually sparked quite a big debate on the boards, if memory serves me right.

However, I had actually put that out of mind when I sat down to watch the film.  But I couldn't help but think that, even if they weren't explicitly homosexual, the film was definitely playing with the dynamic of a relationship (one that is more than a mere friendship).  The arguments about clothing and living together, the nagging, the attitude towards women, the weak female characters, the longing gazes towards one another, etc.

Believe me, I wasn't trying to pull this from the film, this is just what I saw when watching it.  I'm usually one to call foul when I hear someone trying to take too much out of a film, and would usually say something like "Why can't two men be that close without being considered gay?"  But I insist, this was not my fault, but the screenwriter; and like I said, if he didn't make it explicit, he definitely walked a line.  This was further confirmed when I talked about it with my wife (who shared similar feelings), and saw the vast number of reviews on Rottentomatoes.com suggesting the same thing.

Although I can see how you would come away thinking they were just really close.

Quoted from dresseme I remember reading awhile back that the screenwriter planned on making the characters homosexual, but I don't believe he was going to explicitly state it.  This actually sparked quite a big debate on the boards, if memory serves me right. However, I had actually put that out of mind when I sat down to watch the film.  But I couldn't help but think that, even if they weren't explicitly homosexual, the film was definitely playing with the dynamic of a relationship (one that is more than a mere friendship).  The arguments about clothing and living together, the nagging, the attitude towards women, the weak female characters, the longing gazes towards one another, etc. Believe me, I wasn't trying to pull this from the film, this is just what I saw when watching it.  I'm usually one to call foul when I hear someone trying to take too much out of a film, and would usually say something like "Why can't two men be that close without being considered gay?"  But I insist, this was not my fault, but the screenwriter; and like I said, if he didn't make it explicit, he definitely walked a line.  This was further confirmed when I talked about it with my wife (who shared similar feelings), and saw the vast number of reviews on Rottentomatoes.com suggesting the same thing. Although I can see how you would come away thinking they were just really close.

Fair enough. It's quite perturbing that a number of my friends and I share a similar friendship... minus the longing looks.. I'll watch my step now!

The thing that does, however, stick with me is the weak women - totally agree that they played a low key role in proceedings.

Interesting take, Dres.

Andrew