Cubussoli Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

AniInterview Sorry, this movie sucks

StyleSk8r At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Kien Navarro Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

EBJ 'Sherlock Holmes' was directed by Guy Ritchie and stars Robert Downey Jr, Jude Law and Mark Strong. It is the story of world famous British icon, Sherlock Holmes(Robert Downey Jr) and his equally famous sidekick, Dr Jon Watson(Jude Law) who go on the hunt of the mysterious dark wizard, Lord Blackwood(Mark Strong). It is up to Holmes and co to solve this dark villain's plan before it's too late, and he has the entire of London under his spell.This movie is weird. I can't explain specifically why I like this movie, I just do. It's fun, it's weird and it's full of ye olde Guy Ritchie-isms so what's not to love? The story was engaging, the characters are classical but done justice and it's a Guy Ritchie movie. The action is, of course, Guy Ritchie. The dialogue is, of course, Guy Ritchie. This movie contains more Guy Ritchie than his birth certificate. It's a well though out movie and I do recommend you see if because you'll probably get a kick or two out of it.The story, for starters, is very engaging and contains a classical Sherlock Holmes-esc mystery. Of course you only watch a good 'ol mystery for the grand reveal(and this is no exception) but it provides you with a fun, interesting and unique example of Holmes' classic array of stories. I will say that some parts of the movie(for example 'Teleportation' were explained about as well as a gorilla trying to teach someone how not to get shot(too soon?). This movie is also made to setup a sequel(which I'm fine with) but I feel they took too much time focusing on setting up that sequel than they did focusing on the movie. Robert 'The Drug Addiction'(Still love ya Robert) Downey Jr was pretty good as the titular character but he did come of as a tad too comical at points which I suppose fit the character but came off as a little forced and weird. Jude Law was fine as Watson and I can tell he relished in this role. Mark Strong was fine as Lord Blackwood but I think that his character only showed up at random intervals in the plot and merely served as a way to progress the plot along. Rachel McAdams was fine as Irene Adler. Technically speaking, this is a Guy Ritchie movie and is primarily style over substance. That is completely fine in this movie and it is stylistically beautiful. The costume design was great(as was the set design) and looked realistic considering the time period this movie was set in. The cinematography in this movie was very good as per Guy Ritchie fashion and everything part of it screams Ritchie. The action in this movie was pretty good but it did become a tad bit repetitive, especially considering it was the same hand-to-hand combat consistently. Not to say that the slo-mo sections of it were very well done and looked just awesome. The humour worked well but I think that is just down to Downey's charisma and less down to the 'Oscar Worthy' writing. The actual 'Sherlock Holmes' theme of this movie was excellent and very enjoyable. The other uses of music paled in comparison and didn't work too well.In conclusion, if you can handle enough Guy Ritchie to paralyse an elephant then you'll probably enjoy this movie. It's got fun(sometimes bland) action, witty humour and is all around a good time. It is definitely more stylistic than substance which is fine and shouldn't bother many people but I do understand if it does. I do recommend this movie and I think it's a good re-imagining of this character.7/10

tvsweeney-39052 Sherlock is made more human in this one and not simply the dispassionate thinking machine portrayed by others while Dr.Watson gets very physical, in brawls and street chases.Downey is good as Holmes, showing his selfish, somewhat petulant side--at Watson's coming marriage--as well as the usual brilliant observations about those around him. He rushes in where the police fear to tread and his casual insults to Lestrade are done in such a way the bumbling Scotland Yard man doesn't even seem to notice, pointing out his ineptitude. Irene Adler's place in Holmes' life is really built up in this one, though the real story between the two seems to have been more his admiration of her intellect and the fact she was one of the few people ever to best him, than a physical one. Nevertheless, it's fun, with a great villain and a secret society determined to bring down the government.Placing the story in its actual time period makes this one of the better Sherlock Holmes adaptations. There are great panoramic vistas of Victorian London, so vast they have to be partially paintings.Throw in a touch of the supernatural, some great effects, a dash of humor, a couple of explosions, and what's not to like?

YuunofYork Guy Ritchie projects are never boring, but they do sometimes get lost. It was perhaps inevitable tackling such beloved material as this would generate mixed reviews, which is probably why his Sherlock Holmes effort seems to be for everyone and no one. Despite being alternately labeled schlocky fantasy or witty caper, the film attempts to cater to every possible expectation. Everyone, that is, who doesn't have a preconceived notion of what the Arthur Conan Doyle stories are - which is, again, everyone. And there's the rub.If this is big, dumb action, then I have seen far larger and dumber. Other than short, Ritchified segments of Holmes' one-on-one deductive boxing (always shown twice, first deconstructed and then in real-time), the rest of the action is all set pieces. Well-executed set pieces at that, but not memorable ones. Still, they are coherent and well-choreographed, and usually peppered with enough broad humor to get you through it. It's a far cry from either Michael Mann point-and-shoot-outs or Michael Bay visual noise. No, in terms of its action sequences, audiences seem to have more of a problem which movie they're showing up in than anything else. The thing is it is perhaps not quite the departure it seems, as the Holmes character's association with underground boxing or ability to handle himself in a fight has certainly been implied before, just not this heroically, and never on screen.If punching a given quota of man-meat is the price of getting films made today, the flip side in any Holmes adaptation has to be the cerebral unraveling of a mystery, or what is at least a mystery to the reader/audience. This is where Ritchie's film falls short. In a throwaway story that only serves as a springboard for the next (and better) chapter, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows, the manipulative Lord Blackwood (Strong) and his (obviously pseudo) supernatural aura of fear attempt a coup of merry old England as Watson (Law) prepares to leave Baker Street for a stabler relationship with a woman we never really meet for more than two lines. It also somehow involves murders, a dwarf, a Francophone giant, a secret society - and well, there I've nodded off again. It's weak stuff; there is not yet a Mycroft or a Moriarty in this story, except by weak acknowledgment, and only Irene Adler's (Rachel McAdams) interest in Blackwood offers any other level to what is essentially a non-mystery. It isn't merely unsatisfying, but morally, inherently wrong that the audience should discover the solution before Holmes does, but that is what happens here. It would be refreshing and too much to hope for if an action film could be produced without the fate of civilization hanging in the balance. Do producers really think audiences worry themselves with the global Realpolitik in their fictional enterprises? The only real positive is it isn't another boring origin story.Where then, is the film's intelligence I alluded to earlier? It's in the dialogue. I'm not sure whichever one of the five writers working on this project we have to thank for that, but there are some real Sherlockian gems lurking in these lines, to repeat any of which would better constitute a spoiler than the limpid Blackwood plot. I've no doubt each and every one went over the heads of the holiday audience the trailer was marketed to.The film's humor is in no small part possible but for Robert Downey Jr.'s transformative performance. It may not be the man we're used to, but he inhabits Holmes, proving his talent with some difficult lines, an extinct (if less than perfectly rendered) accent, and double-act with Law, with whom he shares a gift for comedy neither actor really gets to use often enough. The only criticism I have with RDJ's representation is, like the film, it's a bit kitchen-sinky. There is Holmes the neurotic, Holmes the sociopath, Holmes the emotional, Holmes the distant, Holmes the brilliant, Holmes the boxer, and he's intent on capturing them all like so many Pokemon.Even the sets are middling. A certain ambiance is created through restriction of color to dull greys, whites, and browns, but that shouldn't have generated a nomination for art direction, should it? With static backgrounds consistently out of proportion to anyone standing outside another building and an aura of cleanliness no one would associate with smoggy, grimy 1890 London (or 1891? newspapers read each), I think people are too quick to praise.I'm not sure therefore who this film can actually succeed in pleasing. It's a prelude of a commercial piece, one its creators certainly hoped would become a franchise, aimed as such at conglomerating every possible portrayal of a Sherlock Holmes story into the same movie. I'm unsympathetic to its most commonly-heard critiques (yes, actually Irene Adler was from New Jersey in the book, no, actually there is real wit here, but you have to pay attention to the mumbling on either side of the big set pieces to find it), but at the same time I'm conscious of its mediocrity. The whole thing is temporarily fun, but it has a lasting silliness. 5/10, but with the promise of things to come.

Davis P This certainly is a more "out there" version of Sherlock Holmes, but I can day with conviction that I really loved this version. Robert Downey Jr. is great as the lead and Jude Law is fitting in the supporting role of Watson. Also in the supporting role category is Rachel Mcadams, and she is very good too. The movie will grab you right from the beginning, with it showing a man performing what appears to be a Satanic ritual, with a woman writhing and under the influence of whatever magic he is performing. I don't know about you, but when I see something like that in a movie, I wanna stick around to find out more. The action sequences are well done, some are actually in slow motion as Holmes explains exactly how he will beat up this person he is fighting, and then he does it in regular motion, which was cool to see. The mystery to the movie is good, no humongous twists here, but still the film is entertaining as anyone could ask for, and it will certainly keep ones attention. The acting is just so good all around by everyone in the cast too. Guy Ritchie directs the film beautifully, which I commend him for. I encourage you to go see Sherlock Holmes, I can guarantee that you will not regret it. Can't wait to see a game of shadows! 8/10.