Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Massawyrm loves Guy Ritchie's SHERLOCK HOLMES...until the point it becomes Jerry Bruckheimer's SHERLOCK HOLMES

Hola all. Massawyrm here. SHERLOCK HOLMES is very much a film I wanted to fall in love with. And for the first two acts of it, I very much was. Stylish, edgy and a fresh take on one of our oldest and most revered pulp heroes, this is a film that takes some great chances that really pay off. And then, seemingly out of nowhere, it ceases to be Guy Ritchie’s SHERLOCK HOLMES and becomes Jerry Bruckheimer’s. Notions of character and all sense of being a detective story go out the window as shit starts blowing up, Holmes finds himself in fistfights with villains and someone has to, I shit you not, diffuse a Victorian era weapon of mass destruction. No, this isn’t your father’s Sherlock Holmes. It’s your 13 year old nephew’s. And it’s a shame, because everything up until that point is masterful. Robert Downey Jr. gives a brilliantly twisted performance as the godfather of all detectives. We’ve seen him played as the cloistered, stick up his ass genius, we’ve seen him played as a bit of the sarcastic curmudgeon, we’ve even seen him played as a drunken idiot (by Michael Caine no less). But what we’ve never seen is him played as the very damaged genius, living shuttered up in his house because he has trouble relating to the world; what we’ve never seen is a Holmes whose brilliance is driven by a single minded obsession with minor details to the point of becoming socially unacceptable. But that’s how Downey plays him here. And it fits the canon. Given this spin it becomes easy to re-examine the text, add in Ritchie’s wonderful layer of Victorian filth and see a slightly cracked Holmes buried on Doyle’s works. Downey Jr. is phenomenal, once again turning in a layered, nuanced and devilishly hilarious performance that only further serves to illustrate that his second life in Hollywood is by far his best. Opposite him and giving his best turn in years is Jude Law, playing a constantly fed up Doctor Watson who is the glue that keeps Holmes together. If you end up loving this movie as several of my friends have, you will do so over watching Law and Downey play off of each other with some of the very best back and forth in years. Together they are an incredible pair, a Holmes and Watson I want to watch time and again in a number of thrilling adventures. I just want them to end up on better adventures than this. The first two acts, while not textually accurate for a Holmes story, are different in all the right ways, making what has become a tired, nearly done to death genre into something delightfully inventive. While hardcore fans might quibble about details, the soul of Holmes remains intact. But as the mystery of a sorcerous cultist unravels before our eyes, so too does the stitching holding together the story. It becomes an action film. And rather than the classic mystery-solving finale, Holmes and company find themselves in a race against time akin to very other mainstream action film you’ve ever seen. Created by a spin of the plot wheel and written by the same monotonous software found on almost every Bruckheimer computer, this fails to offer any surprises once the villain as been unmasked. Explosions rip through the city, Holmes and Watson are pitted in a race against a ticking clock and the whole city – nay, all of England - depends upon the duo to unmask the culprit and save the day. In the end, this isn’t a Sherlock Holmes story. It’s a cape and cowl away from being a Batman story. And it’s not a bad Batman story I guess. My only real complaints are with the way the film disintegrates in its final moments, refusing to allow me to have any real emotional investment in what is going on. Everything leading up to that point is fantastic, if not truly great. I was even on board with Rachel McAdams, the one sticking point in the film that folks seem to be having trouble with. I thought she was solid enough with the material she was given, but that her character was more a McGuffin than anything else. She’s there to get Holmes from place to place in the story while occasionally helping to develop his character while doing it, and little else. Despite all the great set pieces, wonderful performances and stylish camerawork, Ritchie’s Holmes just flies off the rails just before finishing out. A great story works towards a very specific ending. That’s what was so great about Doyle’s Holmes stories. This feels like someone had a great idea for a Holmes story, and figured they’d find an ending later. In the end they just pasted on the one you’ve seen a couple dozen times. There is nothing you won’t recognize about the final moments of this film, right down to the pacing and dialog. It’s a pastiche of mediocre action film endings ruining an altogether near perfect film. I want this to do well. I want this to be successful. I want to see Downey and Law back together again in a mystery story with a real honest to god climax that I care about. Whether that happens remains to be seen. Beer and Pretzel audiences will probably love this for its accessibility, so that might just happen. But I have no immediate urge to revisit this story again. Until next time friends, smoke ‘em if ya got ‘em. Massawyrm
Got something for the Wyrm? Mail it here.

Or follow my further zany adventures on Twitter.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Dec. 22, 2009, 11:10 a.m. CST

    Fuck... this sounds like what the trailers promised..

    by HarryCalder

    ...but I still want to see it. And I hope for the actors' sakes, they get another chance to do it better... Fucking studio bullshit...

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 11:11 a.m. CST


    by shoveller

    best effort yet!

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 11:12 a.m. CST

    Who DOESN'T love Rachel McAdams?

    by NinjaRap

    If she shows up in any role, anywhere, is there anyone alive - male or female - who wouldn't drop $1,000 just to lick her once? She's one of god's most perfect creatures. I don't care if she's in the movie just so she could read the stage directions to Jude Law.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 11:13 a.m. CST


    by Magic Rat

    I'll see it on DVD. Looks okay, but nothing special.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 11:16 a.m. CST

    Nailed why I hate Bruckheimer/Bay/Emmerich

    by lsleelee

    PERFECT explanation. Especially "13 year old nephew"

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 11:21 a.m. CST

    What about my new favourite actor Mark Strong?

    by ISleptWithKathyBatesAndAllThatIGotWasThisStupidTalkbackName

    He was good right? Right???

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 11:24 a.m. CST

    Jeremy Brett's SHERLOCK HOLMES

    by IAmLegolas

    Massawyrm said : "But what we’ve never seen is him played as the very damaged genius, living shuttered up in his house because he has trouble relating to the world; what we’ve never seen is a Holmes whose brilliance is driven by a single minded obsession with minor details to the point of becoming socially unacceptable." <P> Actually we have and then some if you watch Jeremy Brett's SHERLOCK HOLMES. It's an 80's Granada TV series that was under everyone's radar for years unless you lived in Britan or were a hardcore Anglophile and watched it on a taped VHS copy or some obscure cable channel, but with the advent of DVD that pretty much leveled the playing field and brought out obscure films and TV, there's no excuse to skip past this or ignore it. A more faithfully adaption has yet to be made. Make some motherfucking time for it. Oh and, fuck Basil Rathbone.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 11:24 a.m. CST

    Massawyrms Review

    by 2LeggedFreak

    tallies with others I have heard.<P> <P> A UK critic who hates everything Ritchie has ever done says he really enjoyed this because of the Holmes/Watson dynamic. I suppose the cynic in me asks how different this is to any other Buddy Action Movie out there. <P> <P> At least though this doesn't sound like the absolute shit fest many SH fans feared. Well done Mr Ritchie.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 11:26 a.m. CST

    Massa, while I agree about the third act

    by Continentalop

    I think the interactions between Holmes and Watson more than make up for it. It isn't a perfect movie, but it is way better than I thought it would be (and I found the trailers very misleading). <P> Unfortunately, almost all modern movies have over-the-top endings and have the heroes fighting for incredible stakes. I wish that this film would have bucked the trend, but unfortunately it doesn't (just like I wish TDK and QOS hadn't gone so over the top and instead kept it at a more realistic level). <P> My review: <P>

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 11:28 a.m. CST

    And IsleptwithKathyBates...

    by Continentalop

    ...I hate to tell you this, but I did not like Mark Strong in it (and he is normally an actor whose work I admire).

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 11:28 a.m. CST

    what's the diff between RDJ's Holmes and RDJ's Tony Stark

    by OldGlory

    A British accent? He always plays the same character.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 11:32 a.m. CST

    No he doesn't OldGlory

    by Continentalop

    Stark bangs anything that moves. Downing's Holmes is pretty asexual except for having the hots for one woman, and even than he is unable and unwilling to reveal it. With women he is nervous six-year old boy. <p> Not really the same character.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 11:32 a.m. CST

    I'd rather watch Young Sherlock Holmes again

    by ricarleite2

    Stupid at some places, yes, but solid fun.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 11:42 a.m. CST

    "diffuse a Victorian era weapon of mass destruction"?

    by tonagan

    You just kind of give up reading a review at that point...

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 11:44 a.m. CST

    Holmes and Watson=House and Nelson

    by rartus

    sounds like they copied and pasted their dynamic

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 11:44 a.m. CST

    Like what I'm hearing

    by bah

    That's too bad about the ending, but I'm glad that we defenders of this film were right about it being faithful (enough).

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 11:46 a.m. CST

    WHY is everything dirtier, grosser, dumber?

    by PennyB

    OK...OLD PERSON alert here, because that's what I am, I suppose. I get weary of my heroes being more tortured and physically dirtier. I love Robt Downey Jr....hope to see the movie. Sometimes I wonder why these new movies are made in color---everything seems black/gray in them! Except the blood, of course...there is always the blood. Ugh.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 11:47 a.m. CST

    But how does this differ from...?

    by Gislef_crow

    House? The TV series. The folks on that show are big Holmes fan. And you've got the House/Wilson vs. Holmes/Watson dynamic there (note the similar names). House is definitely "the very damaged genius, living shuttered up in his house because he has trouble relating to the world... whose brilliance is driven by a single minded obsession with minor details to the point of becoming socially unacceptable. " If you substitute diseases for murderers, and allow that they've sexed House up a bit more, it seems like the approach described is what they've been doing on House already.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 11:48 a.m. CST

    Holmes didn't have trouble relating to the world.

    by kabong

    Robert Downey has trouble relating to the world.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 11:49 a.m. CST

    Wait did you say Batman! When! Where!

    by jaysin420

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 11:49 a.m. CST

    McAdams as a brunette

    by SithMenace

    is a thousand times hotter than as a blonde.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 11:50 a.m. CST

    The source material

    by movieman742

    If people actually new the source material then they'd know that this is closer to the original books than any other hollywood/film interpretation to date. Massawyrm doesn't know the original source material so oh well. The trailers and promotional materials show that this is very close to the source material but more of a sequel since the holmes watson relationship is already a given at the start of the film. The overall third act weakness I can't attest to because I haven't seen it.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 11:51 a.m. CST


    by just pillow talk

    Does that mean I overpaid with dropping $2,500?

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 11:51 a.m. CST

    I'll watch this at Holmes after the holidays!

    by turketron_2


  • Dec. 22, 2009, 11:53 a.m. CST

    I too hate Bruckheimer

    by SithMenace

    for the loud, flashy, dumb testosterone filled formula he and late partner Don Simpson perfected. Add to that his production company being a breeding ground for the Michael Bays and Tony Scotts of the film making world and you see the need to have him castrated.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 12:08 p.m. CST

    Yep. Second thoughts now...

    by DoctorWho?

    Victorian WMD? Explosions? Sigh.<p> Did mori walk out before the ending? Why didn't he address such bullshit head on?<p> Hollywood will apparently never break such silly conventions even a little bit.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 12:10 p.m. CST

    c'mon posting the same line to different threads

    by just pillow talk

    It's not allowed!

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 12:13 p.m. CST

    "You just kind of give up reading a review at that point"

    by bah

    Are there really people here who don't know of Guy Fawkes, about 300 years before this movie takes place?

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 12:14 p.m. CST


    by Continentalop

    You are arguing with people who think Victorian London and Europe didn't study martial arts. History and fact is not important here, just preconceived notions.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 12:26 p.m. CST


    by frozen01

    It's House and Wilson, not Nelson. And technically speaking, the creators of House MD copied Holmes and Watson's dynamic. There's nothing wrong with that, of course... House is an excellent show, one of my all-time favorites, and they creators have been completely honest about their source material, tending to even hide SH references all over the show... but the movie's writers were simply going from the originals, not stealing from House.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 12:28 p.m. CST

    Have absolutely no interest in this...

    by Fa_Tass_DinoMolester

    Rathbone was the best of the Holmes' so far, although I didn't care for Nigel Bruce's bumbling and imbecilic Watson...the guy was such an idiot, one had to wonder why Holmes even kept him around.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 12:29 p.m. CST


    by frozen01

    Because Victorian London WAS dirty and polluted... as is the world in general. And when people get hit or cut open, they bleed. To quote one of my favorite lines from Sandman "We strive for realism" :)

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 12:30 p.m. CST

    Characters based on Holmes and Watson

    by Continentalop

    Agent Mulder and Agent Scully, Daryl Zero and Steve Arlo, Adrian Monk and his two nurses (Sharona and then Natalie), and House and Wilson. <P>

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 12:32 p.m. CST

    I'm all for reimagining Holmes...

    by Fa_Tass_DinoMolester

    There have been some fun interpretations; Young Sherlock was pretty good, and we've seen everything from old Holmes, (in that crappy "Golden Years" series from the early 90's, where Christopher Lee as Holmes was the only saving grace), to that Holmes in the 22nd Century cartoon from the early 2000's. We've seen him as a strung out drug addict in "The Seven Per Cent Solution", and even the adventures of his younger brother, "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes' Younger Brother"! Yet nothing, and I mean NOTHING, in the Holmes pantheon has come close to looking as shitty a "remimagining" as this slick, MTV-looking, Iron Man-starring POS...

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 12:37 p.m. CST


    by frozen01

    I think the problem is that when people think WMDs, they think nuclear bombs. The definition and the connotation don't always synch, and the fact that it was used here in a sort of sarcastic way may have eluded some. <p>I personally don't think I will have any issues with the explosions. I'll enjoy it for the same reason I enjoyed League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (the comic, not the movie, which I haven't seen yet), which was also very over-the-top but in a fun War of the Worlds/20,000 Leagues sort of way (obvious comparisons, I know... apologies!!!)

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 12:42 p.m. CST

    My initial comment was regarding the word "diffuse".

    by tonagan

    Think about it.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 12:44 p.m. CST


    by Continentalop

    I've seen the film, and while the climax is a disappointment, it also isn't quite as over the top as Massa says. <P> SPOILERS <P> SPOILERS <P> FUCKING SPOILERS <P> The WMD is actually poisonous gas, which the villain plans to floor Parliment and kill the everyone there except himself and his followers. He has secretly given himself and all his followers an antidote earlier, because he wants to make it look like a supernatural event. It is a little bit over-the-top pulp villain (something Fu Manchu or Fantomas would have thought up) but not like he is going to kill millions. <P>

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 12:46 p.m. CST


    by Continentalop

    Sometimes WMD like to be spread out.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 1:05 p.m. CST

    A "socially unacceptable" Holmes...

    by Admonisher

    ...who can't tie his own cravat properly and has trouble making it through dinner in public does NOT fit the canon. Sorry. It just doesn't. If he wants to spin the character that way, fine, he has the artistic license. But I don't recognize Downey, Jr. as Doyle's Holmes, fisticuffs aside.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 1:12 p.m. CST


    by The Garbage Man

    Not one but TWO people so far claiming Sherlock Holmes is ripping off House? Jesus. If ever there were a time for a sarcastic slow-clap...

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 1:14 p.m. CST

    frozen01 Re: LEG

    by bah

    The League movie is a mess, but Naseeruddin Shah is excellent as Nemo.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 1:14 p.m. CST

    QFT IAmLegolas

    by MartinX

    Once you've seen Jeremy Bretts Holmes the others pale in terms of intensity, definitely worth tracking down those series if you haven't seen them. Mycroft Holmes is played awesomely in the later episodes by Charles Gray.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 1:17 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    Guy Ritchie raped my bookshelf.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 1:19 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    Actually no he didn't. I dont have any strong pre-conceptions about how Holmes should be presented. Guy Ritchie is yet to make a boring film and this one looks like a lot of fun.<p> Sad to hear it loses it's way slightly in the final act (a la IRON MAN) but if it's good enough for Conti it's good enough for me.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 1:19 p.m. CST

    The 'canon'...

    by The_Skook

    The 'canon', the 'canon'... the fucking 'canon'. Fits the 'canon'. Bollocks. Read the books! Saying this is more what Doyle intended shows you haven't read the books, as I suspect Richie hasn't. It's taking a very small part of what Holmes is and making it the most important because it fits the populist bullshit presentation the current fucker-upper of something interesting good and honest has. It is so obvious that although Holmes stories were the pulp-fiction of their day they were written for a more intelligent audience than movie makers today like to think their audiences are. Hey... it’s only a movie!

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 1:21 p.m. CST

    Sounds like Iron Man

    by MattmanReturns

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 1:23 p.m. CST

    Sounds like Iron Man's climax

    by MattmanReturns

    first two thirds very well done, followed by a run-of-the-mill final battle. That won't kill the movie for me though, if everything else is good. I'm used to that sort of thing lately. :(

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 1:23 p.m. CST

    The Skook

    by Continentalop

    From my post from another Holmes TB: <P> Remember, this is an interpretation, one in which characteristics of Holmes that best fit modern audiences are emphasized. But those traits are not invented, they exist in the books (just not to the degree they are shown in the movie). <p> I guess one of the reasons I don't mind that they have taken liberties and decided not to make a literal copy of Holmes from the books is because he has already been adapted to film hundreds of times. It is either Holmes or Dracula that holds the title for character who has appeared in the most films. So we have seen a kinds of adaptations, including many which people could consider “very faithful” to what Doyle intended. Which is why sometimes it is good to break away from the original and explore the character in a new way, such as what Robert Towne did in Greystoke: the Legend of Tarzan (good idea and script, badly executed movie). Characters like Daredevil,Solomon Kane or Sgt. Rock, whom have not really appeared on screen before or very often, should at least be attempted to present them as close as their literary or comic book counter part, at least to keep fans satisfied. Holmes, however, has room for interpretations, otherwise he would become a very stale character. One of the best versions of Philip Marlowe is also one that breaks the most away from tradition; if Robert Altman had insisted on making “The Long Goodbye” completely based on Chandler's ideas, we never would have had Elliot Gould's unique and great performance as Philip Marlowe. <p> And I don't know if you read my review, but I have never said that Downing is the best Holmes ever. I think he is good, but nothing great and won't make people forget Rathbone. Jude Law, however, is fucking awesome. Best Watson ever. EVER! <p> Also read my review that I linked up above.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 1:26 p.m. CST


    by Continentalop

    I went into that movie thinking it was going to be a piece of shit. I won't say it is a master piece, but it is way better than people assume. In fact, it is good. <P> The reason I keep posting about it is because I think people are making a mistake disregarding it as stupid action, Bay style movie - it isn't. And yes, it is pretty faithful to the spirit of Doyle's Holmes. Not completely, but I don't think it should be expected to be (over 200 Holmes films have been made, room for interpretation).

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 1:27 p.m. CST

    Rartus is funny

    by MattmanReturns

    I'm sure he knows House is based on Holmes and is simply trying to get people riled up. Strangely enough, House has been the most accurate interpretation of Holmes' personality yet.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 1:40 p.m. CST

    Continentalop your words are encouraging...

    by DoctorWho?

    ...because I DO want to like this movie.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 1:40 p.m. CST

    Doyle's Holmes could say this...

    by Admonisher

    "Our highest assurance of the goodness of Providence seems to me to rest in the flowers. All other things, our powers, our desires, our food, are all really necessary for our existence in the first instance. But this rose is an extra. Its smell and its colour are an embellishment of life, not a condition of it. It is only goodness which gives extras, and so I say again that we have much to hope from the flowers." If I have a hard time envisioning an actor playing Holmes giving this speech -- or even expressing this sentiment -- then something vital is lacking. ACD's Holmes was a man of action, yes. When his mind wasn't engaged, he could be depressive to unhealthy extremes. But in terms of his brain, he was more than a calculating mind. He was always thoughtful ... often philosophical ... and yes, sensitive at times. Is Downey's Holmes allowed this kind of space? I'm genuinely curious.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 1:51 p.m. CST

    Actually yes and no Admonisher

    by Continentalop

    First off, Doyle's Holmes was never consistent. Seriously. In one story he is said to always be messy, to have acid stains on his hands and to not care about his appearance, and in another story he is described by Watson as having "the cleanliness of a cat." <P> The Holmes in this film is one that touches more on his sarcastic side, his distaste for authority (like when he slying insults the King of Bohemia), his love of showing off, his lack of proper respect for the law and his willingness to bend the law when he thinks it is justified, his patriotism - all traits shown in Doyle's work. <p> He never waxes poetically like you just quoted in this film, but I could see him express similar ideas in future movies. I could see Downing's Holmes say that quote (especially when trying to indirectly defend Irene Adler). <P> I'm not going to lie and say it is completely Doyle's Holme, because Sherlock never would have any romantic feelings for Adler, even repressed ones. But nothing in this film truly contradicts Doyle's work - it just emphasizes certain aspects and theorizes about stuff that was not ever said. Saying Holmes had feelings for Adler might not be completely accurate with Doyle's work, but I think you can argue that there is room open there for you to interpret it that way.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 1:59 p.m. CST


    by uberman

    From the first time I saw the commercial, I thought that this doesnt look ANYTHING like a Sherlock Holmes movie, but more like the sweaty, stinky ass that defines a Bruckheimer film. I hate it when they take classic figures from literature who have a well defined manner and worldview, throw that out and make them into action heroes. The only that remains true to the original character is the name. I say BULLSHIT on that. I wont be giving this shit a dime of my money.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 2:01 p.m. CST

    Than you are missing out uberman

    by Continentalop

    Because it is nothing like a Bruckheimer movie. And the fighting and martial arts are very realistic and authentic for that time period. And I would even argue very much within Holmes' character.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 2:10 p.m. CST

    Re: Inconsistent Holmes

    by bah

    Very true. There are contradictions within "A Study in Scarlet", the very first book (e.g. how does someone who is ignorant of literature know who Poe's characters are?)

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 2:16 p.m. CST

    Exactly bah

    by Continentalop

    Here is a character who says he didn't know that the Earth revolves around the Sun in "A Study in Scarlet" because it useless information to a detective, but in later stories quotes Persian philosophers, history of art and theatre, and says in "The Valley of Fear" that "all knowledge is useful to a detective." <P> (But I personally like to rationalize this bit of inconsistency with the idea the Holmes changed his mind in later years and decided to start broadening his horizons).

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 2:35 p.m. CST

    When did RDJ turn into an action hero?

    by saber12

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 2:54 p.m. CST


    by Zahaladeen


  • Dec. 22, 2009, 3:10 p.m. CST

    Doyle was a total nutbar.

    by Frijole

    Through and through. Fun writer, total loon.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 3:14 p.m. CST


    by Sailor Rip

    Indeed. Brett is the best. They used to show the series here in the states on Bravo I think and it was great. I even had to track down the sound track because I loved the opening theme so much.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 3:19 p.m. CST


    by rutgersjaffo

    The very idea of turning the most cerebral sleuth of all time into an action hero makes me want to vomit. Robert Downey Jr.'s run of hits should stop here...

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 3:21 p.m. CST

    Continental Op

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    "If Robert Altman had insisted on making “The Long Goodbye” completely based on Chandler's ideas, we never would have had Elliot Gould's unique and great performance as Philip Marlowe." You say that like it's a bad thing.<p>And as for the inconsistencies in the Holmes stories themselves, I'd agree, but try reading Holmes's point about the earth revolving around the sun as him having a sarcastic laugh at Watson's expense. I read all the Doyle Holmes stories every few years (as well as several of the non-canonical offshoot Holmes novels) and I've taken to reading the Man Himself as often putting on a slightly dense Watson.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 3:22 p.m. CST


    by rutgersjaffo

    Remo Williams fucking rules...

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 3:31 p.m. CST

    The Bicycle Sharer

    by Continentalop

    Sorry to disagree with you but I think Altman's THE LONG GOODBYE is f'ing brillaint. <p> And, yes, maybe Holmes is making a joke at Watson's expense. That is on way to interpret it (of course, if you can interpret that scene that way, who is to say you can't interpret some of Holmes' actions and traits differently...).

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 3:33 p.m. CST

    If Massawyrm don't like it,

    by andrewsubtitle

    I won't like it! That's all I have to say about that.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 3:39 p.m. CST

    And if the die hard Holmes fans can't accept this

    by Continentalop

    Just think of Downing's Holmes as the Sherlock Holmes of Earth-2. Not the original, doesn't quite look the same, but close enough to the original in appearance, origin and MO to be still considered Sherlock Holmes. <P> I can't wait for Crisis on Victorian Earths when Basil Rathbone, Peter Cushing and Downing team up to take on Bela Lugosi, Christopher Lee and Gary Oldman.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 3:39 p.m. CST

    Sherlock Holmes with kung-fu grip

    by keltic1701

    I'm sorry but making Sherlock Holmes in to a womanizing, action hero type is like making Rambo a pacifist. I MIGHT be willing to see this when it's available on Netflix but I'm sure not gonna spend 8 or 9 dollars to see it at the theater.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 3:42 p.m. CST

    Than you are missing out keltic1701

    by Continentalop

    Because he isn't an action hero. He is a hero who is a man of action. Big difference. And he is far from a womanizer - he seems unable to operate or function with women, even Irene Adler. <P> And once again, the fighting is damn good and authentic. Amped up, yes, but nothing in that movie is something that wasn't available to learn in Victorian London.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 3:49 p.m. CST

    Batman Begins was fucked just like this

    by centilope

    Actually, it was fucked much worse. A movie that showed promise, tried to delve deeper into Batman's psyche, tried to give an accurate representation of his character, was nearly ruined by some terrible cliched lines, equally terrible one liners, shakycam, generic, typical hollywood blockbuster 3rd act retarded race to the finish, tacked-on romance to broaden the demographic some more. I cringe as I'm writing about this bullshit. Some of these elements and more can be found in EVERY SINGLE FUCKING ONE of the blockbusters Hollywood keeps shitting out.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 4:33 p.m. CST

    Downey Jr seems to be just acting like a buffoon

    by AvaStar

    in this (at least from the trailers). He somehow manages to haphazardly fall assbackwards into catching the criminal. It worked for Johnny Depp in Pirates cuz pirates are drunken and slipshod, but Holmes should be sharp, have his shit together, one step ahead of everyone else. Not an absent minded boob as presented here.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 4:37 p.m. CST

    Just watching the previews

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    I don't like the looks of it. The Bruckheimer stuff shines through all too brightly. I think the source material done right needs no freshening or modern twist. And I certainly don't understand the need to re-brand properties that gained popularity on their own specific merits. In other words if I want rock em sock action, Sherlock Holmes is not where I turn, and nor should it be.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 4:42 p.m. CST

    Iron Man had a horrible soundtrack

    by centilope

    Just wanted to get that off my chest.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 5:04 p.m. CST

    Continentalop, give it a rest.

    by chronicallydepressedlemming

    You are seriously starting to smell of plant.<p> Look, it's irrelevant if this is a 'good movie'. It's using a couple of lines from the novels to establish the character as an action hero - even a small one. Holmes is the ultimate cerebral detective. He's the basis of a zillion deteective shows and to see him brought down to this level - no matter how good a stand-alone movie this is regardless of previous character knowlegdge - is a crying shame.<p> They could have made this movie and 'changed the names to protect the innocent', but then that might have affected the box office numbers, right?,</p> No, better to shit on the minority of people who actually know what Sherlock Holmes is. They'll just cry quietly....

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 5:06 p.m. CST

    ..Accessiblilty is the problem...

    by Bones

    One of the main problems with big-budget movies is that they are so expensive that they keep trying to make everything accessible for everyone, rather than tell a good story that finds an audience.<p> You don't have to make a Sherlock Holmes movie for people who only like explosions. You don't have to make Day the Earth Stood Still for the Independance Day crowd. You don't have to make Star Trek for the Star Wars set. You don't have to make Aliens versus Predator for anyone.<p> STORY seems to be the least important part of movies these days. And we keep feeding it with our dollars.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 5:19 p.m. CST

    It sounds similar to District 9

    by estacado1

    where the final part of the film ramps up the action. And I like it that way.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 5:21 p.m. CST

    the film version of LEague of Extraordinary gentleman sounds bet

    by awepittance

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 5:33 p.m. CST

    Depression does not exist in this dojo

    by Cobra--Kai

    chronicallydepressed, actually Conti is doing what I wish more of the reviewers on this site would do. He's seen an advance preview and instead of just posting his review and leaving it to the talkbackers to bicker and discuss in the dark, Conti's actually wading in - reasoning, debating, and explaining. More power to him.<p> You *haven't* seen it, but sounds like you've already made up your mind about the movie anyway. You can go back to crying quietly now. Good luck with that.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 5:38 p.m. CST

    I think it will do Star Trek level business

    by saber12

    It has the same style where they just take old names and reinvent them and speed up the film.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 5:51 p.m. CST

    But how do they handle the gay subtext?

    by 3D-Man

    Devin's review over at CHUD says that Holmes and Watson "all but make out" with each other. Not interested in seeing that. At all.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 6:25 p.m. CST

    House vs. Holmes

    by Gislef_crow

    My point wasn't that House was an uncredited ripoff of Doyle's Holmes. Only that a "real-to-Doyle" Holmes has already been done.<p> As far as Richie's version, I must have missed the story where Doyle's Holmes was handcuffed naked to a bed, and exchanges sexual innuendoes with women. That part (heavily played up in the promos) is what concerns me, not the action pieces.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 6:37 p.m. CST


    by reflecto

    Lame, Massa. Just admit it's shit. Why do all the reviewers here have such a hard time admitting something they spent months fellating is shit? It's always "gosh, you know, I LOVE MOVIES YOU GUYS, and I KNOW (INSERT NAME HERE) is a GREAT DIRECTOR, and when I heard about his ideas I LOVED THEM, but JEEZ...I DUNNO...MAYBE THE NEXT MOVIE...if we go see this one..." ADMIT IT SUCKS.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 7:10 p.m. CST

    So is Brad Pitt in the movie or not?

    by qweruiop

    Did anyone who saw the film see any cameo from him?

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 7:20 p.m. CST


    by Continentalop

    That is played as a joke. An obvious joke, yes, one way to featured in the ads. But it is a case of misunderstanding, and actually works in the film (and is probably the only case of over-the-top humor in the film).

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 7:21 p.m. CST

    Thanks Cobra

    by Continentalop

    Once again you are a sensei of wisdon for the dojo of common sense.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 7:47 p.m. CST

    And Chronicallydepressing

    by Continentalop

    Sorry to disappoint, but I am no plant. I have posted here often, and many times I have been one of the most critical TBers. In fact, I like to think I have impeccable TB credentials (whatever that means): Professional from the Baleback, Pedalbacker, friend of the CoC and frequent denizen of Twitch, reviewer for AIBN, and poster at Werewolves on the Moon. You, however, I don't remember seeing around. Very suspicious (makes me wonder if you are plant sent to sabotage SHERLOCK HOLMES. Damn you AVATAR!). <P> Also, the reason I am constantly posting about this movie is I think people are making a big mistake about it. Seriously. They are already making up there mind based on the ad campaign, which I admit is horrible. It makes it look like a kung fu movie. It isn’t (it is baritsu). <P> I’m not blaming people for being skeptical based on the ad campaign, but I am telling people they are underestimating this movie. I was very doubtful of this film as well before I saw it, based on the commercials, trailers, and the fact Guy Ritchie directed it. However, I found it to be much better than it looks, and it is actually very faithful to Doyle’s character. Is it completely faithful? No, but it is an interesting interpretaion using elements found in Doyle’s work, and most films are not that faithful to begin with. BATMAN BEGINS or THE DARK KNIGHT weren’t completely faithful and many people here could accept the changes to the character in those movies (I don’t remember Bruce Wayne almost assassinating Joe Chill, having a childhood sweet heart named Rachel, or that Henri Ducard and Ra’s Al Ghul was the same person, or remember a Joker who wasn’t all white and didn’t use Joker Venom). Well, Ritchie might not be as skilled as Nolan, but SHERLOCK HOLMES the movie is much more faithful than the new Batman movies. <P> Also, you say Holmes was only a cerebral hero. Hmmm. It seems people don’t mind when he fences like in THE SEVEN PERCENT SOLUTION or some of the RATHBONE movies, but as soon as he uses his fist or sticks or martial arts, it is inaccurate and fucks up the character. Funny thing is he used martial arts in a number of stories (they mention he is a boxer in a couple and he dispatches foes with his fist in "The Adventure of the Solitary Cyclist" and "The Adventure of the Naval Treaty"; he is a single-stick fighter and uses his cane to defeat foes in two stories, "The Red-Headed League" and "The Adventure of the Illustrious Client", and he uses baritsu to defeat Moriarty in “The Adventure of the Empty House”; and their is a number of stories where off camera Holmes apprehends the villain) Funny that someone who is more knowledgable about Holmes than me wouldn’t know that... <P> Finally, I am not saying it is a great movie, or even that you won’t like it. But I think people should give it a fair chance, especially since there are so few decent movies out there. Just saying don’t make up your mind yet. You might miss out of something. <P> Of course, many of you would just rather jump to a wrong conclusion...

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 7:50 p.m. CST

    "sarcastic laugh at Watson's expense"

    by bah

    That's an interesting take on it. I'll consider that next time I read it.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 8:02 p.m. CST

    It's NOT Sherlock Holmes...

    by ninpobugei

    Sorry, but this movie is Hollywood pop shit. I won't be seeing it. I've read numerous Holmes stories and none of this is accurate with the character or the stories. Really pisses me off that they had to Hollywoodize so well-known of a literary character.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 8:04 p.m. CST

    It's the humor and comical take on Holmes that's wrong.

    by ninpobugei

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 8:16 p.m. CST

    As I wrote earlier ninpogugei

    by Continentalop

    Sherlock Holmes is the most filmed character ever (save for maybe Dracula). With 200+ appearances I think their is room for this version without damaging the character. <P> And as for his humor, hmmm. I seem to remember Holmes have a little bit of a sharp wit and sardonic sense of humor. In "A Scandal in Bohemia", the King of Bohemia makes a reference to how he wished Irene Adler was the same level as him. Holmes response was: <p> “From what I have seen of the lady, she seems, indeed, to be on a very different level to your Majesty.” <P> Like I keep saying, don't base your opinion on the ad campaign.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 8:28 p.m. CST

    'Lop is a dick, but he aint a plant

    by Hey_Kobe_Tell_Me_How_My_Ass_Tastes

    Fuck you very much

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 8:33 p.m. CST

    I will take that as a compliment Kobe

    by Continentalop

    And I appreciate you vouching for me, even though I am sure it pains you to do so.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 8:38 p.m. CST

    That made me giggle

    by Hey_Kobe_Tell_Me_How_My_Ass_Tastes

    Touchy<p> (yeah I know how to really spell it but my accent grave key aint workin)

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 8:46 p.m. CST

    by rartus

    House borrowed themes from SH, now they're returning the favor. I like the cultural give-and-take

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 8:53 p.m. CST

    is there a homoerotic beach volleyball scene

    by Phil Connors

    Kenny Logans...playing with the boys...the whole bit?

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 10:45 p.m. CST


    by Cobbio

    Thanks for the review, Massa. Great as always.<p> What you wrote dovetails exactly with my feelings about the film advertised in the trailers. A new take on Sherlock Holmes, mostly good but with implausibly stupid Bruckheimerisms.<p> Unfortunately, pretty much what I expected.<p> Glad to hear Downey and Law turn in fun performances though. Those two should be cool to watch.<p> Not for me, since it isn't really my type of film, but for other people. I hope it does okay.

  • Dec. 22, 2009, 10:47 p.m. CST


    by Ashs_Right_Hand

    is the most credible reviewer on the website. beaks wasnt bad until he chose bring it on and jackass the movie over almost famous, the dark knight and mystic river

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 12:37 a.m. CST

    If Avatar sucks balls...

    by theKRELL

    and Sherlock sucks nuts...<P>then thejewhunter sucks Cock. Circumsized Cock!

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 12:37 a.m. CST

    Downey needs to do more buddy comedies.

    by greyspecter

    The best one in decades was Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang when he elevated Kilmer to a level I don't know that we've ever seen from him (kilmer). I salivate to think of him and Law going back and forth. <p>The greatest Watson ever, by the way, was Ben Kingsley in Without a Clue. Really. No, really! Go rent it! Tell me it isn't so!<p>Lastly, Holmes was a man of action, but he always considered his first priority to be problem solving. I can't see him in a boxing match just for the heck of it. Oh, and he may have had a certain dry humor, but he wasn't glib. And from the preview, Downey plays him glib. I can't go for that.

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 2:22 a.m. CST

    Holmes DID box for the heck of it...

    by Admonisher

    ...or at least for the sake of sport, and for keeping up his skills. I don't have a problem with Holmes heading to the ring to blow off steam. As for glib dialogue, I agree that the film seems to cross the line. Sure, Holmes could be sardonic, sarcastic, irritable at times ... but stuff like the "It's not in your face it's in my hand" back-and-forth, for example, just doesn't track for me.

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 4:17 a.m. CST

    I dont give a monkey's left nut about reviews!

    by Drsambeckett1984

    I will love this movie, it has great actors, good action, and most importantly, it has Rachel Mcadams. Nuff said.

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 6:34 a.m. CST

    heh...Conti as a plant

    by just pillow talk

    You bastard, you've been building your posting history (very anti-plant), posting right under our noses!<p>I do find it amusing that everyone has already made up their minds on this, regardless of what people who have seen the movie say.

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 6:59 a.m. CST

    Young Sherlock Holmes was a fun movie

    by The_Crimson_King

    I love the idea of an evil cult's pyramid hidden in the middle of a city

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 7 a.m. CST

    anyway I think this looks good, but...

    by The_Crimson_King

    I'll probably wait till blu ray because I'll be too busy with Christmas this weekend to see a movie, which is why I hate Christmas releases

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 7:09 a.m. CST


    by Drsambeckett1984

    Young SHerlock Holmes is a great movie, why they never made a sequel is beyond me. <P> I too loved the pyramid under the city idea, so much that I stole it for my screenplay, hopefully the BBC dont remember Young Sherlock too well

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 7:50 a.m. CST

    Boxing Day

    by Walter_Burns

    Even with the caveats still looking forwards to this one on Saturday

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 9:45 a.m. CST

    Basd on this review

    by Luscious.868

    I think I'll like the film. This review makes it sound like the movie is everything the previews made it out to me and I think I'll like it. I wasn't expecting a serious mystery movie all the way through or something Oscar caliber. I was expecting a Sherlock Holmes movie with good performances, witty banter and some mindless fun at the end and that sounds like it's exactly what we'll get. This will be the Iron Man of Sherlock Holmes movies.

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 9:54 a.m. CST


    by greyspecter

    ...are you referring to the Musgrave Ritual? I think Holmes mentioned winning a boxing scholarship to college, is that what you mean? If so, then yes he did box for sport...but as a freaking teenager!! He wasn't still doing it later in life. <p>Most 'gentlemen' back then didn't exert themselves very much. They didn't play sports or work out. If they wanted to sweat they went to sweat lodges or spas. The fact that Holmes would prowl around crime scenes like the meanest detective, that he would sometimes engage in fisticuffs, was what made him an active man. Watson was a soldier, he was used to a physical lifestyle. But Holmes united intelligence and artistic sensibility with activity and exertion. However, that doesn't mean he was John McClane in Die Hard!

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 10:55 a.m. CST

    Yep, Young Holmes was fun, but it is weird:

    by Fa_Tass_DinoMolester

    How, 1: the cult scenes were so similar to Temple of Doom, which had come out around the same time and both were from Steven Spielberg, and 2: how similar the film is to the Harry Potter concept, and Columbus ended up directing the first two of those films as well...

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 11:10 a.m. CST

    What about Hugh Laurie's 'House'?

    by jackson healy

    "But what we’ve never seen is him played as the very damaged genius, living shuttered up in his house because he has trouble relating to the world; what we’ve never seen is a Holmes whose brilliance is driven by a single minded obsession with minor details to the point of becoming socially unacceptable." <p> Well, we've seen Hugh Laurie play him exactly this way, if you wanna get metaphorical.

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 11:29 a.m. CST


    by Continentalop

    In The SIgn of the Four we find out that Holmes was and is an amateur boxer from this conversation: <P> "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." <p> And Holmes continues to use boxing in the stories, implying he still practices, which would imply he still spars (you don't just study boxing in college and than expect it to stick with you unless you exercise). <P> Also, the late Victorian period was very much into exercise. During that time, the many people began to get involved in physical fitness (including future US President Teddy Roosevelt. Eugen Sandow was active during that period, a pioneer of bdybuilding and consider the "Father of Modern Bodybuilding." In 1856 (40-45 years before the film SHERLOCK HOLMES takes place) a Ms. Catherine Beecher (1800-78) publishes "Physiology and Calisthenics for Schools and Families", the first fitness manual for women. Gymnasiums, bicycling and tennis were huge crazes in the Victorian era, and in 1904 and later their would be classes and group exercises for the Indian Club. <P> And as this little video about bartitsu shows, sparring and exercise was big in London at the end of the 19th Century and beginning of the 20th. <P>

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 11:34 a.m. CST

    Hey JPT

    by Continentalop

    I'm very cunning. I have been building up cred just until this moment to act as a plant, and I would have gotten away with it if it wasn't for chronicallydepressedlemming and his lousy dog.

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 11:45 a.m. CST


    by toadkillerdog

    Thoughts on Mayweather vs Manny? <p> I think Floyd will beat Manny, because he is the superior boxer. But I also think Floyd is trying to get into Manny's head with the drug testing. <p> Still, it does not look good for Manny to protest the testing. It makes him look guilty as hell.<p> Also, did you see who he is getting his Tiger on with these days? She is smokin. A Philippine actress, on cover of Maxim.

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 11:48 a.m. CST

    Back to the movie

    by toadkillerdog

    I will see this the day after Xmas, and I am looking forward to it. I must admit, the trailer put me off with the CGI, but I am willing to keep an open mind because I have been swayed by the plant, uh, er Conti. Yeah.

  • Dec. 23, 2009, noon CST

    Hey toad

    by Continentalop

    I'll be honest. I have no clue. I keep going back and forth on those two. Mayweather's height and speed make him so imposing, but man, Manny is such a good inside fighter. Plus he is being trained by my man Freddie Roach. <P> And the testing is making Manny look like he is either an ignorant superstitious yokel or that he has been hiding something. You're right, doesn't make him look good. <P> And as a plant, just remember to water me sometimes toad.

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 12:11 p.m. CST

    Ha! I can't believe someone called you a plant

    by toadkillerdog

    Maybe you are like the Manchurian candidate? <p> There is too much money at stake, and too much of a reputation hit that Manny would take if he lets this derail the fight. <p> I love his style. He is my favorite fighter today. But as great as Manny is, Mayweather is a technician. But there are two things in Manny's favor: age and desire. He is younger and still hungrier. <p> Mayweather could go the Ali-Spinks route (throw the first fight to set up an even more lucrative rematch), but in this case, I do not think Mayweather would throw the fight, but he may not have the burning desire to go all out.<p> It will be fascinating though. <p> Yes, I will be plunking down the cash on PPV to see it.

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 12:12 p.m. CST

    F*** Young Sherlock Homes!

    by Stabby

    Why not just make an Encyclopedia Brown movie?

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 12:18 p.m. CST

    Same here toad

    by Continentalop

    What really scares me about Floyd is his reach (6" on Manny) and his rolling shoulder style (adds about another 2"). <P> One thing about Floyd though is as quick as he is, he isn't superhumanly fast. He dodges most punches because he is so great at timing and figuring out his opponents time (hence why he sometimes loses early rounds). <P> But if Manny comes out fast and strong, like Zab Judah did, he can maybe rock Floyd early and pick up maybe 4 of the first 5 rounds. This would force Floyd to have to come out and be aggressive in later rounds, instead of fighting defensive like he usually does (and which he kills opponents). <P> It could be a great fucking fight. And yes I am plunking down money on PPV to see it. FINALLY, a great boxing match.

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 12:21 p.m. CST

    But seriously Stabby, how big of pussy was Brown?

    by Continentalop

    His bodyguard/enforcer was a girl.

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 12:24 p.m. CST

    Great point Conti

    by toadkillerdog

    I totally agree, if Manny forces Floyd into becoming the aggressor, it could potentially open Floyd up to a brutal slug it out mano-a-mano war. Which would just be awesome for fight fans! <p> Damn, I am going to pull out the Hearns Hagler tape tonight!

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 12:25 p.m. CST

    Hey Conti, Girls physically mature faster than boys

    by Stabby

    Besides she could have been a Chyna Doll-type chick. I played Brown in a play in 6th grade so he's got a special place in my heart.

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 12:27 p.m. CST

    I liked the Brown books Stabby

    by Continentalop

    They were fun reads. And actually, not to get nerdy, but visually that is a great dynamic: nerdy detective and tough, hot chick partner. I can imagine Hugh Laurie teaming up with Jennifer Lopez from OUT OF SIGHT as the adult version.

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 12:27 p.m. CST

    I think Qadaffy has female bodyguards

    by toadkillerdog

    Then again, that is not a ringing endorsement.

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 12:27 p.m. CST

    All I know toad is that it has been to long

    by Continentalop

    Since we have had a fight this big.

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 12:28 p.m. CST

    Rachel McAdams

    by AlexdeLarge655321

    She needs a sexual education proper...with Alex as teacher.

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 12:29 p.m. CST

    Jennifer in Out of Sight!

    by toadkillerdog

    My God! That was my first encounter with a badonkadonk of the first order of magnitude! I think when she was locked in the truck, and climbed out buttwards, I damn near had a stroke!

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 12:39 p.m. CST

    Lopez in Oliever Stone's U-Turn bending over

    by Stabby

    up on the ladder is one of the single hottest images ever put on film.

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 12:40 p.m. CST

    J-Lo is bootylicious toad

    by Continentalop

    But got does she do bad movies. But she was hot and awesome in OUT OF SIGHT. <p> Actually Gina Carano would make a good adult Sally Kimball (yeah, I looked it up).

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 12:44 p.m. CST


    by toadkillerdog

    I never heard of that movie! I just looked it up on imdb! <p> I will turn in my Lopez love card in shame.

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 12:45 p.m. CST

    In a modern version of Encyclopedia Brown

    by Stabby

    his arch-nemesis would have to be Wikipedia Puce.

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 12:47 p.m. CST

    toad, Lopez' badonkadonk and Billy Bob's character

    by Stabby

    are the only worthwhile things in that movie. But, seriously if you're a fan of Lopez' assets than it is a must-see.

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 12:47 p.m. CST


    by Continentalop

    That was mint. Wkipedia Puce.

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 12:49 p.m. CST

    I will google the bootay

    by toadkillerdog

    maybe youtube has it?

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 1:01 p.m. CST

    Fuck it. I'm gonna make a grown up version of Enclopedia Brown

    by Continentalop

    Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Enclopedia Brown: former high school nerd, now shattered PI who is trying to kick a heroin addiction. <p> Gina Carano as Sally Kimbal: Browns childhood friend who became a cop; has quit being a detective in Warrants to become Brown's partner again. <p> Charlie Hunnam as Bugs Meanie: gone from juvenile deliquency to felonies as leader of the Tiger MC. <p>

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 1:05 p.m. CST

    Conti, If Holmes is a success

    by Stabby

    you may just be able to successfully pitch an Encyclopedia Brown movie. Although, I think it would make more money if you keep it about kids and maybe throw in some Twilight type angst and romance.

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 1:09 p.m. CST

    Maybe you're right Stabby

    by Continentalop

    Enclopedia Brown: Vampire Hunter...and Lover.

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 1:19 p.m. CST

    A grown-up and Human version of Lancelot link

    by toadkillerdog

    Lancelot Link: Secret Chimp <p> Starring...<p> As Lancelot Link - George W. Bush (a slam dunk) ook ook!<p> Mata Hairi (the love interest) - Maggie Gyllenhal - She is beautiful to the chimps<p> Commander Darwin - Randy Quaid in a toss up with him and Nic Cage. Randy needs the money more (just barely) <p> <p> Bruce the Courier - Shia the beef <p> The Villains <p> Baron von Butcher - Mickey Rourke (no go-rillas in this one, but he is close enough to a chimp) <p> Wang Fu - Jackie Chan (the older he gets the more chimp he looks)<p> Dr. Strangemind - Gary Busey (another slam dunk) <p> The Dutchess - Sarah Jessica Parker. Who else?<p> Dragon Lady - Hillary Swank. She rounds out the Big 3 of animal looking actresses with great bodies.

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 1:19 p.m. CST

    Hey toad, if you are still around

    by Continentalop

    Have you been following the Super Six tournament?

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 1:22 p.m. CST

    Man, I must be into bestiality

    by Continentalop

    I think Swank is hot, and I think Maggie G is ok. Kind of cute in some films (the Secretary & Stranger Than Fiction).

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 1:26 p.m. CST


    by toadkillerdog

    I have not followed it as closely as I should have. I know the format, but outside of Kessler, none of the fighter really intrigued me. Might be nice to see if Taylor can resurrect his career though.

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 1:28 p.m. CST

    Yeah, I know Conti. I blame that on your known love of skanks

    by toadkillerdog

    It has messed with your mind dude!

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 1:33 p.m. CST

    Like Tiger Woods, I only have a thing for chicks

    by Stabby

    with diamonds in their faces, augmented breasts, spray tans and massive facial reconstruction who work in the adult service industry.

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 1:43 p.m. CST

    Swank. Skank. You might be onto something toad.

    by Continentalop

    But really, I'm not skanks as much as I am into women with lots of talent. <p> Some women have a lot of talent sucking cock. I admire that.

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 1:47 p.m. CST

    An appreciation of talent is what sets us apart from animals

    by toadkillerdog

    Or, other animals I should say. <p> Nothing wrong with appreciating that talent Conti!<p> Just use plenty of penicillin!

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 1:55 p.m. CST

    Awesome. TCM is playing Dead Reckoning

    by Continentalop

    Not one of Bogie's best movies, but I love some of his lines, especially to Elisabeth Scott.

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 1:57 p.m. CST

    Lizabeth Scott.

    by Continentalop

    I should know her name. She was the hottest carpet muncher in Hollywood history.

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 2:15 p.m. CST


    by Admonisher

    I was thinking of Holmes' reminiscence with McMurdo the former prize-fighter in THE SIGN OF THE FOUR. Now, you might argue that because the date given for their match is "four years ago," that might extend back to Holmes' pre-consulting-detective days. But while Doyle is notoriously bad about chronology, SIGN is rather clearly set in the year 1888 ("ten years ago" in the story is 1878, while "six years ago" is 1882). The story THE SPECKLED BAND is explicitly set in 1883 -- five years earlier. The clear inference from all of this is that Holmes continued to engage in sport boxing well into his career as a private consulting detective. Oh ... and I just saw Continentalop's post. Ditto. :-)

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 2:17 p.m. CST

    That said...

    by Admonisher

    ...I'm not sure it's in character for Holmes to deliberately injure his opponent to such a serious degree. A clean KO and perhaps a withering remark would seem more fitting. But maybe that's just me.

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 3:37 p.m. CST

    No shit, Massa...

    by AsimovDiedOfAIDS

    ... My guess is the ending was grafted on by the suits, or Mr. Bruckheimer himself. (Gotta get the yokels in the seats en masse.)

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 3:40 p.m. CST

    You want Encyclopedia Brown...

    by AsimovDiedOfAIDS

    ... Hollywood will give you Harriet the Spy!

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 3:43 p.m. CST

    I'll see it...

    by AsimovDiedOfAIDS

    ... I'm no Holmes purist, hell, I'd like to see Sherlock Holmes vs. Dracula. (Hey Hollywood, ya listening?)

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 3:44 p.m. CST

    Where's the part where Nero shows up and changes history?

    by MrMysteryGuest

    And blows up Holmes' father?

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 6:15 p.m. CST

    On some threads

    by Samson_K

    We get - Fuck Robin Hood - it's been done before and this one looks the same.<BR><BR>On this thread we get - Fuck Sherlock Holmes - it's different than what's been done before and looks too different.<BR><BR>You kids are crazy

  • Dec. 23, 2009, 7:14 p.m. CST

    Where in the world is Robert Downey Jr.

    by saber12

  • Dec. 24, 2009, 2:12 a.m. CST

    A load of Horse Shit

    by MajorFrontbum

    Is this set in 1887 or 1987?

  • Dec. 24, 2009, 5:51 a.m. CST


    by Knuckleduster

    SHINO, I say.

  • Dec. 24, 2009, 12:33 p.m. CST

    MajorFrontbum and Knuckleduster, what the hell do you know about

    by Continentalop

    Fuck. Some of you so called Holmes "experts" love to make rash decisions. <P> If Martin Scorsese can do LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST and go against "canon" that Jesus had the hots for Mary, I think you should be able to accept the changes they did to SHERLOCK HOLMES (which I still insist do not contradict Doyle's work).

  • Dec. 24, 2009, 12:36 p.m. CST


    by Continentalop

    Great. Cut off. Stupid subject lines.

  • Dec. 24, 2009, 5:48 p.m. CST

    I hate to admit it but i think that Massa

    by AsimovLives

    just said it as it it about this movie. And it conforms not only my suspicions, but my worst fears about the movie. The review sounds right. What a waste of such a great cast! I guess that's the price to pay to have Joel Silver as the producer of the movie, right?

  • Dec. 24, 2009, 5:50 p.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    SCorsese went agaisnt canon with Jesus on THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST and made a great, INTELLIGENT movie out of it. You see, the point is is the "great" and "INTELLIGENT" part. As in, if you have a point to make. If the only point you want to make in your movie is to blow shit up, then no, it's not a valid reason to go fucking up with canon.

  • Dec. 24, 2009, 5:51 p.m. CST

    SHINO, i'm affraid

    by AsimovLives

    And i used to be a Guy Ritchie's groupie. I even liked REVOLVER, for christ's sakes!!!

  • Dec. 24, 2009, 6:14 p.m. CST


    by Continentalop

    I don't know if you read this, but there is a point to the story and way they filmed - that there is more than just one way to show Sherlock Holmes. Why keep doing the same old, over and over? Seriously. <P> Plus, one of the smart things about the film is the relationship between Holmes and Watson, They don't over play it, but that is the most important subplot of the film, their relationship, And it is something you haven't seen before. <P> And once again, I have say that the film is very faithful to Doyle - they just set the film in a slightly more action packed world. Which I think is completely acceptable - who are we to say you can't present Holmes in a new way. <P> I just think you want to make up your mind and stick with that preconceived notion because they are not making Holmes the way you think he should be. I hate to tell you this, but you are sounding like the TDK critics who criticize Nolan for not presenting Batman in the way he has always been portrayed.

  • Dec. 25, 2009, 6:33 a.m. CST


    by AsimovLives

    I don't know if a more action packed world is a faithful rendition to Arthur Conan Doyle's creation.<br><br>What i'm constantly seeing here is people making any and every kind of excuses to justify turning everything, and every previously known comodities, be they Star Trek, Sherlock Holmes, whatever, into action movies. It's as if you are all a lot of action junkies who will never be satisfied until everything is turned into an action movie. And that, frankly, scares the shit out of me.<br><br>My point? You cna make a very entertaining, exciting and interesting Sherlock Holmes story and not devolve it into an action movie. All it takes is a good story and god storytelling skills. This "turning to action" reeks of desperation and an atempt to disguise limitations. And i'm not impressed.