Dec. 25, 2009, 12:19 p.m. CST
Dec. 25, 2009, 12:38 p.m. CST
by deus vitae 13
Dec. 25, 2009, 12:41 p.m. CST
Dec. 25, 2009, 12:42 p.m. CST
Downey was fantastic in The Soloist.
Dec. 25, 2009, 1:25 p.m. CST
Christmas makes me horny
Dec. 25, 2009, 1:26 p.m. CST
Dec. 25, 2009, 1:27 p.m. CST
of this in the UK and whilst it's technically sound and OK - though the final third does decend into a mess it is a lot better than the weird image I had on a Van Helsing type affair before I went in at least. <p> However if this counts as "...fiercely intelligent" filmaking then sign me up for a lobotomy.
Dec. 25, 2009, 1:30 p.m. CST
Now to read your review...
Dec. 25, 2009, 1:35 p.m. CST
by wampa 1
...but it sure smells good!
Dec. 25, 2009, 1:45 p.m. CST
Waiting for the trailers to begin, so don't hate me. It's EXTREMELY crowded tho. I hope these people aren't talking assholes. I'm already regretting coming down to see this. Oh well. Wish me luck. I hope I can enjoy the movie and ignore the woman who brought a bag of popped pop corn from home. Cunt
Dec. 25, 2009, 2:04 p.m. CST
this is The Wild West + ridiculous technology supernatural, etc.... hardly Holmes more like Robert Downey Jr, cute smart remarks with accent. anyone remember a small Indie film out there called Avatar????? I hope it does well
Dec. 25, 2009, 2:07 p.m. CST
I've read too many rave reviews of this to not see it.
Dec. 25, 2009, 3:10 p.m. CST
said it wasn't very good, but I think he has some sort of vendetta against Guy Ritchie.
Dec. 25, 2009, 3:17 p.m. CST
by Vlad the Inhaler
... but this review (and Roger Ebert's) give me a little bit of hope. If Ritchie & Co. want to "reimagine" Sherlock Holmes is a Victorian age Batman, with a focus on fun and adventure, well... okay. As long as they succeed, which is beginning to sound like maybe they have. And anyhow, a new but fucked-up cinematic version of the Great Detective can't -- and doesn't -- erase the Conan Doyle stories, or the previous, excellent film adaptations. The bad Holmes movies of the past didn't harm the character before they slid into obscurity, and contemporary and future bad ones won't either.
Dec. 25, 2009, 3:38 p.m. CST
Shit, how does this movie get all these positive reviews?
Dec. 25, 2009, 4:04 p.m. CST
Naw, to simple. Must be the Illuminati and the NWO.
Dec. 25, 2009, 4:48 p.m. CST
Kiss Kiss Bang Bang? I don't suppose he loses a finger?
Dec. 25, 2009, 5:17 p.m. CST
Good thing I saw it for free. RDJ is like Kimbo Slice. Even if everything around him SUCKS he still comes off looking good. kudos for that at least
Dec. 25, 2009, 5:27 p.m. CST
Merry Christmas, my fellow rogues and assholes! <p> No one ever remembers us, so Merry Christmas to all!
Dec. 25, 2009, 5:37 p.m. CST
Guess it would be too boring/a box office failure to have Sherlock stay true to the original character as written. I'm going to pass on INDIANA HOLMES.
Dec. 25, 2009, 5:39 p.m. CST
Much more than I expected to at least. Downey and Law bring the pain, just as you've read, the plot, while a bit ludicrous, is entertaining, mostly surprisingly smart, and wraps itself up more fully than even I had expected. Mark Strong is a total badass, as always, and Rachel McAdams is..well...she's perfect. Because she is perfect. This is making me sound like I totally loved it, which I didn't. There were some false moments and Ritchies "style" gets in the way a few times, but overall it complements everything very nicely. I suspect this make more money than they anticipated. Overall its very enjoyable, but my biggest complaint would be that by the end it feels...incomplete somehow. You want the sequel immediately. It really felt like at the end it had been systemitcally planned out with the sequel already written or something. It really leaves you wanting the next bit of the story. Too bad itll be two years or so. I'll wait
Dec. 25, 2009, 5:46 p.m. CST
His biggest accomplishment was marrying Madonna.
Dec. 25, 2009, 6:02 p.m. CST
Dec. 25, 2009, 6:06 p.m. CST
The focus is on fun and action, so don't expect an Oscar-nominated screenplay. But it is very smart, especially for an action thriller. Kind of a mirror to how dumb the Transformers were.
Dec. 25, 2009, 6:23 p.m. CST
"I'm eating crow, and it tastes delicious." (And no, Crow does not refer to a specific individual person--it's a metaphor, stupid.) I was pretty certain this movie was going to blow donkey dick. However, I have a tradition of seeing a new release on Christmas Eve, and this was last night's pick. And good gods, was I wrong. I still stick to my guns that I predicted Watchmen's failure on every level (and I was spectacularly right), but as for Holmes...bring on part 2, baby, now now now!
Dec. 25, 2009, 6:43 p.m. CST
i knew little of the develpment of this film, i wasn't involved with any of it's production and hadn't been able to aquire a copy of the script. But after viewing it i must say its a great film, if your a batman fan you'll love this movie (seriously the comparrisons to holmes/watson to batman and robin are remarkable)<P>this movie is definetly worth your 12 bucks, and i like how they set up the sequel, lets hope we get it before 2012 (you know cause of the whole world ebding thing)
Dec. 25, 2009, 7:05 p.m. CST
I heard the fights are very heavily influenced by MMA. Is that true? I've been following Ritchie's films since the beginning so I intend to watch this. Mark Strong is a badass so him as a villan gets my butt in the theater. I would to see Mark with PTA. Btw, I haven't seen Swept Away and I don't intend to. haha.
Dec. 25, 2009, 8:13 p.m. CST
Dec. 25, 2009, 8:24 p.m. CST
MMA might have some influenced on the fights, but I think you could say they were influenced by this as well: <P> http://tinyurl.com/yf377w9 <p> http://tinyurl.com/9bfx3 <p> http://tinyurl.com/ybgqaes
Dec. 25, 2009, 8:43 p.m. CST
We already have a contender for what could be the worst movie of 2010. http://tinyurl.com/ykbmqn3
Dec. 25, 2009, 8:47 p.m. CST
Dec. 25, 2009, 8:50 p.m. CST
But the reviewers on AICN get a hard on. When they write reviews.
Dec. 25, 2009, 9:01 p.m. CST
Must not have been out for very long.
Dec. 25, 2009, 9:38 p.m. CST
That motherfucker (I use that term literally) can create his own movie studio now with the fucking settlement he earned. I'm surprised no one mentioned it. A FUCKING MOVIE STUDIO.
Dec. 25, 2009, 9:39 p.m. CST
Dec. 25, 2009, 9:39 p.m. CST
Dec. 25, 2009, 9:47 p.m. CST
Can't wait for the sequel.
Dec. 25, 2009, 10:03 p.m. CST
And I still have absolutely no idea what its about or what is going on in the trailer, even in English. Still very intrigued though.
Dec. 25, 2009, 10:03 p.m. CST
It was definitely good to see one of my favorite literary and film characters back on the big screen. While I'm solidly in the Jeremy Brett cheering section for best Holmes ever, I'm not stuffy enough not to enjoy all the other versions out there immensely. When I place this movie against some of the other more, lets say, fringe versions of the character, it holds its own against some of the other attempts in the past few decades. <p> Young Sherlock Holmes still holds some nostalgia for me, and though I havent seen it in some time, I seem to remember the fencing in it was pretty great, and just as thrilling as anything I saw tonight. In what is probably my biggest knock on the new version, I think the final fight on the bridge in this version was pretty ho-hum after everything that had come before, and to reinforce some others' thoughts about it being "Holmes of the Carribean", it had a distinct "Jack and Davey Jones fighting on the yardarm" feel. Plus, YSH already gave us human sacrifice and cultish figures wearing robes in weird seceret chambers. <p> I liked the humour in the RDJ film, but if you want funny Holmes, then your not going to top The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes' Smarter Brother. I'll put the chemistry of Wilder and Feldman up against RDJ and Downey easily, and Madeline Kahn gives another hilarious performance that is much more enjoyable then what I saw tonight out of of Rachel McAdams. Smarter Brother also gets you a deccent, albeit slapsticky, stagecoach chase, another thing I couldn't help but be reminded of during the opening of tonight's film. Plus Dom Deluise, Leo McKern, and Roy Kinnear just kill in it. <p> Lastly, if it's the eccentric, amped-up Holmes that floats your boat, then look no farther than the Seven-Percent Solution, and Nicol Williamson's turn at the role. <p> While I think each of these three films have a great deal to offer to Holmes fans like myself, and in many ways are superior to this version, it was still a very fun time. London looked great, the busy river scenes were very cool. I also dug the music, and it sounded like a Victorian version of the Sailor's Hornpipe tavern fight music from Dead Man's Chest, which isn't too surprising. In fact, the whole movie reminded me a lot of that tavern scene in DMC tonally, but in a good way. I think any fan of the character who isn't a slave to Doyle, Rathbone, or Brett, but to the character, will dig it. I did. <p> Now let us all drink some very sexy wine.
Dec. 25, 2009, 10:15 p.m. CST
So-so. Some terrific stuff, but the rhythm seemed off, somehow. Loved Holmes as an ass-kicker (he was in the stories, even if it was off-scene most of the time), even the implications of an affair with Irene Adler (Victorian literature would have you believe NO ONE had sex. Watson is a rather unreliable narrator, in that there is no way he'd tell us the truth if Holmes dipped his wick from time to time). I loved the bickering. The editing was too frenetic, the mystery not...really logical and cerebral, quite. Didn't totally buy it, and the whole "resurrection" thing was a transparent groaner. That said, the acting was great fun, and I was glad I went. But I see, easily, how it could have been better. Give it a "B".
Dec. 25, 2009, 10:16 p.m. CST
by Out of your element
I swear that guy is retarded. He cant decently review a film, let alone make a news post that doesnt have his ill-informed opinion in it.
Dec. 25, 2009, 10:17 p.m. CST
by Out of your element
He gave Sherlock 2/10. Called it slow and unfunny. What a fucking idiot.
Dec. 25, 2009, 10:38 p.m. CST
If your out there, Capone; KNOW THIS. <p> I lol at your spelling errors dude! I want this to wok? LOL!1 FAIL. <p> I actually need a new wok, so this is a sore subject for me maybe? <p> Also, in the CAPONE CLASSICS™ spelling errors album, there was the whole SUNSHINEgate thing. Remeber when you reviewed Sunshine and called it SUNSHIEN? Like they were sending CHarlie and Marty SHeen into the sun or something, ROFL FAIL! <p> Keep up the righteous journalism sir.
Dec. 25, 2009, 11 p.m. CST
by Dark Doom
Capone- Good review, but spelling errors are really shocking.
Dec. 25, 2009, 11:03 p.m. CST
by Dark Doom
People clearly want this film to wok? Like a fucking frying pan? outfit and outfight their enemies? ehh?
Dec. 25, 2009, 11:18 p.m. CST
Just stop posting dude.
Dec. 25, 2009, 11:18 p.m. CST
Is tiring. You aren't important.
Dec. 25, 2009, 11:26 p.m. CST
All I can think about.
Dec. 25, 2009, 11:37 p.m. CST
by deus vitae 13
I think its going to kick ass... Like Kick Ass... hmm... maybe too much wine?!?
Dec. 25, 2009, 11:39 p.m. CST
by andrew coleman
Just got back and I fully enjoyed myself.
Dec. 25, 2009, 11:40 p.m. CST
i wouldn't consider it a detective movie though. there really isn't a detective story in it. well... there is... but it's not the primary story of the movie. the detective story is 'who is moriarty'. the story of the film is a james bond story. which is great. i loved it. i can enjoy detective stories and 007 stories both. one thing i loved in particular is the music of the movie. loved it. i'm going to buy it. it's just fun. like the whole movie.
Dec. 25, 2009, 11:51 p.m. CST
The movie was just too tedious and boring. The plot is a disjointed mess! The movie started at 8 p.m. By the time the movie ended, I HONESTLY thought the time was about 11:45 p.m........much to my surprise, it was only 10 p.m.........This movie will be a LOONG two hours!
Dec. 26, 2009, 12:22 a.m. CST
The use of flashing back to how Holmes "solved it" got really annoying towards the half way point and as was a narrative crutch. Still had fun though.
Dec. 26, 2009, 12:47 a.m. CST
by Squinty CGI Flynn
Dec. 26, 2009, 1 a.m. CST
if that doesn't sum this movie up...I don't know what does. A man high out of his mind gave it a 5/10.
Dec. 26, 2009, 1:46 a.m. CST
and that dude Sigourney Weaver isn't in it. So, some of you may not prefer this one.
Dec. 26, 2009, 2:09 a.m. CST
by ol' painless
Looks like they've got you running the whole show at AICN right now. Four articles in a row! Hope you still managed to have some time off on Christmas day!
Dec. 26, 2009, 3:45 a.m. CST
Bloody fantastic, and completely true to the books. Probably the closest a movie has ever come to capturing the magic of the books, actually. People that think this is a reimagining have never read the books, or have become so used to how he has been portrayed in film that they forget how far the movies drifted from the original character.
Dec. 26, 2009, 5:21 a.m. CST
by Carl's hat
Really. I'd say about one third of his dialogue I couldn't understand. Look, I love Downey ..blahblahblah, but I just did not buy him as Holmes. The role doesn't suit him- as simple as that.I don't really care if this is an action form of Holmes or whatever. God knows over the years every variation on the story has been played out, but to claim that this is 'true' to the original stories shows that you are a)a sucker for marketing...b)have never really grown up with the stories...c) have some kind of secret agenda...d) are a bit of an idiot or e) have had your expectations for what makes an intelligent film seriously downgraded.
Dec. 26, 2009, 9 a.m. CST
Because the masses mostly view Holmes as the illustrations and wordy intellectual who looks like Ichabod Crane and Watson as his somewhat jovial, pudgy sidekick who is always one step behind. It's a different interpretation, whether it's more accurate to the books or not is subjective, but it made me see the characters in a different light.
Dec. 26, 2009, 10:25 a.m. CST
I saw this yesterday and assure you this is NOT worth paying to see. It's a snoozefest with guy ritchie quality directing. All the actors put in good performances, but the script and direction are so poor that you'll be wishing you just took a nap instead, if the film doesn't bore you unconscious, as it did me.
Dec. 26, 2009, 10:46 a.m. CST
With art-house and foreign movie,s he's always accurate like a lazer. But with blockbusters, all bets are off with Capone. It's as if he's a different person.
Dec. 26, 2009, 11:17 a.m. CST
Watson was the womanizer, married twice (maybe more), had an eye for the ladies and even mentions his experience with women (on more than one continent); Holmes was asexual in the books, as likely to fall in love as an adding machine according to Doyle. <p> However, this isn't Doyle's Holmes, this is a legitimate adaptation. An INTERPRETATION. Just like what Ian McKellan did with RICHARD III or Kurasawa did with MACBETH when he made THRONE OF BLOOD, try to find a new and interesting way to present old material. And yes, Downing isn't being 100% faithful to the books, but that is the point. He is making the character his own, trying to find what is on the page that hasn't been shown before. Why just repeat what has been done before, when there is new areas of his character that have never been explored? Just like what all the actors who have played Bond, Marlowe and Batman (I mean, who is the most accurate Bond? Connery, Moore, Lazenby, Dalton, Brosnan, Craig or David Nivens?). <P> You can find reasons not to like this movie, many of them I would probably agree with you, but because it isn’t 100% Doyle’s Holmes just doesn’t really hold water. If that is the case, you must really hate Rathbone’s, Cushing’s, Neville’s, THE SEVEN-PER-CENT SOLUTION, and Billy Wilder’s THE SECRET LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES.
Dec. 26, 2009, 11:26 a.m. CST
a) hated the marketing campaign and had low expectations when I went to see it; b) have read all the stories and I am a big fan of them. .c) yes, I do have an agenda - I thought it was a good movie that many people would enjoy. Obviously you didn't and I respect your decision .d) I don't consider myself an idiot at all. I guess if your only criteria for intelligence is based on one movie, that might cause a lot of people to be listed as an idiot. e) I would never consider this an "intelligent" movie in the same vein as Hitchcock's or Scorsese's or Jacques Audiard's films. I do think it is a lot smarter than the majority of blockbusters, where there is a number of subtle personal dilemmas and interactions going on (and let's not kid ourselves,
Dec. 26, 2009, 11:40 a.m. CST
Watson "getting the women"? Romantically, sure. But "just" sex? I don't think so, and if you have an example, please offer it. Victorian literature SERIOUSLY downplayed sex, although it is an important part of human existence, and males were slaking their hunger for it in England just as they were everywhere else. Being cerebral didn't keep Holmes from enjoying good food, music, or other normal human comforts. I say it is perfectly reasonable to assume it possible Holmes had a sex drive...and that Watson would, in the name of discretion, not talk about it.
Dec. 26, 2009, 12:30 p.m. CST
You're complaining that this Sherlock was somehow sexualized and deviated from the books, which, to quote you, had him desiring intelluectual stimulation not physical. So I would ask...did you see the relationship between Downey and McAdams? Was it sexual or physical, really, in any way at any point in the movie? Sexual tension, maybe, but more intellectual tension. She's gotten the best of him, and THAT is what got him going, throughout the whole movie. The first scene she was in, in his room, he was terrified of her, because she's smarter than him. If I also remember correctly, the two of them never share a legitimate kiss while the other is conscious. As the end he kisses her forehead. I don't understand what you're talking about. You're complaint never happened. The "sex" in the movie was extremely downplayed, as you said it was in the books. Watson still was the ladies man, marrying Mary, etc. I don't think Holmes had much, if any, sexual connection with Irene other than to use it for tension to get at some laughs. I think they hit the "turned on by wits and intellect" thing right on the nose throughout the whole movie. You're just trying to hate it. Sorry, but your complain is BS
Dec. 26, 2009, 12:32 p.m. CST
My bad. I didnt re-read which post was whose and your both start with H. My mistake. HornorShots complaint is invalid.
Dec. 26, 2009, 12:33 p.m. CST
Now I'm combining them into HornorSilk. Not my day.
Dec. 26, 2009, 12:46 p.m. CST
So i guess me an my kids wont be douches if we go see this one?
Dec. 26, 2009, 1:40 p.m. CST
I had more fun watching this than Avatar, honestly, and I'm not fond of Guy Ritchie's work. The script is what works here, along with Downey's sheer brilliance in the role. Law was great too. I thought McAdams would put a damper on the whole thing, but she's not obnoxious, not like Katie Holmes by any stretch. Regardless, Downey sells this movie through and through. He's the reason I went to see it, and I'm very, very glad I did. This movie delivers big on sheer entertainment value.
Dec. 26, 2009, 2:12 p.m. CST
Dec. 26, 2009, 4:19 p.m. CST
Actually, this film had a few elements I wish would be incorporated into the Batman flicks. More emphasis on how the hero's mind works. More detective work. A story that is really about the hero instead of focusing on the villain. And a hero who isn't just brooding and "dark" all the time.<br><br>I was never a big reader of the Holmes stories, so I can't speak to the film's authenticity. But I had a good time. Surprisingly sharp dialogue, and terrific chemistry between Downey and Law -- I want to see these guys cast in a remake of "The Persuaders," pronto.<br><br>My only complaint -- the mystery was far too predictable, and I am totally NOT that douchey guy who always brags about guessing plot twists and solving mysteries way in advance. Not that there weren't some bracing surprises in the story, but I would have liked a more mysterious mystery, is all I'm saying.
Dec. 26, 2009, 4:21 p.m. CST
Yep, there now calling A Couple of Dicks "Cop Out", haha get it? Is this new news?
Dec. 26, 2009, 4:56 p.m. CST
by Nasty In The Pasty
A *lot* wittier than I was expecting, and even the Indiana Holmes action wasn't too overbearing or ridiculous. Downey is FANTASTIC, and his chemistry with Law is superb (this feels like they've already played the roles in a couple of previous films). McAdams is miscast, albiet gorgeous (although the scene in the trailer when she knees Downey in the groin is absent from the film), but Mark Strong was a suave villain, and the period recreation was superb. I'll gladly see a sequel to this.
Dec. 26, 2009, 4:57 p.m. CST
i know its a haha title cause they did cop out and call it that, but it needed to be called A Couple of Dicks. That is the perfect title. It's unfortunate thats "too innapropriate" Ridiculous. What about Kick-Ass? Isn't an actual swear word more innapropriate plastered all over local cinema posters?
Dec. 26, 2009, 5:09 p.m. CST
Dec. 26, 2009, 6:37 p.m. CST
watch an apisode of psyche or house and you get more entertainment. This movie was passible at best.
Dec. 26, 2009, 6:46 p.m. CST
I liked it way better than I thought I would. Downey as Homes is worth the price of admission alone. But when you add Law and Strong to the mix it just ups the "go see this" factor. I can understand someone saying they didn't particularly care for the film, that's fair. But suggesting it's an undeserving, waste of time or piece of crap is specious at best.
Dec. 26, 2009, 7:16 p.m. CST
I am amazed that not only are people shitting on this movie, but that they are suggesting that you should not even see it.<p> I am a huge Sherlock Holmes fan and count Conan Doyle's books among my very favorite.<p> This film is a departure from his works, but not quite... Every little touch in this film has some basis in the books. The very fact that they decided to include a little portrait of Adler in 221B Baker Street makes this worth it for any Holmes fan to see.<p> Anyone that says otherwise is shitting on this movie for shitting sake.
Dec. 26, 2009, 7:48 p.m. CST
I went to see the film for Downey, Law and the atmosphere of an almost Ridley-Scott 1800's England. The problem is, I have seen too much of the film before on TV. The performances are captivating as is the environment. But I just feel lukewarm toward the movie.
Dec. 26, 2009, 7:52 p.m. CST
House and Wilson are based on Holmes and Watson, and I like that someone so extremely smart is played with a bit of ego and attitude. No fear of getting into a situation he cannot get out of, and that is the kind of supersmart SoB that I would expect.
Dec. 26, 2009, 7:54 p.m. CST
Love the movie BECAUSE of the attitude of Holmes, and the above average story (with all the pieces revealed in a fair and believable way) and, of course, a great Moriarty setup for the franchise! Well done!
Dec. 26, 2009, 8:25 p.m. CST
I could really see that in this movie, it almost felt like RDJ and Law we're imitating House and Wilson!
Dec. 26, 2009, 10:02 p.m. CST
It's lurid and frenetic.
Dec. 26, 2009, 10:26 p.m. CST
Is how Lord Blackwood got the stupid crow to show up at the site of the murders.
Dec. 26, 2009, 10:57 p.m. CST
by future help
the crow left after Blackwood was truly hung to death.
Dec. 26, 2009, 11:02 p.m. CST
Saw it today, here are my thoughts: <p> It's a good film, and a return to form for Gilliam. It manages to be both poetic and entertaining. However, after reading a lot of comments by AICN'ers as of late, I'm convinced that it's not for most of you...because if you were bored by films like Avatar, I don't think this one will hold your attention, like the douchebag sitting in front of me who kept checking his emails on his phone. <p> The film is epic in scope, and the art direction is pure Gilliam. He's managed to use modern technology to get his imagination onscreen, and many scenes resemble his animation from his Python days. <p> When Ledger first appears in the movie, it will give you chills. It's as though Gilliam reached into Ledger's grave and pulled him out to be in this film, and Heath breathes life into the movie. The film is really quite slow and cold until Ledger appears, then it contains a vitality and warmth that sustains a steady glow while Heath is present. The use of his replacement actors (Depp/Law/Farrell) is seamless, and it works. <p> The young actress who plays Parnassus's daughter is quite stunning to look at, but she's quite boring otherwise. Christopher Plummer is exceptional as Parnassus, but the one character you'll find yourself caring the most about is of course Heath's character, Tony. Only, Tony is not the protagonist of the film. The protagonists are both Parnassus and his daughter, but they aren't as interesting as Tony, so I didn't care too much about their ultimate fates. And there's a young man, Anton, who's in love with Valentina (the daughter), and he's an annoying little shit who keeps cockblocking Tony. <p> The film works, and I suppose there's a parallel to the Dark Knight in the sense that Heath's Joker wasn't the protagonist in that film either, but was still the most interesting character. There are even glimpses of the Joker that seem to bubble up to Ledger's surface every now and again, like that moment from the trailer when Ledger introduces Doctor Parnassus, and when he says Parnassus, it's the Joker come to life. <p> A weak point is Verne Troyer. His dialogue is hokey and delivered poorly. Guy can't act. Gilliam wanted a midget, as usual, and he got one...but he can be replaced. Another minor criticism is that the film felt cold in parts, as though it was filmed in Canada, and sure enough when the credits rolled it said the film was partly funded by Telefilm Canada...those bastards. I hate that cold Canadian feeling. <p> Anyhow, it's good...not great...and not for most of you's guys...
Dec. 26, 2009, 11:16 p.m. CST
It's a solid movie. It was a little slow in places, seems like it could have been edited better. Had somewhat of a "disjointed" feel, but maybe that's just me. Downy and Law are great together. I was a little disappointed that the film seemed to be sanitized of all the "Guy Ritchieness". I LOVE "Lock, Stock, and two Smoking Barrels", and was hoping there would be some of that style in "Holmes". Oh well, all in all a good movie.
Dec. 26, 2009, 11:43 p.m. CST
"Young Sherlock Holmes" was the shit. Love that fuckin' movie.<p> Hopefully seeing this one Tuesday.
Dec. 27, 2009, 12:39 a.m. CST
Where would you rank parnassus in with the rest of Gilliams work?
Dec. 27, 2009, 12:53 a.m. CST
(drops mic, walks offstage)
Dec. 27, 2009, 1:07 a.m. CST
Maybe half of the population remembers that.
Dec. 27, 2009, 2:38 a.m. CST
It's called symbolism. You may have seen it in a movie or two.
Dec. 27, 2009, 6:16 a.m. CST
That's a good question. I would probably rank it 3rd, 1st being Brazil, and 2nd being Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Fisher King would be a close 4th. <p> Fear and Loathing is one of my favorite comfort films, and I must have seen it almost a hundred times, but Brazil is probably his masterpiece. After sleeping on the movie, it really is a complete movie, and despite Ledger's passing, he seems to have been able to complete his vision, and I look forward to being able to buy the DVD and watch it again. My main problem with the movie is that there is too much time spent with characters I didn't really like...like the young man, Anton, the bratty teen working for Parnassus who is in love with his daughter...the daughter herself who is quite dull but makes up for it with a beautiful set of bazoongas...and Verne Troyer.
Dec. 27, 2009, 7:18 a.m. CST
...and it will take a while to know for sure, gut WATERLAND might be second. Well, I don't like ranking things like that...so probably not. I just know that FISHER KING is number one because you care for and love every one of those characters...that's rare in Gilliam.
Dec. 27, 2009, 9:22 a.m. CST
Dammit. I liked Lock, Stock. I loved Snatch and I dug Rocknrolla. Sherlock Holmes was boring, though. Then again, I'm not a fan of the 'hero keeps all the info to himself until the big reveal at the end' movies.
Dec. 27, 2009, 10:06 a.m. CST
Once you get acquainted with Holmes and Watson and Irene, there's nothing to do but watch this stupid plot unfold where the villains hope to convert all the fine Anglicans of England to Satantism. Yeah, that's going to happen. Meanwhile, Holmes stays quirky, Watson is patient, and the audience is sleeping.
Dec. 27, 2009, 10:17 a.m. CST
After the first ten minutes, the audience wasn't cheering, they weren't laughing, they weren't reacting. They were as out of it as Watson's tranquillized dog.
Dec. 27, 2009, 11:53 a.m. CST
other adaptations for my money. Although my mind's still open about Ritchie's stab at Conan Doyle... Which is quite something, considering I'm one of the unlucky few who didn't read any reviews before seeing Swept Away. You don't forgive something like that easily.
Dec. 27, 2009, 12:08 p.m. CST
I had kept myself unspoiled for this movie for the only purpose of trying to figure it out myself.<p> And I did, which made the reveal at the end quite a bit of fun.
Dec. 27, 2009, 12:11 p.m. CST
I love how Mycroft is thin in it, implying Watson described him as fat ass an F U to him. <p> I just wish the studios hadn't trimmed it; I guess they cut out two whole cases in that movie.
Dec. 27, 2009, 1:58 p.m. CST
Audiences widely vary. My audience laughed throughout Holmes and cheered at the end. Yours didn't. So what does that prove? Nothing. I've seen audiences cheer for bad movies and good movies alike, and I've seen great movies go un-cheered. Audience reaction proves nothing.
Dec. 27, 2009, 2:42 p.m. CST
They invite nerds who were nursed on CGI and idiot plots.
Dec. 27, 2009, 2:45 p.m. CST
and smoke dope before the show, or else, like Harry, they get a dufflebag full of money to say they liked it.
Dec. 27, 2009, 2:50 p.m. CST
And i didn't get dope or money. If I knew they were offering that, I would have held out before saying I liked it.
Dec. 27, 2009, 3:01 p.m. CST
I saw Cutthroat Island in a theater and people fucking cheered for that shit at the end (or maybe they were just happy it was over?). When I saw Fellowship of the Ring everyone quietly exited the theater. I saw Dark Knight multiple times, some audiences cheered, others didn't. Cheering is random, and has nothing to do with the quality of the film.
Dec. 27, 2009, 3:28 p.m. CST
So I saw the film today. It's not bad. Pretty fun film if a little light on plot. But something has been bugging me since I walked out of the theatre and I'm not sure if it's because of something I missed. <p> So it's when Holmes and Watson are investigating the ginger midgets home or whatever and the three guys show up to destroy the evidence. You have that tall French guy who beats the crap out of Holmes. <p> Anyways, at one point during the sequence, there is a close up of a heart-shaped piece of jewelry that I assume was dropped. It's one of those close ups that is meant to suggest that it's of some importance but no reference is made to it for the rest of the film. <p> Have I missed something? Was I not paying attention? It's bugging the hell out of me. Was there some significance to that particular piece of jewelry that I missed or something? Help.
Dec. 27, 2009, 3:33 p.m. CST
Singer wanted to create a Sherlock Holmes of medicine: a drug addicted, genius misanthrope who always gets his prognosis in the end. They named him House, which is another word for "home" which sounds like Holmes.
Dec. 27, 2009, 3:37 p.m. CST
That was the ring Watson bought. It flew away in the fight, then you saw Watson poking around the debris with cane for it with a pissed off look.
Dec. 27, 2009, 4:06 p.m. CST
Honestly I didn't notice the design of the ring when he showed it to Holmes.
Dec. 27, 2009, 4:57 p.m. CST
Thanks for putting it in context. I think it is kind of important with Gilliam cause he has such a varied style. I LOVE Fear and Loathing and I saw Brazil later but couldn't really get into it so I think I have to give it another try. I am stoked to hear he is back trying to get the Quixote film made. He won't let that shit go. Awesome.
Dec. 27, 2009, 5:14 p.m. CST
And avoiding Up in the Air.
Dec. 27, 2009, 5:37 p.m. CST
people want to escape their job problems not wallow in them.
Dec. 27, 2009, 5:37 p.m. CST
i liked the movie, but thought the holmesian deductions in physical fights was a misunderstand of what intelligence is. things just do not work that way. with this it does become a bit of superhero Batman movie, while i would have preferred a more Indiana Jones to Holme's fights.
Dec. 27, 2009, 9:26 p.m. CST
WWW.BOXOFFICEMOJO.COM wanna see some live action Holmes that is true to stories-- watch the B&W stuff from decades ago-- was on TV this weekend.
Dec. 27, 2009, 11:38 p.m. CST
were exactly in the style of the literary character. The movie actually nailed that aspect of Holmes... he can leap to a conclusions from the smallest visual clue. It may not be realistic, but it's what makes Holmes an extraordinary character. He notices everything.
Dec. 28, 2009, 12:45 a.m. CST
by Dreadlock Holmes
Take THAT you whiny fucks!
Dec. 28, 2009, 2:01 a.m. CST
by GibsonUSA Returns
When Holmes "figures stuff out" at the end, it flashes back to things that the viewer had no chance to catch or figure out. Going into this movie I thought it would be more viewer-involving...where if we as the audience paid attention closely, we could figure it out ourselves too. Nope. This movie gives Holmes clues, but NOT the viewer.
Dec. 28, 2009, 4:10 a.m. CST
I picked up on those things and I started to put together the answers as the movie progressed. I knew that there must have been some explosive solution on the American, I knew there had to be a poison that rendered Blackwood "dead" akin to what was used by Holmes to "kill" the dog earlier. In my mind, the only mystery that remained to me was how he survived the hanging, which Holmes figured out by way of testing it at the end. As for the adhesive glue on the tomb, I knew immediately that Holmes tasting it was significant and the fact that they didn't mention anything at the time confirmed it for me.<p> The Holmes stories feel the same way. He doesn't make Watson privy to every detail, but explains everything at the end.<p> To want something else is idiotic and doesn't match the spirit of the stories themselves. I would have been disappointed had the movie been exceedingly easy. And if there are groups of people that feel the way you do, then I am content.<p> I do disagree that it is impossible for the viewer to figure out the mystery on their own. The only thing I can suggest is to pay better attention next time.
Dec. 28, 2009, 7:33 a.m. CST
That scene with the swordfight on the train at the end always makes me imagine how superior SteamFunk (Victorian Fantasy) would be to Steampunk.
Dec. 28, 2009, 8:05 a.m. CST
I guess you weren't paying attention. Do you need to be force fed the clues?
Dec. 28, 2009, 9:17 a.m. CST
It was yet another excercise in empty hyper-stylization. It was to Sherlock Holmes what Tom Cruise's M:I is to the original. Did I enjoy the visuals and the performances? For the most part, yes. But the plot was a mess, the mystery behind Rachel McAdams' character was confusing and I kept waiting for some detective work to involve me. Downey glancing at shit throughout and then giving us a summary at the end is a lazy cheat. Young Sherlock Holmes remains the superior movie.
Dec. 28, 2009, 9:23 a.m. CST
being faked was the easiest thing to figure out. The executioner was shown to be nervous for a split-second, so you know he was on to something. The rest - the hook trick and faked pulse - has been done before. <P> The massive explosion scene was very well done but one has to be surprised Watson survived it. Kinda like Cruise's kid in WOTW.
Dec. 28, 2009, 9:24 a.m. CST
Dec. 28, 2009, 9:41 a.m. CST
by Skyway Moaters
Dec. 28, 2009, 10:05 a.m. CST
Sherlock Holmes has never been a real detective mystery. He notices things and comes up with conclusions that a normal person would never be able to deduce. I mean, we can tell something is going on in "The Red-Haired League" or "The Vampire of Essex", but only after he explains the case to Watson does the answer seem obvious. <P> Holmes has never been about the mysteries as much as about the character of Holmes. Of course, if you didn't like Downey's Holmes that isn't going to work for you.
Dec. 28, 2009, 10:09 a.m. CST
The movie almost gets exciting. What will Holmes be like without his anchor? But then Watson pops up in the next scene so that fizzles. The thing about 7 percent is there's a very real chance that Holmes is going to crash and burn.
Dec. 28, 2009, 10:17 a.m. CST
Don't won't a bunch of Holmes enthusiast correcting me.
Dec. 28, 2009, 10:19 a.m. CST
I liked the film more than you, but when Watson got hurt I finally saw Holmes getting emotional (much like in the stories where Holmes gets upset whenever someone hurts Watson) but it was just a short moment. It was almost like the filmmakers were worried about having Holmes fret over Watson for to long. I thought that could have been played out much better.
Dec. 28, 2009, 11:14 a.m. CST
They had real chemistry. And Mark Strong was great. The only thing lacking, for moi, is the plot. If it had engaging detective work, it would've been aces for me. Was it worth seeing in a theater? Yeah.
Dec. 28, 2009, 11:33 a.m. CST
I thought the plot was the biggest weakness in the movie. But I thought Downing and Law managed to overcome it. <P>
Dec. 28, 2009, 12:32 p.m. CST
Although Eddie Marsan was kind of wasted. But you can't just have good lead characters. Sherlock Holmes borrowed from everywhere. They even threw in JAWS. Mostly however it seemed Richie cribbed from the 1965 Musical Baker Street with Fritz Weaver as Holmes and Inga Swenson as Irene Adler. It even has the bomb plot.
Dec. 28, 2009, 1:23 p.m. CST
I really want4ed to like this movie, and I did on a superficial level, but the plot was weak enough and not engaging enough that I found myself glancing at the watch a couple times.<p> I also found Downey's fake accent preety distracting and found the rest of the actor's accents utterly unintelligble at times. Wha tdo the English have agaisnt consonants? And McAdams looked like a coke whore in this film. WTF happned to her.
Dec. 28, 2009, 1:28 p.m. CST
Dec. 28, 2009, 2:01 p.m. CST
What did they borrow from JAWS (aside from Jude Law looking like Quint)?
Dec. 28, 2009, 3:29 p.m. CST
Her character walks a fine line between formidable heroine and damsel in distress, and McAdams balances the two perfectly. I liked that Holmes and Adler's only weaknesses are each other. It was touching and subtle. There's more of a romantic hint than in the original short story, but that story was told by Watson, so who knows how reliable he was.
Dec. 28, 2009, 3:33 p.m. CST
Dec. 28, 2009, 3:36 p.m. CST
The only remote (and I mean REMOTE) connection I can make is Holmes and Watson fight that big french dude... but dozens of movies have the hero fighting a big henchman... so that can't be it.
Dec. 28, 2009, 3:42 p.m. CST
Was based on the Creeper from SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE PEARL OF DEATH.
Dec. 28, 2009, 4 p.m. CST
by Lang The Cat
RDJ and Jude Law, brilliant together. Rachel MacAdams, was a bit thin both in character and physically (thought beautiful). I was not thrilled with Lord Blackwood, but Mark Strong did an excellent job playing him. I really liked how the fight scenes were handled, dissected and then sown up. BUT, then the ending comes in, and that is total crap. Vacuum Tubes, man! The receiver might not be terrible large or complex, a radio wave dectector was developed at the time and would fit the profile, but a transmitter would never fit in someone's hand anywhere near that time. Why cyanide rather than mustard gas? cyanide gas started being used to kill in 1924, whereas mustard gas was used in WWI. And another thing, England, at that time especially, had each and every soul classified and identified as soon as they uttered a single sentence. From even their brief encounter, Holmes should have been able to identify a great deal of his past from Moriarty's accent (see Henry Higgins). Tobacco use, a primary Holmesian study, would have enabled him to track the smoker to the shop where his cigarettes or pipe tobacco was blended. Fabric and dyes, also not always mass produced to blot out individuality would give clues. Sadly, none of this was in the film. It could have been, it probably should have been, to show how Holmes (and Doyle) lead forensics by years. But while I did not hate the film, this lack and the addition of a trash ending did bitterly disappoint.
Dec. 28, 2009, 5:05 p.m. CST
Someone pointed out above that Sherlock Holmes feels like an Elseworlds Batman story, and I agree. Right down to Irene Adler as a Selina Kyle crook/love interest. I will see it again. I cannot say the same for Dances with Avatars of Fern Gully.
Dec. 28, 2009, 5:33 p.m. CST
cool. oh, and i enjoyed SH, even though i thought it dragged a bit. The interplay between Downey Law and McAdams pretty much saved the movie. It did get me interested in reading this big SH omnibus that i've had forever and haven't read yet. (i'm reading Borges now and is that guy ever an inspiration for Ellison. Their both crazy fuckers!)
Dec. 28, 2009, 8:07 p.m. CST
will be going to watch and rewatch Avatar based on its steller box office performance despite the lame attempts to peg old beaten to death fanboy labels onto it. Its over dude, Avatar won, only 25 drop second week, 612 mil worlwide so far (and still another holiday week to go) Golden globe and soon Oscar noms from the sounds of it. There will be sequals and lots more Avatar to come in the future...enjoy!
Dec. 28, 2009, 8:09 p.m. CST
Dec. 28, 2009, 8:11 p.m. CST
ed Sherlock Holmes. I was worried about this one sucking, but it seems like its entertaining if nothing else. Could someone well versed in Holmes give me an honest review of the film? I dont trust the aicn "reviewers"....
Dec. 28, 2009, 9:58 p.m. CST
by Nasty In The Pasty
I saw that more as a tip of the hat to the Indiana Jones movies, where Indy always has a scene where he gets beaten up by a giant dude (usually played by the late Pat Roach). The Mask Of Zorro also threw in a "fighting a giant dude" scene.
Dec. 28, 2009, 10:43 p.m. CST
Dec. 28, 2009, 11:35 p.m. CST
by GibsonUSA Returns
(SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!) <BR><BR><BR><BR> IMO, the audience was not given clues as the movie progressed to be able to solve the puzzle alongside Holmes. For examples: <BR><BR> The prison guard "burning from within" - The answer was he was simply paid off? There were no clues that he was paid off. <BR><BR> The hanging - Someone mentioned that one of the guards looked a bit nervous as it was about to happen. We (the audience) are supposed to deduce the hanging was faked simply from that?? <BR><BR> Watson examining the body - Yes, we were shown Watson's dog "sleeping" before this scene. But given that (I believe) there were no clues as to the hanging being faked, there was no reason to believe this would be faked either. No clues whatsoever for the audience, other than the sleeping dog of an unrelated character. <BR><BR> Breaking out of the tomb - Yes, Holmes licked his finger, I noticed that. But at this point I never got any clues as to the hanging being faked, nor do I know (as this is the first movie) the level of supernatural allowed in this movie's universe. For all I know ghosts could exist in this universe, like Ghostbusters. If this had been the sequel, where the universe had been established, then maybe I would go about doubting the presence of a walking "zombie". <BR><BR> The "midget's" lab - Did you really figure anything out simply by getting brief glances at his stuff and gadgets from a different time period? I sure didn't. I saw the frogs... was the audience really supposed to figure that out? (Or the pigs in the factory?) <BR><BR> Rachel McAdam's Employer - I still have no clue about this guy. What hints did you pick up, other than the ones Holmes expressly stated (like the chalk stain)? How's the audience supposed to figure this out? <BR><BR> Dude catching on fire - Yes, I noticed he was "rained" on before going in, but that's all I got. And the way he ignited immediately all over made be doubt he simply had gas poured on him or whatever. As for the chemical actually poured on him that Holmes explained, did you REALLY figure that out yourself simply by observation?? <BR><BR> Stuff Holmes did like cutting the rats tail - Did you really expect the audience to catch the reasoning behind these things? <BR><BR> I highly doubt the audience was intended to solve the mystery alongside Holmes as the movie progressed. I think the audience was given virtually no clues and was expected to watch stupidly waiting for Holmes to figure it out.
Dec. 28, 2009, 11:47 p.m. CST
wasnt much of one based on the script I read (I have nt seen it yet). I think if they allowed the audiance to follow the clues, they would have been ahead of Holmes.....
Dec. 28, 2009, 11:49 p.m. CST
I really wish it had a better story/mystery for Holmes to solve, and that the audiance could follow it. Not sure if Ritchie is smart enought o pull that off....
Dec. 29, 2009, 12:18 a.m. CST
Yes I have read all four novels, <P> I have also read the short stories, all 56 of them.
Dec. 29, 2009, 12:23 a.m. CST
Like I mentioned before, you're really not supposed to figure out the movie. It is just like a Sherlock Holmes' story, where in the end Holmes provides an explanation that only he could arrive too. Sherlock never really was a "let's give the audience a fair chance to solve this" kind of detective character.
Dec. 29, 2009, 9:24 a.m. CST
by Fuck The Napkin
I found this film to be painfully flat. Boring, in fact. Downey Jr's Holmes is a dull, mumbling nobody - no fun or character to him whatsoever. His English accent's annoying too - it's as if he thinks mumbling quickly, clipping words and looking dead-pan is the way to play an Englishman. It's certainly not the way to play a fun lead.
Dec. 29, 2009, 2:23 p.m. CST
It had me (40 something) and my fourteen year old son chuckling throughout the film, then we actually talked about it for about a half hour afterwards. Anybody who has a teenager in the house will know that it takes quite something for them to say more than "it was cool/crap" etc.
Dec. 29, 2009, 7:49 p.m. CST
There were all those stories of him filming scenes. So, were they all just lies and miss-information?
Dec. 29, 2009, 8:37 p.m. CST
is a damn cool idea imho. Hope he will be in the sequal...
Dec. 30, 2009, 3:14 p.m. CST
I enjoyed the movie and the banter between law and Downey. I would give it a solid B rating, good enough plot to hold my attention but nothing mind shattering. I would see another outing from these two and hope for a stronger story. Really no need to include a "romantic" interest in the next one.
Dec. 31, 2009, 2:52 a.m. CST
I really liked this movie!... big fan of Arthur Conan Doyle and, based on stuff that I'd read here and there, was fully expecting it to stink up the joint. I tend to like most of Ritchie's other stuff a lot though, so I guess I should have known better. Sorry, Guy... I never should have doubted ye.
Feb. 15, 2010, 3:20 a.m. CST
GVwPaHYa <a href="http://kqywim.com/ ">XvOWfd</a>
Feb. 15, 2010, 3:21 a.m. CST
VqTLBi <a href="http://usvmpg.com/ ">adKaZaH</a>