Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

Capone gives you a few clues why you should avoid SHERLOCK HOLMES: GAME OF SHADOWS!!!

Hey everyone. Capone in Chicago here.

I honestly don't have much to say on this second film that, even more than the first, forgoes the idea of Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) being a super sleuth, instead turning him into an action-heavy superhero. I miss the man of mystery, to be honest, but I also the like way the action is handled in these films, as a thinking-man's exercise rather than just pure punching and kicking.

In SHERLOCK HOLMES: GAME OF SHADOWS, Downey continues to play Holmes as an emotional cripple, who is mourning the loss of his dear friend and partner Dr. John Watson (Jude Law) to the greatest enemy of all: marriage. The loss is felt even deeper when Holmes' own potential love interest from the previous film, Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams), turns traitor to work for his sworn enemy Prof. James Moriarty (Jared Harris, who is actually quite good as the legendary nemesis). In an interesting but not entirely successful turn, the original GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO, Noomi Rapace, plays gypsy fortune teller Madam Simza Heron, who aids Holmes in his search for evidence of Moriarty's master plan.

Never to be left out of the game, Holmes manages to find imaginative ways to ruin Watson's honeymoon, while still keeping the band together to go after Moriarty. Even thought I just saw the film a few days ago, it's tough for me to remember any of the details of this story, probably because there aren't that many. This is a plot unveiled in broad strokes, which get more interesting the more detail is added. For example, the bonus inclusion of Stephen Fry as Holmes' contrarian brother Mycroft is nothing short of genius. Fry is clever, mischievous and just plain fun to have around, and it made me realize how much I've missed seeing him on any size screen.

And while in terms of marketing and demographics, having Rapace in the film is a neat, trendy idea, she doesn't actually add much to the proceedings, and is largely reducing to playing Exposition Girl, which is such a colossal waste of her talents as to border on insulting. But the most welcome introduction in SHERLOCK HOLMES: GAME OF SHADOWS is Jared Harris, who plays Prof. Moriarty as if he's an upstanding member of the scientific establishment, and anyone thinking of him in villainous terms must be insane. I've long admired Harris' dexterity as an actor, and he certainly has just the right amount of the devil in him for this role.

Still, much like the original Guy Ritchie-directed SHERLOCK HOLMES movie, GAME OF SHADOWS left me cold and empty. Holmes' many disguises were just silly, his powers of deduction rarely tapped into, and his stoned rants irritating. It's a bit sad when you walk out of a Sherlock Holmes story thinking Dr. Watson is the far more interesting character, if only because he seems far more well-adjusted. GAME OF SHADOWS has quite a few truly entertaining moments, but nothing about them really sticks with you, with one exception--there a fight sequence between Holmes and Moriarty that is old-school pre-visualized. I'll say nothing more, but it's an extremely interesting take on Holmes' ability to know exactly how a fight is going to play out (something that was established in the first film). If the rest of the film had been that intriguing, I might be able to recommend this latest chapter in the modern Holmes franchise to you.

-- Capone
capone@aintitcool.com
Follow Me On Twitter

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Dec. 16, 2011, 2:07 a.m. CST

    What a shock...

    by KnowItAllFromCali

    And first...whatevah...

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 2:08 a.m. CST

    Would Love to See Cushing's Holmes

    by Longtime Lurker

    Don't know if this is possible now...other than clips. Never warmed up to this interpretation.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 2:12 a.m. CST

    I disagree...

    by MrPaisley

    It seems like Capone was predestined to dislike this sequel, as he didn't enjoy the first. There are other versions of Holmes. (Including the excellent current BBC series.) He's handled in different ways in different adaptations. I completely enjoyed the new film. Maybe more than the first. Some of the set pieces are visually thrilling. And I echo his like of Stephen Fry and Jared Harris. Both are excellent additions to the series. I guess long story short is that if you liked the first movie, you'll probably like this one. I did.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 2:49 a.m. CST

    Capone - at least you admitted it!

    by irishraidersfan

    Okay, you didn't like the first so you would hardly like the sequel. I liked the way they showed his quick fire thought processes in the original; a new take on an old character. The new BBC version has an altogether more traditional and yet somehow new take too. Thanks for the honesty.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 3:19 a.m. CST

    So it's like the first one? GREAT.i loved the first movie,

    by KilliK

    so i am definitely seeing the sequel.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 3:27 a.m. CST

    The funny thing is that from what Capone writes in his review

    by KilliK

    and contrary to the article's title,the movie looks like that it is very entertaining and shouldnt be missed by the people who liked the first one.and that's what matters in the end.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 3:39 a.m. CST

    longtime lurker: Where to see Cushing's HOLMES...

    by Admonisher

    Cushing's first turn as Holmes, in Hammer's 1959 film HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES, is available on DVD in multiple regions. Ditto for the surviving handful of episodes from the BBC series of SHERLOCK HOLMES from the 1960s. Low production values and obviously not a lot of time spent on rehearsal, but still WELL worth tracking down. I pray that copies of the remaining episodes will be discovered someday, although it's pretty unlikely. Cushing's final screen performance as Holmes is the lamentably under-appreciated 1984 telefilm THE MASKS OF DEATH. It's an outstanding swan song for the character (and for Cushing, in his final starring role), but only available to date on VHS and Laserdisc ... at least, as far as I'm aware. And if, like me, you can't get enough of Cushing as Holmes, Cosmic Hobo has recently begun releasing audio CDs of his readings of the original stories comprising THE RETURN OF SHERLOCK HOLMES. Cushing recorded these in 1971 for the use of the Royal National Institute of Blind People, and they're only now being made available commercially.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 3:39 a.m. CST

    If you would like to see more of Fry...

    by gotilk

    He has a show in the UK called QI (Quite Interesting). Been around for a long time. It's a very loose panel show with a new subject every week. He asks questions, the panel tries to answer. It is often very funny and informative at the same time. Great show. May be hard to find, but I'm sure you can find clips, if not entire episodes, on YouTube.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 3:41 a.m. CST

    Oh, and I forgot to mention...

    by Admonisher

    A book has been written about Peter Cushing as Sherlock Holmes: AN ACTOR AND A RARE ONE, by Tony Earnshaw. A fine read!

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 3:44 a.m. CST

    Kelly Reilly

    by severianx1

    I'm glad to see they had the good sense to bring back the hotness that is Kelly Reilly as Watson's hot wife, so even if the movie sucks there'll at least be some visual stimulation.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 3:47 a.m. CST

    Well, I liked the first one..

    by Gabba-UK

    And I say this as a lifelong Sherlockian. Read the original stories since I was a kid, enjoyed every iteration of the concept from spoof to the gloriously perfect Jeremy Brett ITV series of the 80's (there is no better filmed version of the original stories. End of discussion). There is something of the concept that just lends itself to endless interpretations that are relevant to the time period they are made, witness the success the BBC's current version. I personally always imagined Holmes as the Victorian equivalent of a Pulp Fiction story. It's always been implied by Doyle that Holmes was a man of action. I believe Doyle himself said that he was a poor writer of action scenes so left it to he reader to imagine that aspect of Holmes. It's why the character is so endlessly fascinating to every generation. Each reader can project his or her own concept of what a hero should be on a character we think we all know but when you analyse him, is an emotional blank page. A cleaverly constructed literary hero that can be a hero for all times, for all people. You may or may not like Richies take on the source material but to dismiss it as something lacking to your own concept of the material is frankly pointless when there are countless versions of Holmes in millions of readers heads.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 4:21 a.m. CST

    I thoroughly enjoyed the first one

    by Hard Farter

    Was taken aback by how good the first one was. Quite surprised you didn't like it.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 4:25 a.m. CST

    my fav holmes movie.

    by Richard

    Without a clue. " arty morty! "

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 4:25 a.m. CST

    @severianx1 FUCK YEAH.The gal is pretty hot,isnt she?

    by KilliK

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 4:25 a.m. CST

    i can never get enough Sherlock Holmes

    by antonphd

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 4:34 a.m. CST

    Young Sherlock Holmes is the best

    by Nerd Rage

    I loved that trippy flick as a kid. I need to rewatch it.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 4:36 a.m. CST

    So 1985

    by Gezoes

    Skip Let's have an original movie for once.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 5:07 a.m. CST

    These films have nothing to do with

    by brobdingnag

    the character created by Arthur Conan Doyle. Just more FX heavy music video explosion porn for idiots.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 5:09 a.m. CST

    This is a great ACTION MOVIE. What movie were you watching?

    by untamedc

    These new Holmes adaptations are ACTION MOVIES. I think you missed the boat completely in this review. If you are looking for a BBC-style Holmes that is thoughtful and nuanced you obviously aren't going to find that here. I think you'll find that if you review this movie for WHAT IT IS - an action movie - you will see that it is a spectacular and exquisitely crafted roller coater ride. On top of that it has charm, wit and surprises by the truck load. Disregard this guy's review. If you love great action movies, go see this! I went to the midnight screening and everyone leaving the theater was buzzing with excitement - ear to ear smiles on every face.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 5:26 a.m. CST

    I loved the 1st but missed it because of bad reviews on this site.

    by veteran_of_mu

    Certainly won't miss the 2nd that way. Capone is welcome to his views but really I think he's way off base on this franchise. Of course RDJ isn't Jeremy Brett. But he's not trying to be Jeremy Brett. Once you stop thinking of him as trying to be Jeremy Brett, I can't see why you wouldn't have a blast with this.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 5:48 a.m. CST

    Sherlock Holmes is SO 1890s.

    by lochkray

    Actually, I thought the review was fair. I was lukewarm to the first one too, but didn't actually have anything against it. Harmless fun with great characters. It looked like more of that from the promotional material, and from the reviews I've read, that's what it is. Still, I'll be seeing it.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 5:50 a.m. CST

    longtime & admonisher: on cushing's mask of death

    by profp

    It certainly does deserve a DVD release, but until then, it can be viewed online for free. Just do a video search and you'll find this otherwise unavailable film in several places.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 6:14 a.m. CST

    Bullshit review...saw it tonight and it was good.

    by Ryan

    I have a full-proof way of knowing right off the bat who is full of shit and who isn't when they are reviewing either of the Ritchie Holmes movies. It's when they say, iterate, or elude that they are not Sherlock Holmes movies. Anyone who says this or writes it isn't a true student of Sherlock Holmes despite what they claim. I remember watching the first flick and people going nuts about it...acting like it was something new and fresh. I'd just smile and nod, and say, yes but it's Sherlock Holmes. The same can be said of Abrams Star Trek. I've read every single Sherlock Holmes story ever told...kind of a passion of mine. And these movies nail Sherlock. Yes, it's been dressed up and things have been slightly altered. Elements have been added, indeed. But the core remains the same. This IS Sherlock Holmes. People forget that while Doyle's writing didn't always portray Sherlock as an action hero, he absolutely was. A master swordsman and boxer...he was the world's first Batman. True, these recent cinematic foray's have focused more on the action that might have been missing in the stories but that's okay...these are the early days for Holmes. And why not have some fun with him and his adventures? Of course an older Holmes wouldn't fight all the time, he'd have figured out how to get past that by his age. But for now? He's still learning and becoming the man he WILL be. Why not have him drink a bit too much and fight a little more than he will. I've had my share of fights, but I tell people even now, I'm 30 I never need to get in another fight again. But it might come to my doorstep. And even if it doesn't, Sherlock is a man that clearly hasn't realized his threshold for pain yet. This was a great flick, and a truly great sequel. These films might twist Sherlock a little bit, but not so much that they don't remain Sherlock Holmes tales.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 6:19 a.m. CST

    blah blah blah, Benedict Cummerbund, blah blah blah

    by loafroaster

    There, I said it for you. Now FUCK OFF.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 6:27 a.m. CST

    Loved it. The type of fun I wish transformers was.

    by whatevillurks

    Its ok to love Sherlock and still enjoy these movies folks. Crowd gave it an ovation at the end.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 6:35 a.m. CST

    Capone you are full of shit.

    by lagomorph

    I just re-read your glowing review of the first Guy Ritchie Holmes movie and there is no part of it in which you even hint that it left you "cold and empty" --you silly revisionist bastard. In fact you said in regards to the first film, "There's really no getting around the fact that this film doesn't just work as a tale of mystery, action, and suspense; SHERLOCK HOLMES is above all other things fun and thrilling." GOT IT? If you're going to go with the trend of hating on this film franchise at least find an honest way to do so without dragging the first movie you once adored into the muck.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 6:39 a.m. CST

    Capone loved the first one!!!

    by lagomorph

    Here's his review: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/43485 Find one thing negative in that! I dare you!

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 7:26 a.m. CST

    sad to hear that

    by sith_rising

    i'll be seeing it tomorrow anyways. i loved the first one.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 7:30 a.m. CST

    Watson

    by will

    Watson was always the more well adjusted one... Holmes was childish, more than one drug addicted, but brilliant active/action man, Ritchie plays this up extremly well--- my 2 cents...

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 7:42 a.m. CST

    Also enjoyed the first one

    by JorEl214

    So I'm assuming if the second one left Capone feeling as empty as the first one, I will in fact like the second one as much as the first one? I feel like too many people are still hung up on the Basil Raithbone portrayal of Holmes and that is how all cinema Holmes should be. Everything that I saw in RDJ's portrayal of Holmes is there in the source material. Maybe it's not right out in the open, sometimes it's just referenced to, but it's there nonetheless. I know Guy Ritchie is a polarizing and I'm pretty meh on him personally, but I think his trademark slo mo-then-sped up camera move was PERFECTLY used in the first movie.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 7:56 a.m. CST

    These movies nail Sherlock?

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Riiiiiiight. I like these movies just fine, but they're no Sherlock Holmes. And anybody who says that Holmes was an "action hero" by virtue of the fact that he was "a master swordsman and boxer" ignores one big thing ... We were TOLD this. NEVER shown it. And FURTHERMORE I'll add another reason why your claim to be a Holmes aficionado (having "read all the books") while claiming to declare these movies to BE Holmes sounds to be bullshit ... In the last movie, Sherlock is INTRODUCED to Watson's wife, Mary. At dinner, if memory serves. Right? You follow that? You understand? Watson had to INTRODUCE Holmes to Mary. There's only one problem with that. HOLMES AND WATSON BOTH MET MARY AT THE VERY SAME TIME IN THE SIGN OF FOUR!!! Therefore, they both knew here at the same time from the same place. Therefore, there is no FUCKING NEED for Sherlock to be introduced to her. And, just so that we're clear, Watson was most probably married twice. And it seems probable that he happened to marry a "Mary" both times (he refers to both his wive's by this name in the canon). But the first wife? The one whom both he and Holmes knew from a published, canon adventure called "The Sign of Four?" Her name? Her WHOLE NAME? MARY MORSTAN WATSON!!! That's right. Mary Morstan. The same Mary Morstan who is in the RD Jr. Sherlock Holmes. Holmes already knew her. In fact, knew and met her and helped her solves a fucking case. SO WHY THE FUCK WOULD HE NEED TO BE INTRODUCED TO WATSON'S FIANCEE WHEN HE ALREADY FUCKING MET HER AND HELPED HER SOLVE THE MYSTERY OF THE SIGN OF FOUR? So, don't fucking come 'round here talking about how you've read all the Sherlock Holmes story and pretending that this somehow makes you a fucking expert. It doesn't. I've read a book on cellular biology, but I don't go 'round lecturing others on how astronomy IS cellular biology. It ain't. That last Sherlock Holmes movie was good for what it was. An action hero reinterpretation of Sherlock Holmes for a post-modern audience. But it is absolutely fucking not the Sherlock Holmes of the canon that many of us grew up with. Again, I quite enjoyed the last one and I'm sure that I'll enjoy this one. But I fucking loathe being lectured about how these movies "nail Sherlock" by self-proclaimed Sherlock experts (whose expertise usually consists of a dusty copy of "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" from their youth and having watched a couple of Basil Rathbone flicks) when, in fact, they reinterpret the character and the legend.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 8 a.m. CST

    gabba-uk

    by phifty2

    Yes, Jeremy Brett will always be the best version of Holmes on any screen. I just don't see how anyone could do it better.

  • Not making the same mistake twice. Ass in seat tonight.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 8:03 a.m. CST

    The House of Silk

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    I highly recommend "The House of Silk" by Anthony Horowitz, endorsed and encouraged by the Conan Doyle estate on its publication in Nov. 2011. It's as close as any Sherlock enthusiast will ever come to a "new" Sherlock Holmes story. Read it yesterday and the day before, actually, and it's very, very good.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 8:05 a.m. CST

    I thought the first one was great.

    by rev_skarekroe

    Could have used more detecting, and the geography of London was a bit screwy, but I'm certainly looking forward to this one.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 8:21 a.m. CST

    I liked the first one, too, but ...

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Here's how I know that RDJ and Ritchie didn't "nail" Holmes. Over last weekend, I reread some Holmes stories, specifically The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes and The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes. I then followed those up with The House of Silk over the past couple of days. Great, great stuff, but guess what. In looking forward to this movie this weekend (A Game of Shadows), I tried very, very hard to hear and picture RDJ and JL in these stories. Just couldn't do it. I even rewatched the first movie during this last weekend. Still couldn't do it. Again, I really, really liked the first one. I'm sure that I'll like this one. But this "nails" Sherlock about as well as Obama "nailed" Teddy Roosevelt when he gave a speech in the same place that Roosevelt did. Just because they're both SET in the same place doesn't mean that they ARE the same. Anybody who says that these tales "nail" Holmes by virtue of the fact that we're SHOWN Holmes doing something that we're only TOLD and RARELY IF EVER SHOWN in the ACD tales has sadly fallen for the hype and spin of the movies' director and writer. More's the pity. All that having been said, I look forward to seeing this tomorrow or Sunday.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 8:34 a.m. CST

    Eh?

    by ChiefRoberts

    I honestly don't have much to say on this second film.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 8:46 a.m. CST

    Ritchie's Sherlock And Pirates-

    by beastie

    I know the're not great films or groundbreaking in any way. I know that these recent Holmes films are not faithful. Yet, I can't help loving these films. It seems the actors are having endless amiuts if fun. The scripts provide them with enough to make the mediocre in the movies interesting. The set designs and atmosphere, though are what really do it for me.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 8:54 a.m. CST

    How can any of these "reviewers" on this site ask to be taken seriously...

    by RockHardTobascoSlimJim

    when they cannot for the fucking life of them be arsed to proof read what they are about to post? Reading the articles here gives me a window into what it must be like for a grammar school teacher to grade their students' essays.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 9:11 a.m. CST

    Good review but I am looking for 2 hours of mindless fun

    by jupiterjim

    I pretty much know going into some of these movies that they really wont challenge my intellect but thats no big deal. I refer to these movies as "craptacular" where they just are so cheesy they just serve to entertain which is OK with me. I saw the 1st GI Joe movie in the theater...liked it but to this day I could not recall 10 minutes after walking out what the hell the plot was.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 9:27 a.m. CST

    Ok. Just seen it.

    by Gabba-UK

    And this Sherlock nutter loved it. It wonders a bit plot wise and it might be a little too much knowing (for lack of a better turn of phrase) but it was a hoot from beginning to end. As good as the first one? Not quite because we know what to expect now but a fun, action packed 2 hours. And for the many Kelly Reilly fans out there.... Google is your friend. 'Kelly Rielly Joes' Palace'. Thank me later. That is all.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 9:32 a.m. CST

    Cushing... Ritchie...

    by RRL

    There's a cool Cushing/Holmes collection at Amazon for 10 bucks! ASIN: B001TE6P78. And yeah, you guys have summed it up better than the review- it's a post-modern re-interpretation, and only quasi-Holmesian, but Ritchie's version was very artfully shot and imagined, and the cast was so enjoyable- I think most of us could safely spend our "pop-corn" money on this sequel with little fear of disappointment.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 9:50 a.m. CST

    Fuck. This. Shit.

    by Fico

    Sherlock Holmes dodging explosions, snapping necks ninja style, wearing disguises in scenes that could be written by the Wayans brothers. What a disgrace

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 10:12 a.m. CST

    seriously? "Taken seriously"?

    by abe

    They aren't even journalists. All they can do is update an old-style website and pretend they are cool. After all, they even have "cool" in their name. I come here to laugh at all the fan boys' chatter and everyone pretend they are the "bee's knees".

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 10:14 a.m. CST

    Paris Hilton is not in it so it stinks.. . Admit it

    by Mike Myers

    P UKE Capone You could have punched her manufactured head in and instead just kissed her butt. Shame on you Maybe a second chance will arrive when you interview one of the pig Kardashians. You know its gonna happen.

  • ...and if you've read the books and stories, you know that Downey's Holmes is pretty accurate. He did use his fists and guns in the stories when need be.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 10:33 a.m. CST

    From Beyond The Grave

    by CoolerKing72

    A classic Peter Cushing film...

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 10:55 a.m. CST

    Loved the first one ...

    by Judge Briggs

    This one has my money! Guy Ritchie is one of the better, fun directors out there right now. CAN WE PLEASE GET A FOLLOW-UP TO 'RockNRolla?' ---- Fucking great flick!

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 11:06 a.m. CST

    Accurate to the books? I don't think so...

    by elsachmo

    I've read all the books dozens of times, and these films are not accurate to them at all. It's ridiculous when people make that claim. Yes, he held a gun in his hand a couple of times, and expressed his interest in boxing and martial arts, but they were not on display alongside action sequences and explosions every 2 seconds. I would be ok with the Hollywood action, if they hadn't also removed everything that makes Holmes who he is in the original stories to make room for all of the rest.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 11:07 a.m. CST

    Joining the pile-on

    by Noocyte

    While everyone is entitled to their opinion (hells' bells, there are people out there who actually *enjoyed* "Moulin Rouge!"), your opinion of this movie is thoroughly discredited by the statement that you did not like the first (especially if, as one talkbacker noted, you'd rhapsodized about it at the time). The first "Sherlock" is a near-perfect movie, in my opinion. If the sequel partakes of the same vibe and is constructed with commensurate care, then I will *definitely* be warming a seat...at LEAST once.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 11:15 a.m. CST

    Holmes has been around enough to be open to interpretation

    by L. Ron Bumquist

    There are plenty of variations out there already and there will be others in the future. Ritchie's first was a pleasure and it sounds like this will be too. Exactly what I want from a Yuletide holiday film.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 11:27 a.m. CST

    I guess these are Love em or Hate em movies

    by fat_rancor_keeper

    I'm in the camp that hated the 1st. So I wouldn't bother with this one even if the review was good.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 11:32 a.m. CST

    I will go see this only to witness TDKR trailer...

    by Tank Williams

    Then leave and get my refund.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 11:32 a.m. CST

    elsachmo

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Said perfectly. It's not JUST that they've thrown in the action stuff. It's that they've ELIMINATED the things that make Sherlock Holmes.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 11:33 a.m. CST

    Has anyone seen TDKR trailer in its full glory?

    by Tank Williams

    Does it fucking rock?

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 11:36 a.m. CST

    Fryyy....Fryyyy....Fryyy

    by basilofbakerstreet

    I'm opting to watch Ghost Protocol this weekend instead as the original Sherlock Holmes left me dead inside. Also, Brad Bird is a genius and I need to see what he's done with live action. As someone said Stephen Fry is very active and QI is probably my favorite show on TV. Extremely entertaining and educational. He also does several documentary specials, most recently "Fry's Planet Word" on the origins of human speech. QI is currently running season 9 and its well worth going back from episode 1 onward at any point in time. You can find all episodes online totally not legally (you might get in a TORRENT of trouble!...hello?)....okay, or you can order the DVD's which I think are only up to season 3 or 4 so far.

  • Jeremy Brett's series was also good on the portait of Watson, butthe series focused so much on holmes he was indeed a supporting character on what should also be his stories. the new THV show SHERLOCK is good in ballancing things out and portaiting a Watson you can believe he can kick ass and also a smart man on his own right. Best thing in this new movie series called Sherlock holmes is that Jude Law plays watson to perfection. Too bad about the rest. Robert Downey Jr is not bad in them, he's just asked to play Sherlock holmes the wrong way.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 11:46 a.m. CST

    And Stephen Fry is always quality. The guy is gold.

    by AsimovLives

    Casting him as Mycroft Holmes is just right. And you have not known awesome until you see Fry say "Kneel before Zod" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BGwfTOzXUWA

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 11:47 a.m. CST

    love TBs

    by HongKongCavalier

    a) wtf would anyone read the same book a dozen times? b) someone has a similar take on a fictional character created in literature ... but their opinion is called bullshit? c) I really enjoyed the lecture on a book-based movie NOT adhering to every word of the book and that this change from the book being the foundation to not only call someone else stupid but to prove how the character of Sherlock is NOT true to the book (yeah, this sentence is as convoluted as the lecture/rant it references) Guy's first Sherlock was fun as hell; so I will be going to see this one too. RDJ's Holmes is clearly the Holmes that's been subject to rumors over the years (e.g., he had opium in his pipe). ... and, for the record, had Guy been "true to the material" the world would've been blessed with yet another movie that has been told/read/seen MANY times before

  • and the geekoids will not rest until every single propriety that exists will be turned into action movies. because only action movies are "kewlz" and "teh gudz", right! What fucking ass!

  • -- on disc. Sherlock Holmes should have impeccable diction, unless he's working undercover.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 12:02 p.m. CST

    My theatre just had TDKR teaser.

    by whatevillurks

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 12:05 p.m. CST

    I have to assume there's some kind of reverse backlash happening here

    by Bass Ackwards

    The first one was moderately enjoyable. I didn't hate it, and I could even see why others would like it. But its odd to see people here wearing they're enjoyment of an, at best, above-average movie, as some kind badge of honor, calling it accurate to the books (I agree with an above TBer, it's fine that it's not, but the claim that it is is kind of silly), or a near perfect movie? Yikes!

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 12:13 p.m. CST

    Lagomorph is right!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    by notcher

    Capone couldn't have loved the original any more than he said he did in the original review. Wow, that's a mess-up if I've ever seen one. My take is that the first one was an acquired taste. I never warmed up to it till I saw it a couple more times on HBO, then when I actually picked up what was being said and what the story fully was then I found I liked it quite a lot. Underrated I think. I look forward to seeing the sequel today.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 12:14 p.m. CST

    FYI, Cushing Sherlock DVD

    by acamp

    I have Hound of the Baskervilles on DVD. Also, Amazon lists The Sherlock Homes Collection with Cushing for $10.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 12:16 p.m. CST

    Seen TDKR trailer! Best touchdown run ever!!

    by T-Man1138

    Loved the first Sherlock but this was a bit disappointing. The climax with Sherlock and Moriarty was fantastic though. But its worth it for seening the TDKR trailer. Nolan is just is going balls to the wall fun with it. Bane! Selina! The Bat hover car! This is going to be big and fun. And a hell of a football game in it.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 12:37 p.m. CST

    My concern with Game of Shadows.

    by notcher

    I have a theory that connects with Roger Ebert's, there aren't any good movie's with hot air balloon action scenes or when the main character dresses up as a woman for a disguise. I've never seen one that I can think of, so that concerns me. I'd love to be proven wrong with this one.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 12:41 p.m. CST

    my 2 pence worth

    by Dr.007

    Downey's Holmes is a under-reaching execution of a good idea. maybe wrong director or wrong actor but the outcome never fires on all cylinders. Both this and Sherlock have their strong points and both do an interesting job of revising Dr. Watson towards respectability (and latent homosexuality or PTSD) Have to say, however, that i strongly favor the BBC version. I can see Downey's Holmes as the adult version of Young Sherlock, though with a far worse diction problem.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 12:44 p.m. CST

    House of silk

    by Dr.007

    the bicycle sharer - you are spot on. Both Conan Doyle Estate and Ian Fleming Estate seem to have produced some fun reads through their selected author programs.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 12:47 p.m. CST

    Robert Downs Syndrome Holmes, Jr.

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    That about describes it. I prefer to think of these movies as moderately fun action pictures set in the Victorian era in which a slightly mental con man has convinced a doctor that he's ACTUALLY Sherlock Holmes. Maybe the third one will ret-con everything and we'll learn that Watson was this disturbed man's alienist.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 1:06 p.m. CST

    notcher: does "Tootsie" count?

    by redfang

    Or does that not count as "for a disguise", but rather "for a job"? Since the main character was disgusing themself as someone else (a woman) in order to get the job, I'd say it counts. So would "Mrs. Doubtfire," assuming you'd count it as a good movie. Hot air balloon action scenes? Not too many other examples of those. What bad movies had one?

  • Exactly why reviewers can fuck over good movies before general release. I enjoyed the first one. Never trust a critic, see a movie for yourselves and then judge. The great thing about movies is that one man's masterpiece is another mans napkin sketch. Everyone has different taste.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 1:18 p.m. CST

    I think there is a ugly kind of snobbery being shown here...

    by Gabba-UK

    My love of Holmes is assured and I'm completely comfortable with other peoples takes on the material. As I've said before Doyles original writing is nothing short of genius that allows each reader to project their own notions of an heroic figure onto Holmes. Yes, libertys are taken with the original text. Holmes fervent admiration for Irene Adler in these films is more carnal than the sexually aloof respect displayed in 'A Scandal in Bohemia' but that perhaps is more a reflection of the expectations of a modern movie audience being considered by a script writer. And that's the key a modern movie. If this inspires a few people to check out the original stories, the same way a grainy Basil Rathbone inspired me on a quiet Sunday afternoon watching BBC 2 at my Gran's house when I was 10 then it's done a good thing. And entertained a lot of people in the process.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 1:18 p.m. CST

    notcher, I submit

    by Bass Ackwards

    Up & Tootsie.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 1:21 p.m. CST

    the bicycle sharer

    by AsimovLives

    Maybe the third one will ret-con everything and we'll learn that Watson was this disturbed man's alienist.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 1:27 p.m. CST

    hongkongcavalier -- some answers for you

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Q: WTF would anyone read the same book a dozen times? A: For the same reason that one watches a movie or TV show a dozen times. For the same reason that one listens to the same song a dozen times. Because we like it. Wait. Let me guess. You've never seen a movie or TV show more than once or heard a song after the first time? Right. Q: Someone has a similar take on a fictional character created in literature ... but their opinion is called bullshit? A: Several parts to this answer. First, I disagree with "similar." However, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm sure since you only read ONE Sherlock Holmes story ONE time ("WTF would anyone read the same book a dozen times?") that your memory of the consulting detective is somewhat flawed and, since you'll never read that ONE story again, you'll never learn the error of your ways. Second, I can completely understand someone calling bullshit on an interpretation. If the reader or viewer feels like all semblance to a character has been abandoned or, worse, actively subverted then calling that interpretation bullshit seems just about right. For instance, imagine that you go to see a movie about Winston Churchill. But then you find that he's a black homosexual teenager living on an alien world in the distant future and that he is an avowed pacifist. Would that be okay to call bullshit? Third, however, as I've said before, I don't dismiss these movies out of hand. I'm always down for some steampunk action ... even if it is being done by a mental case pretending to be Sherlock Holmes. Q: I really enjoyed the lecture on a book-based movie NOT adhering to every word of the book and that this change from the book being the foundation to not only call someone else stupid but to prove how the character of Sherlock is NOT true to the book (yeah, this sentence is as convoluted as the lecture/rant it references). A: We're glad that you enjoyed it, even if, clearly you learned nothing from it. If you're referring to my lecture, you may have enjoyed it, but you certainly didn't understand it. Having only read it once, however (never to read it again, I'm sure), I'll forgive you and try to clarify it here. MY lecture above called no one stupid. Since you are apparently incapable or re-reading (or, hell, reading once and understanding), let me be clear -- *I* was calling stupid anyone who claimed to have read the books and seen the movies AND WHO THEN CALLED ANYONE WHO DIDN'T FIND THEM TO BE SHERLOCK HOLMES, "NOT A TRUE STUDENT OF SHERLOCK HOLMES." Yes. I called that stupid. And I'll do so again. Yes, the first Sherlock WAS fun. So, I will be going to see this one, too. I'm sure that I'll enjoy it as I enjoy RDJ, JL, and the oh-so-lovely Rachel. And, as far as your notion that there are "rumors" about Sherlock Holmes, you do know that he's a FICTIONAL CHARACTER, right? F-I-C-T-I-O-N-A-L C-H-A-R-A-C-T-E-R. Therefore, there aren't "rumors" about him. Rumors only occur about ACTUAL PEOPLE. Instead, there is revisionist theories and post-modern interpretations, but there are not "rumors" about him. One doesn't spread "rumors" about fictional characters unless you're fucking bonkers yourself. Furthermore, you really SHOULD learn to read something more than once. Or at least to grasp it better. Holmes is mentioned to use morphine ONCE (in "The Sign of Four," which I just reread), but he's also mentioned to loathe going into an opium den in pursuit of his investigation. Opium has a very distinct odor. It is not a fucking mystery when it is being smoked and most scholars believe that ACD merely misremembered Sherlock's drug of choice (it was cocaine -- a seven-percent solution, injected, not smoked) when writing that ONE tale in which Holmes and morphine (not opium) are mentioned. Finally, let's address this "if Guy had been true to the material" idea. That seems to me to be defense of those who really have no defense left. There are many fine pastiches that have been written which haven't completed altered the nature of the stories or, more importantly, the character of the man himself. If Guy Ritchie and the writer Wigram had wanted to do an action-adventure in a steampunk era, they should have done just that and left their use of that character's name alone. Otherwise, they INVITE criticism when they stray too broadly from certain strictures. Again, I liked the first one just fine and I'll be seeing this one tomorrow, but the criticisms of those who dislike this series AS SHERLOCK HOLMES are quite valid. Just do as I do when watching, pretend that RDJ is some idiot savant who has come to believe himself Sherlock Holmes and Watson is his trusty doctor trying to keep him out of trouble. Viewed that way, these movies are just fine to me.

  • did sherlock invented it himself?

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 1:40 p.m. CST

    Thought the first film was ok at best

    by Jaster Mareel

    Boring and bizarre at worst. I think the final nail was when there was a whole series of clues left out in the open that explained everything Holmes needed to know. Apparently, THAT was the investigation. That out of the way, Holmes was free to prance around acting like a fucking nutcase and getting in fights while shit blew up. Not interested in any more of that shit thank you very much.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 1:40 p.m. CST

    Gabba-uk

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Oh, you called that plot incoherent and the direction poor? What a snob you are!

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 1:41 p.m. CST

    asimov

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    I see you've fallen victim to AICN's new post-hacking policy where they hack half your post off when you post it. Welcome to the club, sir!

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 1:43 p.m. CST

    Enjoyed it...

    by TDH1138

    ... and I recommend it.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 1:45 p.m. CST

    asimovlives

    by TDH1138

    It's part of the plot (sort of)... the advanced weapons that is

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 1:46 p.m. CST

    HA!!! It happened to me again!

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    WTF?!?!? My post to Gabba-uk above was cut off in posting. Fuck me. And, man, since this had been happening, I've been copying and saving my posts until I see that they've posted. But I didn't do it this time, assuming that the problem was gone. Guess not. Save your own posts if you value them. AICN is cutting about 20 percent of them off.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 1:47 p.m. CST

    Jeremy Brett IS Sherlock Holmes

    by Crobran

    ...with Cumberbatch a close second. The shows these two guys are in capture Holmes better than any other show or movie.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 1:51 p.m. CST

    OMFG -- WTFFFFF Capone?!?!?!

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    I just read the plot description on Wiki of "A Game of Shadows." Fuck me, Capone. Just say, "It's 'League of Extraordinary Gentlemen' meets 'Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country.'" Un-fuckin'-believable. But I'm sure I'm a real douche and a total snob for not loving that, huh?

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 1:53 p.m. CST

    Reimaging

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Just call it a fucking reimagining and be done with it. Because that's what it is and I'm fine with that. But I suspect that Ritchie-sycophants despise that term, reimagining, and don't dare.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 1:55 p.m. CST

    The problem is...

    by MattDomville

    It just seems like an endless parade of wacky disguises. A comic on the subject: http://www.cinemabums.com/?p=191

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 2:03 p.m. CST

    the bicycle sharer

    by AsimovLives

    so it seems. i though it was a dead practice here, but it returned.

  • Bullshit! Don't make excuses for directors who can't make anthing interesting if they are not action movies. And i used to be a big defender of Guy Ritchie. I even liked REVOLVER!

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 2:06 p.m. CST

    crisp_one, WORD!

    by AsimovLives

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 2:08 p.m. CST

    the bicycle sharer

    by AsimovLives

    "It's 'League of Extraordinary Gentlemen' meets 'Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country.'

  • because so often, they use the word "fun" to escuse incredibly dum, retard, shitty movies. The geekry in here have soiled the word "fun" for me. Geeks saying a movie is "fun" is the best way to convince me to avoid it like the plague.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 2:10 p.m. CST

    run to the hills

    by AsimovLives

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 2:13 p.m. CST

    the bicycle sharer, as i was saying before...

    by AsimovLives

    ... your coment about that the 3rd NuHolmes movie being about a crazy delusional madman who believes himself to be Sherlock holmes is the best logical reasonable explanation i ever seen for why this NuHolmes movies are as they are. They being the product of a demented mind truly perfectly explains this movies for why they are as they do. That way they makes sense, the product of a demented mind allucinations. If that happened, i would sing the praises of this movies from the rooftops.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 2:26 p.m. CST

    Bicycle sharer

    by Gabba-UK

    Touché good sir.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 2:38 p.m. CST

    By the way...

    by Gabba-UK

    I'm calling for a moratorium on the use of Nu on this TB before it gets out of hand.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 2:43 p.m. CST

    For a bad review, you sure did make me want to see it

    by purplemonkeydw

    not sure that Irene turns traitor since she worked for Moriarty in the first movie...you sure you didn't secretly like this capone?

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 2:48 p.m. CST

    My biggest problem with these films is Downey as Holmes.

    by v3d

    Admittedly, it's my problem. I've seen him in movies since the mid 80's and can't accept him as this very iconic British literary character. He's a talented guy, he's doing a good job, but it doesn't work for me.

  • Sherlock is the books transported to the present day . Ritchie's movie's are an action pulp take. Like the different style's of the Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises I feel there is room for both. Jared Harris launches this movie past the first one.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 3:16 p.m. CST

    Fantastic Review...and oddly counter-productive

    by Baked

    If I ignore your emotional response to the movie and judge it purely on the quality of the filmmaking and performances you describe, it sounds like a great movie... Weird.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 3:40 p.m. CST

    RDJ's Holmes is not very Sherlocky

    by Riff_Randell

    For my money, I'd much rather watch BBC's Sherlock starring Mr. Cumberbatch, it's a lot more like the books and not a thrill-a-minute action film with clever one-liners. I've loved RDJ since the mid-eighties (Tuff Turf!), but these SH movies leave me cold. I much prefer Sherlock as an insufferable misanthrope.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 3:43 p.m. CST

    RE: admonisher

    by Riff_Randell

    Hammer's Hound of the Baskervilles is one awesome movie! Basil Rathbone's Holmes is a treat, too.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 3:45 p.m. CST

    high speed camera overkill...good lord

    by sunwukong86

    I really like the "Sherlock Sense" in these movies, but the rest of the use of the high speed camera was just unnecessary. There wasnt one fight scene without matrix style fights. Im surprised no one's had a seizure watching this movie. Oh and a lot of people laughed at the Battleship trailer that played before it.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 3:49 p.m. CST

    Nugabba-uk

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Nuwhat nudo nuyou numean? NuLOL!

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 3:53 p.m. CST

    Loved the first

    by Augustus Gloop

    but after seeing this one twice, I have a lot of problems with it. I mostly agree with Capone's thoughts, but not as impressed with Moriarty in this. The action scenes just went overboard to the point I was entirely irritated with one which had the camera zooming in slow-mo on bullets that were chopping up trees, then zooming back out. It was a ridiculous and pointless shot that is repeated ad nauseam. If not for that, I would have enjoyed the film more, but I was hoping for a few new tricks and some actual deduction/sleuthing. Holmes already has every answer in this one worked out before he's even arrived at the scene.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 3:54 p.m. CST

    is this really surprising..?

    by D o o d

    The first one was a boring tv movie at best!

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 3:58 p.m. CST

    Apparently, if you get drunk at BNAT...

    by LordEnigma

    you won't like this movie. Seriously, Capone loved Trannys 3. Are we going to take him seriously after that debacle?

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 4:09 p.m. CST

    Asimov

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Go with that explanation on Sherlock and it works! Also, try my other patented explanation that enables me to enjoy "Superman Returns" (sort of). When Superman left earth to go wank his junk while looking for Krypton, authorities were despondent. Having faced dangers that only Superman could stop (nukes from Luthor and Parisian terrorists and Kryptonian supervillains), the world was afraid that they might not survive without a Superman. Therefore, S.T.A.R. Labs was tasked with creating a new Superman. Using DNA from Superman and some technology that authorities had recovered from Lex Luthor's hideout in the first picture, S.T.A.R. successfully cloned the Kryptonian, but were unable to move their experiment beyond a fetal stage. So, they kidnapped Lois Lane and implanted her with the Superman-clone, wiping her memory of the incident. They also managed to plant an agent in Lois's life to monitor both her and the child she was carrying. This agent was Richard White, played by James Marsden. Nine months later, a baby was born. Lois called the child Jason. Everyone thought that baby was Superman's child. It was not. It was his clone. A clone that would subsequently be affected by exposure by the Big Kryptonite Rock Candy Mountain that Luthor had created in "Superman Returns." This exposure would cause the child, in the unmade sequel, to age super-fast. It would also affect the child's emotional and intellectual maturity, this rapid growth. And the boy who was known as Jason White would become ... Bizarro! And the "super-stalking" that Supes did in that movie? It wasn't as creepy as you might think. Supes had an odd feeling about that kid. That kid who was part him, but somehow ... different. In the end, in my sequel (set up in my imagination by me ret-con of that movie), Supes would face Bizarro, as well as John Corben, Metallo, the super soldier who would be created in the interim between the two movies. Bizarro would end up sacrificing himself, becoming a sort of King Kong tragic figure, to help save Superman and the world from whatever destruction their battle with Supes had wrought. That's how I can watch "Superman Returns" without projectile vomiting. Self-delusion is a wonderful thing, ain't it? Maybe someday someone can teach me how to do that with the plot holes in "NuStar Trek!"

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 4:32 p.m. CST

    the bicycle sharer

    by AsimovLives

    Maybe someday someone can teach me how to do that with the plot holes in "NuStar Trek!"

  • Are idiots! These films are close enough to the books to satisfy my love of Holmes and far enough away to keep them fresh. There is a lot in the films from the canonical stories and there are elements that take throwaway lines and descriptions and flesh them out so that we have a different iteration of the character. I can totally understand why people might hate them and I can understand why people think that they're not Sherlock Holmes but at the end of the day RDJ is playing Sherlock Holmes in the same way that Roger Moore and Pierce Brosnan played Bond. Holmes has been filmed so many times that to see yet another version of Hound of the Fucking Baskervilles, or The Sign of Four or whatever would be pointless!

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 4:59 p.m. CST

    samson_k

    by AsimovLives

    after i rewatch YOUNG SHERLOCK HOLMES, i'll be back at you.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 5:06 p.m. CST

    Ode to Sherlock Holmes

    by Clio

    Holmes and Watson still live, to those who love them well, in a romantic chamber of the heart, in a nostalgic country of the mind....where it is always 1895.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 5:08 p.m. CST

    Thankfully BBC's "Sherlock" premieres NewYrsDay

    by Kenny8

    Runs rings around Ritchie's revival. Despite the updating, much more faithful to the characters

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 5:10 p.m. CST

    Ode to S.H. continued...

    by Clio

    Oh, dear Sherlock, to share thy adventures we long, as you crush London's crime under heel, As we sing in thy stead an Irregular song, though it ne'er can express all we feel. Let grim warfare and pestilence rage as they may, you will still bring long hours of joy, To the boy, who adoring, is now half a man, and the man who is yet half a boy.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 5:14 p.m. CST

    Clearly you don't like Holmes, Capone.

    by TheMarineBiologist

    Because, as a fan of Sherlock Holmes, I got an absolute kick out of this movie. Grinning ear to ear with every little throw-back to the literature.<p> I grew up watching movies like Cushing's Hound of the Baskervilles. I even loved Great Mouse Detective as a kid. I tune into House every now and then to get that take on it. I absolutely ADORE every second of the BBC series of Sherlock.<p> And I love Ritchie's Holmes. It's a different take on stories that I love.<p> Think of it in terms of Harry Potter. Are the movies a direct adaptation of the book? No. It's a specific movie maker's interpretation.<p> If you didn't jump in your seat with glee when they first revealed the name of Moran, you don't deserve the ability to review this film. This was a FUN film for anyone that considers themselves a Sherlock Holmes fan. Was it a direct adaptation of the Final Problem? No, and it wasn't supposed to be.<p> Get your head out of your ass, Capone. This was a great movie.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 5:22 p.m. CST

    And like it's been said before...

    by TheMarineBiologist

    The stories of Sherlock Holmes and John Watson are rich enough to entertain as many different versions and iterations as people are willing to make.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 6:34 p.m. CST

    I'll give you some reasons to avoid this digital trash!

    by Orionsangels

    The entire movie looks like it was created on a digital canvas. Remember real sets? Real buildings? Real grass and trees. Real backgrounds. When actors didn't look superimposed on to the screen and have that cheap live video effect. When movies had normal fighting and none of this slow motion digital fighting camera rotating around super slow fighting and 360 degree bullets in slow motion!

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 6:41 p.m. CST

    orionsangels

    by DrBathroomMD

    Stop talking. Most of this film was in real sets. So don't even go there. Anyway this film was excellent. As a fan of the first I can safely say this one was even better. Alot of it is actually brilliant. While the action is thrilling, the "quiet" moments between Holmes and Moriarty were chillingly awesome and definitely the best parts of the movie.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 7:11 p.m. CST

    Just saw this movie....

    by notcher

    Go see it for the last act, it's terrific. The rest of the movie is solid. It's an old fashioned good time at the movies, no more no less, simple. The Dark Knight Rises Trailer was mindblowing, I have no clue what's going to happen, can't wait for a full trailer. BRING IT!!!

  • i'm so happy i shit three times today

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 7:18 p.m. CST

    Wacko, very Christian of you.

    by notcher

    Hitchens had a right to his opinion like anyone else. He was a fantastic writer and a great talent. You may not like the fact that he didn't believe in God. But not all God Fearing people are good people as proven by your post. A Christian does not celebrate the death of another because he doesn't believe the same way. A true Christian would pray for his soul. You my friend are just another example of why people like Hitchens hate Christians, because we constantly preach "God, Christ, Compassion" and then turn around and say shit like what you just said. Stay the fuck off the Christian side, you aren't helping. BTW, his opinions on Mother Theresa's work doing more harm than good were right on, if you actually did any research on the shit you shovel, you'd know that. Again, don't preach what you know nothing about.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 7:31 p.m. CST

    notcher - what if ol wacko is an islamacite, cyst, phile whatever

    by Hey_Kobe_Tell_Me_How_My_Ass_Tastes

    He damn sure aint Jewish, i got that one covered and could give two shits about hitchens, he was an asshole. could care less if he believed in an afterlife, he was an asshole who thought his brains meant he got a free pass to be an asshole and say assholish things because people would forgive him and just say, he is sooo smart maybe he is right. no he was just a smart asshole. im not sorry he is dead, but aint shedding a tear either

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 7:32 p.m. CST

    As a Holmes completist, I will probably see this at some point.

    by SnootyBoots

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 7:39 p.m. CST

    Kobe...

    by notcher

    That's an opinion you have the right to say and it was well said. No problem with it at all.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 7:50 p.m. CST

    notcher

    by Hey_Kobe_Tell_Me_How_My_Ass_Tastes

    that was damn polite of you

  • Is it an insult to today's audiences that directors feel that in order to make old stories interesting again, we have to replace the intellectual thrills with blowing stuff up? Do they think that we just want to keep fattening ourselves up on popcorn fare instead of getting a good mental workout?

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 9:14 p.m. CST

    Another plug for BBC's "Sherlock"

    by ArianeB

    I was a fan of the original books and read them all. <br>As "reimaginings" go, Sherlock -- set in the present day, is much more faithful and far more entertaining than the Ritchie/Downey movie version set in the appropriate Victorian era.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 10:03 p.m. CST

    Best Sherlock Holmes ...

    by dogrobber

    ... Vasili Livanov, followed by Jeremy Brett, Hugh Laurie, Basil Rathbone, and (if he gets better scripts next series) probably Benedict Cumberlatch. Honourable mentions to Peter Cushing, Christopher Lee, and Christopher Plummer. What about a list of the worst casting choices for the role, such as Charlton Heston, Matt Frewer, and Edward Woodward, among others?

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 10:51 p.m. CST

    Doyle was writing for a crowd that actually enjoyed using their brains.

    by Don_Drapers_Acid_Trip

    Hence the story about the guy climbing trees because he injected monkey blood. And The Napoleon of Crime, Moriarity, whose criminal empire is so vast and the greatest case Holmes has ever cracked which he all does outside of the actual story. The story itself just being Holmes writing a letter, then going to switzerland to wrestle a guy off a cliff. Just cause there's a couple old time words you didn't understand stop trying to play Doyle off as anything but a pulp writer of his day. And not really a good one, he just came up with a brilliant set of characters which thankfully we have Guy Ritchie and others to do actual interesting things with that a worthy of them.

  • Dec. 16, 2011, 11:27 p.m. CST

    Wacko...

    by notcher

    Look up the word sarcasm you dumb fuck. "Very Christian of you" was sarcastic. You used the word "Atheist" suggesting you aren't, so I used "Christian" as a sarcastic example, of course I don't fucking know what you are! You said all that shit yourself! Way to contradict yourself you fucking idiot, Hitchens was a moron because he was an atheist? Because he had a strong opinion? Look at your opinion dipshit, you're saying someone doesn't have the right to say what they want you hypocritical fuck stick! And because he had an opinion YOU didn't agree with you practically tell him to fucking rot and that it's good he died, what the fuck is that contradictory bullshit? Tell you what, when you have an opinion for now on, stop and think that someone is saying you're a fucking moron for having an opinion someone doesn't agree with. LIKE I SAID BEFORE YOU HYPOCRITE (Sorry for using a big word with you) DON'T FUCKING SAY SHIT ABOUT WHAT YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT! All you do is contradict yourself and make yourself look like the fucking hypocritical bitch that you are! And "Chopped?" Seriously, way to be original pal! Go fuck yourself you free thinking hating douchebag!!!! If you hate Hitchens cause you think he was an asshole, FINE, but because you didn't like his opinion he should rot like you fucking know more? Fuck you!!!! And I say all of that in the most "Christian" way. Note to Wack-off, I was being sarcastic again, go look the word up bitch!!!

  • This is why the rest of the world sees Americans and basically dumb and narrow-minded because they will miss the point of every genre if it isn't all about escapism, explosions, one-liners and fist fights. ..None of which have anything to do with Sherlock Holmes as both these Guy Ritchie films prove and for the popcorn brain, none of that matters because for them ignorance is bliss while to the rest of the world, ignorance is a curse!

  • Awesome Billy Wilder film, the music is outstanding too!

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 12:06 a.m. CST

    AICN Reviews in general

    by Perceptor

    I figured out a long time ago that the reviews on this site are about as reliable as my alcoholic father's timing. Sometimes it feels like the reviewers are in a studio's pocket and sometimes it feels like they have a vendetta against a film maker. I know I'm not the only one that has noticed this but what can you do? Capone has stated that this Sherlock Holmes is much like the first and that's all I need to know. Yeah, the first was a popcorn movie and I hardly remember plot details from it but I know that when I watch it, I have a good time. Not every form of entertainment has to be enriching. If that were true, people would expect strippers to explain the meaning of life when you went to a strip club. I'm saddened to see that Capone has forgotten that he initially gushed over the first Sherlock Holmes only to bash it in this review. It's not like he's a politician that has to waver his opinion to procure future votes. He's a film critic, not a congressman.

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 12:36 a.m. CST

    HATE

    by Fingeroo

    I hate Guy Richie and all his goddamn works and if this is the sort of movie Robert Downey Jr. wants to do he might as well get back on the hard stuff.

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 1:26 a.m. CST

    Wacko, really?

    by notcher

    "Christopher Notcher Hitchens." Are you 2 years old, that's the lamest insult ever. And your self congratulatory "I'm the man" posts prove nothing. You ARE on a roll dude, I agree, with every post it's clear you're a 2 year old flaming troll, homophobic moron who's only arguments are calling people queer. Curious choice of insult considering you just posted how happy you were you got in my ass. I don't recognize your handle at all, stay off the site and go back to the playground little boy.

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 1:27 a.m. CST

    and Wacko, self LOL's are fucking lame.

    by notcher

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 1:35 a.m. CST

    I watched a couple of the BBC shows

    by WINONA_RYDERS_PUSSY_JUICE

    It's pretty entertaining. But Ritchie's film was on another level.

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 1:47 a.m. CST

    The problem wasn't its faithfulness, problem was it was shit.

    by Carl's hat

    "Without a Clue" flipped the whole concept on it's head and was brilliant. My beef with Downey's Sherlock Holmes was that is just shit. Bad writing, piss poor casting, childish plot...just an all round crap job. And by the way, Holmes it aint and to claim that it is is just idiotic.

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 1:52 a.m. CST

    latest chapter?

    by berserkrl

    quote:I might be able to recommend this latest chapter in the modern Holmes franchise to you:endquote The latest chapter? That would be Season 2 of the BBC Sherlock, airing next month, and 1000 times better than the Ritchie version.

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 2:24 a.m. CST

    Asimov_lives

    by Samson_K

    Don't get me wrong, personally I love Young Sherlock Holmes - great soundtrack, great Dickensian atmosphere (and make no mistake it is more Dickensian in feel than Conan Doyle), very little relation to Holmes as a character and great action scenes... That's my point buddy - people love Young Sherlock Holmes and many of those seem to hate the Ritchie films when stylistically they are painted with the same brush. If you don't like the RDJ films that's none of my business, nothing to see etc. etc. but fuck, it seems that the reasons for disliking it lose validity if people love Young Sherlock Holmes!

  • ... i can't help but find their opinions suspicious. It's like those who claim to be long time trekkies and support the latest jarjarabrams's abominations. but on the NuHolmes' defense, it doesn't remotly look as bad as the jarjartrek movies. but that's damning with faint praise.

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 3:35 a.m. CST

    wacko_jackos_drug_filled_corpse

    by AsimovLives

    Quoting from Toy Story: "you are a sad little man".

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 3:35 a.m. CST

    How can anyone prefer the dogshit BBC show

    by Don_Drapers_Acid_Trip

    With that goofball Heath Ledger wannabe Moriarity while claiming these movies are some kind of assault on the sacred holmes canon. Asimovlives you should try to live your life with some dignity and not be a slavish fanboy to nerd franchises and just see if maybe you like living that way better sometime.

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 3:37 a.m. CST

    samson_k

    by AsimovLives

    Was that post adressed to me? Becasue that Asimov_Lives is another guy. Notice the underscore in the nick. That's another dude, not me,

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 3:41 a.m. CST

    Asimovlives (sorry about misquoting your name in my last post)

    by Samson_K

    Why? I mean you obviously don't like the Ritchie film and that's fair enough - and I am not a Holmes expert by any stretch of the imagination but to flat out state that there is something suspicious about people who love Holmes (and are lifelong fans) and yet who like this version is a bit weird! I haven't posted on here for a long time but I read it on a regular basis so I'm aware of your passion and how that tempers your opinion of people who like stuff that you don't like but surely the fact that you are so unwilling to accept that these are just different versions of existing properties (and to let that belief subsequently make you judge people as being idiots) could also be seen as suspicious. I thought Star Trek was a good enjoyable space opera, but I'm not a huge trekkie so have no real emotional investment in the franchise. Same with Holmes - there really is nothing suspicious about that! These films don't represent the sum total of my 'best movies of all time'. As I say these films are close enough to Conan Doyle's Holmes and different enough to be fresh! That's why I think that the first one was one of the most enjoyable blockbuster type films in the past three or four years and with Star Trek I enjoyed the acting and relationships between the three mainstays enough to get past the shortcomings. That's not suspicious opinion - that's just different opinion isn't it?

  • he seems to be always in the verge of saying some california lingo and refraining at the last minute. And i'm sorry, but he's not Sherlock Holmes. A character inspired by SH, sure, erhaps, but Sjherlock himself? No, for that you should watch the british seriesa SHERLOCK, which despite the transposition to the modern world, it's very, very faithful to the way the character was portaited in the original stories. RDJ's Holmes looks more like somebody tried to transpose Doctor Gregory Holmes to the screen and turn him in a modern action hero in a faux quasi-steampunk victorian era. Which is like making Helmes to be a xerox of a xerox. And from what i have read of the plot, it seems they robbed he plot of an old 80s series called QED which starred Sam Waterstone as a badass scientist set in 1912.

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 3:51 a.m. CST

    There are no Steampunk elements in the first film at all

    by Samson_K

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 3:56 a.m. CST

    = And i'm sorry, but he's not Sherlock Holmes.=

    by KilliK

    THE FUCK HE IS NOT.

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 4:49 a.m. CST

    3 clues about why you should avoid SH2

    by djscott95

    1. IT 2. WILL 3. SUCK

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 4:54 a.m. CST

    ...and no, he is not sherlock holmes.

    by djscott95

    Sherlock Holmes solved mysteries by using deductive reasoning and basically introducing lines of questioning that fooled the guilty into confession. This film will have RDJ punching people and being an action badass. It may have the title "Sherlock Holmes", but it ISN'T Sherlock Holmes. But the young people don't care. In 20 years, George Lucas will put out an updated film where Jar Jar loses his accent... and they will be PISSSED. And I will smile down from the universe...

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 6:06 a.m. CST

    samson_k

    by AsimovLives

    i have passionate responses to good and bad movies. i have a particular passionate opinion of bad movies that treat audiences as idiots. i fell personally insulted by that. it becames personal. and that's the major reason why i piss and shit on JarJarAbramsTrek so often and so vigoursly. Not because i'm some old time trekkie, which i'm not, but because that mnovie treats audiences as complete morons, because the movie is so fucking stupid and inept and idiotic and disrespectful to people's intelligence. thats what fucking pisses me off. and i don't take that kind of shit lightly. it's personal. and the blind following and love that dumb shit made by cynical fucks get is just the icing of the cake. on the other side of the spectrum, show me a good movie made by honest people with a few hints and doses of intelligence,and i'll happily became the movoe's supporter. show me a really intelligent movie, and i'll be it's dedicated groupie and defend it from the vampires on it's door.

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 6:09 a.m. CST

    killik, a name alone will not suffice.

    by AsimovLives

    what if somebody made a movie about a drag queen gay guy who spends the movies sucking cocks and call the character John Wayne and sel it as the biopic of John Wayne the movie ctor and Holywood star? Would it make for a real john Wayne biopic just because of the name's the same? see what i mean?

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 6:14 a.m. CST

    asimov - I sort of get that...

    by Samson_K

    I dumped a girl because of her love of Forrest Gump and a belief that Ron Howard was the best director ever. That and she was a kleptomaniac and did this weird thing in bed that freaked me the fuck out! In fact those two were more of an influence than liking Forrest fucking Gump! But still... I get passion - I just can't get into the judgmental mind set - I know people who love films that I destest and vice versa - it's just not the sum knowledge of our relationships and friendships. My wife throught Green Lantern was a great movie and I would rather sell my soul to Cenobites than watch the fucking thing again. Still she also loves The Last Boy Scout so that rocks you know?

  • Holy fucking shit! Talk about the unspeakable! What was her family name? Sauron? That's some serious evil shit right there! If you had persisted in that relationship, you woulsd eventually had suffered the fate of the lead character in the movie THE HOUSE OF THE DEVIL. Father Merrin wouldn't be of help! Or Frodo. that she was a kleptomaniac makes perfect sense. anybody who would rate that movie and that director as their best naturally would suffer from severe hardcore neurosis.. perhaps even psychosis!

  • let me put it this way: it's a one great scene surrounded by tony scott banal action stuff. the scene in question is when we meet bruce willis' character's daughter for th4 first time (played by danielle harris?), and they have the mother of all ugly verbal fights between father and daughter. that scene belongs to a much, much better movie than it. i know this is not a popular opinion to have in here about that movie, but i'm also the guy who pisses on jarjartrek, so there you have it.

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 6:58 a.m. CST

    Asi, usually I'm with you but ...Last Boy Scout..

    by Carl's hat

    ...is one of Bruce baby's best action flicks. As is 16 Blocks. Yeah, it's a by the numbers action flick that offers nothing new but it does what it does well and does have that hook about 'people can change' thing with Mos Def.

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 7 a.m. CST

    Here's what I don't understand

    by Peter David

    Why did you see it? Same cast. Different writers, granted, but since it's the same director, he'll likely hire writers to give him a script with the same sensibility. So the odds of you liking it were extremely small. So why did you bother seeing it? For the purpose of writing a negative review? I just...I don't get it. If I have every reason to think that I was going to dislike a film, I don't go. I mean, I don't necessarily know how things work around here: were you ASSIGNED to go? If so, maybe you should have demurred. I just happen to think that a critic has an obligation to be as impartial as he can. I know that's not completely possible: we all approach entertainment with certain biases built in. But if you actively dislike the previous film in a particular series by the same cast and director, I honestly don't see the point of going to the next one. I suppose that the argument can be made that someone who genuinely likes the previous film in a series--as I do in this instance--is likewise biased. But somehow I prefer to see a review by someone predisposed to like a film rather than predisposed to hate it because I think it's more consistent with the normal movie going process. When you're spending money to go to a movie you want to see (not counting those times when you take your girlfriend to the movie she wants to see, because your ultimate objective has nothing to do with the film--and good luck with that, because chances are the movie is just going to remind her that men are idiots) I think the default position is optimism. I think people tend to go into movies hopefully (note proper use of the word, kids: "He went to the film hopefully," correct. "Hopefully, the movie will be good," incorrect), anticipating a good time because the days of plunking down fifty cents to catch a newsreel, cartoon, a movie serial, a B-film and the main feature are long gone. These days you go in with exactly one shot at feeling you haven't wasted your money, so please, God, let it be good. I think a negative review should be based in positive expectations that are let down, not negative expectations that are confirmed. Don Thompson used to say, "For those who like this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing you'll like." Personally I loved the first film. If you read "A Study in Scarlett," all of the traits Holmes displays--including knowledge of martial arts and skill with stick fighting--are cited by Watson. Almost everything in the film is canonical; in some ways, it was truer to the source material than many interpretations that have him purely cerebral and effete: Sheldon Cooper with a hat and pipe. Yes, he was depicted as having stronger feelings for Irene Adler than he had in "Scandal in Bohemia," but that's hardly a transgression unique to that film. Hardly used his deductive and observational powers? Seriously? From his mowing through several potential cases in thirty seconds even while he's half out of his mind, to ruthlessly dissecting the background of Watson's fiancee, to the massive exposition dump at the end where you realize that he's been seeing things all through the movie that no one else noticed, it's pure Holmes. Holmes mourning the "loss" of Watson to marriage? Why not? In one story he says, "I would be lost without my Boswell." In another story, "The Adventure of the Blanched Soldier,," narrated first person by Holmes out of necessity, Holmes says, "The good Watson had deserted me for a wife, the only selfish action which I can recall in our association." What kind of person considers his friend finding happiness as an act of selfishness? Sure, perhaps Holmes was being ironic; but what if he wasn't? Holmes was incredibly moody--capable of slipping into "the blackest depression," as described by Watson. I mean, I'm sorry, but I think in a world that has given us some true Sherlockian abominations (yes, I'm looking at you, "The Return of Sherlock Holmes," with Holmes in cryogenic sleep brought to life in modern day by the female descendent of Watson, and no, I'm not kidding) it's odd to see this much dislike for a film that, believe it or not, got Holmes and Watson mostly right. I'm VERY much looking forward to seeing the sequel this weekend. But then again...I'm biased. PAD

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 7:02 a.m. CST

    Last Boy Scout and Martin Campbell

    by Samson_K

    I think is self aware enough to make it fun, it has a smart enough script and Tony Scott managed to direct it well enough for me - I prefer it to most of the Lethal Weapon films and it has a Wayans performance that didn't bring about a red mist in me so all in all that's why it's on my shelf. I don't really get the love for Martin Campbell - I have only been truly satisfied with two of his movies, the first Zorro and Casino Royale - everything else I have either detested - that shitty one about the mountain climbing, the Zorro sequel or thought it was an uneven mess - Goldeneye. His work on television with Edge of Darkness however is sublime.

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 7:53 a.m. CST

    Everyone can agree...

    by evildeadgeorge

    What's important here, and what we mustn't lose sight of...Dark Knight Rises trailer. Utter chaos on the streets of Gotham, the touchdown scene. Fan-fucking-tastic. The more footage they release, the more I feel like this Batman incarnation will not live through the film.

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 9:28 a.m. CST

    Totally disagree- saw it last night and loved it

    by profp

    For what it is -- a big action movie version of Sherlock Holmes -- it is terrific fun and very clever. The first one was better, but this one is a-okay.

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 9:41 a.m. CST

    asimovlives re: the Mauser Broomhandle

    by profp

    Conan Doyle has Holmes going over the falls in 1891 and returning in 1894, but the film is set a few years later than that (maybe 1898). The Mauser Broomhandle pistol went on the open market in 1896, hence the model designation C96. However, if one went to the factory like H&W do in the movie, he could have one even earlier. If you look on the Wikipedia page for the Mauser, you can see a pic of a prototype model dated March 1895 on the side. Hope this helps, profp

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 9:43 a.m. CST

    steampunk in SH1

    by profp

    There's a huge Wimshurst machine and a cattle prod/stun gun that blows a guy across a room. Also, the remote control bomb detonator contraption. Quite a bit of steampunk, really.

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 10:04 a.m. CST

    On the off chance anyone cares ...

    by dogrobber

    ... the "Holmes revived through cryogenics" idea was used at least twice in tv pilots, both for the PAD-mentioned "Return of Sherlock Holmes" with Michael Pennington as Holmes, and "1994 Baker Street:The Return of Sherlock Holmes" with Anthony Higgins.

  • er..the homosexual one? :P Hehehe,sorry mr PAD i couldnt resist writing that. But i completely agree with your post,you are 100% right.

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 10:58 a.m. CST

    whenever a beloved character is changed, fans bitch

    by sunwukong86

    If the current Holmes movies were like the BBC show, fans would bitch about Hollywood modernizing Holmes. If the Holmes movies stuck to the traditional way of portraying Holmes and Watson, fans would bitch about that. Fans will bitch about anything. It makes me embarrassed to be a movie geek at times.

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 11:05 a.m. CST

    If you dint like the first one...you won't like this one?

    by wacko3205

    Growing up on Guy Ritchie's flicks as I did/have...you eitther come to appreciate the direction & the man...or you simply hate it & him for that matter. There are bits, phrases, expressions, & even entire scene's that most stateside Yanks can't grapple with...& although I consider myself on the opposite side of that coin most times...this film had loads of head scratchers. That said...I loved it. Hell I've loved pretty much everything that the man's done...even the utterly frustrating Revolver...I won't mention the Mad flick...because anything that skank's in is gonna blow. If you didnt like the first film & style...you wont like this one...but at the end of the day...I just went for the Dark Knight Rises trailer in HD...so to put it that I was mildly pleased & very surprised with the film may come off as a copout. Go see it...its good...& there's always the Dark Knight Rises trailer in HD.

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 11:10 a.m. CST

    OUCH! Wrong review

    by Gordak

    For those of us who like characters and like to think a little at the cinema, Sherlock is made for us. What Robert did with the character is fascinating. He made him such an outsider that doesn't understand relationships, or anything outside the hunt. Watson is intriguing to him. That end moment with the unspoken dialogue had to be my favorite moment of movies this year. And guess what, it didn't involve any CGI. Just two well established characters having a conversation.

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 12:11 p.m. CST

    I saw SH 2 last night and loved it

    by room23storeblogspotcom

    a real fun time and the Batman trailer was awesome!!!! The end chess game was so awesome and Jared Haris was just as awesome as he was on the first season of Fringe (which acording to the newest preview he's coming back to the show.) Really really fun time!

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 1:47 p.m. CST

    I like Downey AND Cumberbatch...

    by Ribbons

    ...just saying. I get why people weaned on the Sherlock Holmes movies of the 60s would find it sacrilege, but I personally welcome all the different interpretations.

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 1:54 p.m. CST

    How about a black Sherlock Holmes? or an asian? or a woman?

    by KilliK

    OOPS.

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 2:05 p.m. CST

    Room23 I agree...

    by notcher

    It was a lot of fun, Harris was a profoundly sinister villain, and the last third of the film was as good a time at the movies as you can have, I loved it! Hope there's a third one. And for the die hard book fans who can't fathom why anybody would like these, well, sorry, I'm not gonna say an entertaining movie sucks because it isn't loyal to a book. I liked "Watchmen" even though it changed the book's ending and that graphic novel is one of the best ever. Don't see the point of being close minded. If you hate it cause you think it sucks, fine, but just because it doesn't follow the book you already hate it? Hmm, doesn't make sense to me.

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 3:15 p.m. CST

    A Black Sherlock Holmes?...Sherlock Homey??

    by Cinemajerk

    I LIKE it!

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 4:16 p.m. CST

    Fry seems like a perfect Mycroft

    by JackieJokeman

    pity he has to play it in such a poorly conceived adaptation.

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 4:59 p.m. CST

    Stephen Fry should appear ...

    by dogrobber

    ... on 'House' as some version of/take on Mycroft. He would be a perfect foil as House' older, smarter "brother".

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 5:46 p.m. CST

    Sherlock Homey...ROFL....

    by KilliK

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 7:05 p.m. CST

    Worst attempt at playing Holmes was by...

    by Baryonyx

    ...Richard Roxburgh.

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 7:07 p.m. CST

    Worst attempt at playing Dracula was by...

    by Baryonyx

    ...Richard Roxburgh.

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 8:24 p.m. CST

    Sorry Capone But I Loved The First Movie!

    by Real Deal

    It may not be everyone's image of Sherlock Holmes but it really is a bit more like the books. While it's not SH verbatim the movie was a masterpeice of snappy dialog, great FX's ( London looked gourgeous ), really good direction, and unforgetable performances by Downey and Law. Now I haven't seen the newest one but I just get the feeling that since you didn't like the first one maybe my experience toward this one would different as well.

  • Dec. 17, 2011, 10:21 p.m. CST

    Irene...

    by Mattman

    Anyone else think she's not dead? They seemed to keep her "death" fairly ambiguous in order to have her pop up in the next one. After all, we've see a lotta false deaths in this series.

  • I honestly think that's what modern day versions are attempting to do...he's this insanely intelligent guy, but dealing with people is like the most foreign thing to him.

  • Dec. 18, 2011, 4:02 a.m. CST

    profp -- the film is set a few years after 1891 - 1894?

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    No, it's not. I just saw it yesterday. It's set in 1891. He clearly and plainly says it's 1891 at the start of the movie. Furthermore, if you've seen the flick by now, you'll know that the events of 1891 figure prominently. Therefore, the gun is wrong.

  • Dec. 18, 2011, 4:03 a.m. CST

    profp -- the film is set a few years after 1891 - 1894?

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    No, it's not. I just saw it yesterday. It's set in 1891. He clearly and plainly says it's 1891 at the start of the movie. Furthermore, if you've seen the flick by now, you'll know that the events of 1891 figure prominently. Therefore, the gun is wrong.

  • Dec. 18, 2011, 4:15 a.m. CST

    Whoever had the little "fans will bitch" 'epiphany' above said ...

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    If the current Holmes movies were like the BBC show, fans would bitch about Hollywood modernizing Holmes? Yet, oddly, they not only DON'T bitch about the BBC flicks at, but the fans actually embrace them. So ... That's the "logic" of the insane.

  • Dec. 18, 2011, 4:19 a.m. CST

    And about Moriarty's plan

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    He's buying up the industries of war and then starting a world war? I liked that plot better when it was called "A League of Extraordinary ..." Oh, wait. No, I didn't like it then either. Moriarty is the "Napoleon of Crime" not the "Napoleon of Stealing Third Rate Adaptations of Great Comics."

  • Dec. 18, 2011, 4:23 a.m. CST

    Liked the First One

    by Todd1700

    So if this one is more of the same I will be well pleased. I do not for a minute fancy myself a Sherlock Holmes expert but for the life of me I recall having the impression when I read some of Doyles Sherlock Holmes stories that Holmes was, in addition to being supremely intelligent, also quite capable with sword or fists. So I did not find this version of Holmes to be the blasphemy some seem to. And I resent the notion that anyone who enjoyed the first of these two films is some mental midget only capable of enjoying some fodder for the masses where there's an explosion at least every 5 minutes. I found the first Sherlock Holmes with Downey and Law to be witty, funny, and filled with sharp dialog. I thought the look of the film was fantastic as well. Downey's version of Holmes is still a master of deductive logic and reasoning so where is this massive detour from the core character that renders the book purists unable to enjoy these films? And for Gods sake is it possible to discuss these movies without some geeky fanboys mentioning how they pale in comparison to the BBC series. In the first place you are making me hate a series that I have never even watched yet with your elitest BS. And secondly how the fuck does one being good have any bearing (positive or negative) on the other? I have enjoyed a few BBC television series over the years, Black Adder, The Young Ones, Red Dwarf to name a few. But most of them are highly overated by internet geeks.

  • Dec. 18, 2011, 5:07 a.m. CST

    Sherlock Holmes and the "Current" Zeitgeist

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Sherlock Holmes became popular in Victorian England and, indeed, throughout the world for a variety of reasons. Chief amongst them, I think, is that the character presented the readers of his day with a glimmer of hope, a touchstone of understanding, in an increasingly complex and seemingly incomprehensible world. The Victorian world was a stunning study of change. In a few short years, the industrial revolution had gripped the nation of Great Britain and thoroughly changed a pastoral country into an urban, industrialized nation. The same was true throughout the world, from Germany and France to the USA. Cities grew exponentially in short periods of time. Populations were displaced from the countryside to the cities. Indeed, vast groups began moving internationally, as well as intra-nationally. Almost overnight, nations and their peoples were confronted with stark new realities, urban sprawl and decay; new machines, stark and terrible; and new methods of scientific exploration and invention that threatened to upend every facet of people's lives, changing the centuries, if not millennial, modes of behavior and completely upending them. People, families, groups quickly moved from small, close knit communities to cities like London and New York, from knowing the neighbor and the family who might have dwelt in that exact same spot next door for hundreds of years to being surrounded by rough crowds of strangers who scarcely seemed to speak the same language. Throughout it all, the ever-running engine of change that caused so much of this change promised the head-spun masses that life was improving and that everything would one day be understood, not only culturally and sociologically, but down to the deepest layers of the very physical universe itself. Science, reason, rationality, these were the watchwords of the day. These were the new faiths, the new philosophies that promised better lives and greater understanding. To a true man (or woman) of the Victorian Age, science and reason promised what religion and faith could not -- understanding and happiness in a world that seemed increasingly out of control. And, while not everyone could hope to understand the scientific idiosyncrasies of new discoveries in the worlds of biology, chemistry, physics, and medicine, the world of fiction, at least, provided a message of hope and promised, dressed up in a convoluted plot ... And wearing a deerstalker and smoking a pipe! Sherlock Holmes was the Apostle of Logic, the High Priest of Reason and Science. Sherlock Holmes promised his readers that the dark and confusing world around them was both understandable and intelligible and that the best way to do that was through observation and application of logic, deduction, and science! But Sherlock Holmes was not merely some cold, removed proselytizer preaching above the heads of his parishioners! His sermons were energetic and engaging, filled with the mundane details of the very worlds that surrounded his audience. His stories were exciting, enthralling, and they held his audience spellbound from his very first prognostication about what Watson had just been thinking to the lighting of the pipe at story's end. Furthermore, these stories combined one additional element to cement each of them as the New Testament of a New Religion of Science and Logic. Every tale was a morality story, resulting in the punishing of evil-doers and the triumph of righteousness, truth, science and logic. Every story promised the reader that thought and reason held the answer, both to understanding the world and to revealing banality and punishing the evil. Every missive from the pen of Dr. John H. Watson to his loving and loyal readers was as full of hope and reassurance to his Victorian readers as any epistle of Paul to his congregation. So, the Sherlock Holmes of Victorian London touched a chord in his audience and tapped into a current zeitgeist of his era. Just like the Sherlock Holmes of Guy Ritchie and Robert Downey, Jr., speaks to a certain audience of the new era. I believe that the Sherlock Holmes of today's cinema is just as much a reflection of the modern audience as the Sherlock Holmes of yesterday was a mirror of those times. I'll not bore you any more, but that's why I can't bring myself to utterly revile these post-modernistic reinterpretations of Sherlock. They are us, they are me, as much as Conan Doyle's Sherlock was then. They show us who were are and to what we aspire just as clearly as ACD's original creation did over 100 years ago. I saw the movie and I was about as entertained and moved as I expected to me. It was very fine for what it was and I'll leave it at that.

  • Dec. 18, 2011, 5:30 a.m. CST

    Dont forget that Holmes was also a JUNKIE.

    by KilliK

    a darker aspect of his character,which is often ignored by his more "faithful" adaptations.

  • SAYING someone is an expert fencer and practitioner of "baritsu" and boxing is not the same as SHOWING that he is so. First, remember, most of the Sherlock Holmes tales are short stories. Four novels. Fifty-six short stories. For the most part, the Sherlock Holmes short stories begin with Sherlock and Watson, in situ, as it were, reading a newspaper or thinking or conversing on some subject while firmly ensconced in their digs at 221B. Not flouncing around, tying strings or killing dogs only to revive them moments later. Not disguised as seemingly semi-retarded cousins of the late Inspector Clouseau. Just sitting, usually reading or thinking. In fact, the scene is usually mundane and humdrum in the extreme and very, very, very pedantic and sedentary. This then is interrupted by Holmes venturing a verbal answer to something which Watson has been thinking or reading. Watson is astounded. Sherlock brushes him off with a quick explanation of his methods. Next, we're into the mystery itself. Usually inspired by either a tale in the newspaper or a visitor to the flat. The visitor presents his (or her) tale of woe. This tale of woe, usually presents some odd facet. It's not JUST that someone has died or is sick or has vanished, but HOW that has occurred. It's not JUST that something has disappeared or something odd has occurred, but the very, very odd manner in which this has happened is what stimulates the audience with a Victoria WTF?!?!? Sherlock asks pertinent (although ofttimes apparently unrelated or odd questions), the visitor responds, and eventually Sherlock will dismiss this character, often explaining that he will call on them later or asking that character to call on Sherlock himself again in the future. You'll notice the predominance of sitting and talking. This is important. Especially since it is quite conspicuously from the GR-RDJ movies. After the introduction into the odd mystery, Sherlock usually turns to Watson and the two discuss the case. Sherlock often asks Watson for his theory and Watson presents his own interpretation of events. Again, they're still sitting and they're still talking. Nothing has, as yet, exploded. No Ninjas have appeared. The biggest leap anyone has yet to make is one of logic. And Holmes is usually reserved and bemused, if a bit condescending and mysterious. He does not behave as if he has Asperger's and was raised amongst retarded wolf pups that were being experimented upon in a madman's lab. He's just a sort of high-browed intellectual snob. Sherlock usually moves us forward in the action (with a bit of a bemused comment towards Watson's theory), taking us from an apartment through the commonplace streets of London to arrive at the scene of the mystery. During this period such exciting and thrilling things will happen as ... Hailing a cab, ... Giving the cab driver instructions upon a destination, ... Arriving at the destination, ... Disembarking from that cab, and .... Entering the destination! Once again, usually, no thuggish mysterious gangs accost either Sherlock or Watson during this period. Rarely, if ever, does anything explode. And almost never does Sherlock do this poorly disguised as Forest Gump's less intelligent Asian cousin while bouncing around from cab room to carriage back. I mean, practically fucking never. Once Sherlock and Watson enter their destination, either the scene of the crime or mystery or some relevant or pertinent related locale, they begin to look the place over. Watson will describe the place and Sherlock's actions. Sherlock will do things like crawl around on the floor or pick up some ashes or lint and comment upon them, often asking Watson's flustered opinion on what would have incongruous things in the Victorian era, but what we now know as "trace evidence." I can count on no hands the number of times that entering that place triggered a mechanism that would cause an explosion, or the doors to lock and the room to fill with water, or Thuggee assassins who'd been hiding in the walls (without food, drink, or, apparently, the need to breathe) to leap forth, blades spinning. No, in fact, although Sherlock himself was usually slightly more animated, once again, this new scene in the mystery was generally pretty mundane -- a coat closet in Bromley, a kitchen in Ilford, a bank lobby in Wembley. Or whatever. Again, most of the "action" in these locales was a slightly more frenetic Holmes with the detective pointing out mundane objects of great interest and importance to the befuddled Watson. Again, Holmes almost never leaped up on a cashier's table, pissed on a plant, and then blew white powder into circulating fans above to coat the room and all its shocked inhabitants (all to be explained later, of course, by RDJ as necessary to distract attention, disarm the toxic gas bomb hidden in the pot, and adhere to fingerprints or what-the-fuck-ever). Victorian England had some fairly conservative modes of behavior amongst the middle and upper classes. Crawling around on one's knees upon entering a room was as surprising and shocking then as it would be now if your friend did it upon entering a restaurant or bar. It's not odd behavior for a criminalist or crime lab tech at a crime scene, but it's just generally odd for the layperson to do today and there pretty much were no criminalists or crime lab techs back then. Therefore, it seemed a bit odd. But it's only odd in that Holmes was behaving, essentially, as a scientific crime scene investigator would today during the Victoria era. It's not that he suddenly entered a room, barked like a dog, dropped his pants and blew projectile diarrhea around the interior then lit a pipe and recited a Shakespearean sonnet. That would be considered fucking bonkers in any time period, but it's not what ACD was getting at. After the interlude at the crime scene, Holmes and Watson might do one more thing, usually extremely mundane like send a telegraph or check a train arrival time. They might visit one more place, but almost always this second spot was to check or verify something extremely trivial, the arrival time of a French freighter or some such. Otherwise, Holmes and Watson might part ways at the crime scene, Watson to return home, Holmes off to do something mysterious. Not long after, the mystery would be wrapped up, usually when the two of them were sitting at home again, enjoying tea or a smoke. A visitor would arrive -- either a return of the first visitor or the duped evil-doer. Holmes would lay it all out and make some pithy comment and the mystery would be over. Don't be misguided by my sarcastic descriptions of over-the-top action above. Those did NOT happen in ACD's stories. The setting, the story, the movement and the action were regularly sedate and overwhelmingly normal, peppered with supposed non sequiturs from Holmes and baffling, mysterious behavior, but never wild-eyed and insane. The reason for this is quite simple. Conan Doyle based Holmes, his methods and his behavior, on Dr. Joseph Bell, a physician and lecturer, as well as Dr. Henry Littlejohn. Both men, while brilliant, were simply professionals, not hopped up idiot savants. What Doyle learned from each of them was acquired through calm, reasoned discourse (if possibly a bit intellectually arrogant) or, at most, animated lecture. And you can see this in the Holmes stories. Almost without fail the explanations, the investigations, the denouement are professorial in quality. Holmes was an intellectual, a genius, if a bit arrogant. He was not a social pariah and borderline lunatic with a penchant for over-emoting. Those two things really, the hyper-spastic action and the complete twisting of character is what sends most Sherlockians into a state of apoplexy. Sherlock Holmes was not a manic exercise in puerile posing, farcical disguise, and an explosion or practically pointless fight, battle, or chase every five to ten minutes. Holmes' disguises in those stories were genius and it was said that Holmes missed a promising career on the stage with his ability to become another character, fooling even his closest confidantes time and again. Holmes was not Kirk Lazarus by way of Inspector Closeau, affecting piss-poor borderline racist disguises that evoke guffaws and catcalls, not belief. Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes was an exercise in intelligence, observation, and deduction to which most could aspire. While ignoring the arrogance and superiority, everyone could hope to hone their skills, study, and practice to one day become as erudite and efficient as Holmes himself. Who in his right mind would want to become the implicitly repressed homosexual lunatic portrayed by RDJ? Again, don't get me wrong. I like those movies just fine for what they were -- explosive eye candy interspersed with manic laughs and tongue-in-cheek innuendo. They are just as much "Sherlock Holmes" as Robin Williams was "Teddy Roosevelt," i.e. a crude caricature that misses that actual essence of the character in favor of the aren't-we-so-clever double entendre and some high-speed camera actions.

  • Dec. 18, 2011, 6:53 a.m. CST

    Don Draper

    by Crobran

    Sure, there are a few examples when Doyle relaxed his writing a bit, and wrestling Moriarty off of a cliff was Doyle's way of quickly killing Holmes off because he was tired of writing about the character. In general, however, this wasn't about mindless action, and often, it wasn't about action at all. It was more about what was going on in Sherlock's mind than what was going on in the streets. I'm merely lamenting the fact that the new Sherlock films - apparently the newer one in particular - seem to work on the premise that in order to be a successful film, things have to move around quickly and explode. I wish we could just have something more like what BBC did in the Sherlock series, which captured the essence of Holmes far better than this.

  • Dec. 18, 2011, 7:05 a.m. CST

    Holmes was also a JUNKIE?

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Didactic" means "academic," "professorial," and "like a teacher." All this is in the Victorian sense of academe. Not in the Hollywood vision of ranting lunatics. And quiet? Well, that speaks for itself and certainly stands quite at odds with both RDJ's interpretation and common notions of "junkie.

  • Dec. 18, 2011, 7:06 a.m. CST

    Crisp One

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Well said and very concise. Perfect and apropos.

  • Dec. 18, 2011, 7:08 a.m. CST

    WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH AICN?!?!?

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    The above "junkie" post was, once again, a huge effort that has been truncated for no apparent reason. And the first one today that I didn't save and copy first. So, of course, it's gone. Grrrr .... Ah, well, it was a big old thing about Holmes' drug use in the books as compared to RDJ in the movies. They're different. Wildly. Whatcha gonna do?

  • and Holmes was a drug user,no?

  • your post,so you dont have to worry if it gets lost.you can restore it immediately.

  • Dec. 18, 2011, 9:03 a.m. CST

    Holmes once said...

    by Hipshot

    That he didn't know whether the moon went around the earth, or the earth around the moon...because he didn't bother to know anything that didn't directly impact his work. The clear corollary to that is that everything he knows impacts his work. That being true, exactly WHY does he have expertise in bartitsu, boxing, sword and stickfighting and apparently strong-man techniques of iron bending? He is known to frequent the docks, and that is a VERY dangerous place in any society. He knows the criminal classes intimately, and the only way that could be true is if he moved among them, where clearly his combative skills (remember, he doesn't bother with useless information) are needed. That is the character. The fact that Watson never witnessed much of this does NOT change the fact that clearly Holmes was totally conversant with violence. To show this is not outside the character of the man himself, merely outside the structure of the stories Watson told. Since there were many, many stories that were hinted at but never told, or that Watson himself did not know, and Victorian inhibitions would have precluded Watson from describing debauchery even if Holmes privately belonged to the Hellfire Club, this is just another interpretation, as legitimate as the Christopher Plummer interpretation where Holmes is presented as physically helpless. Just another point on the compass. Let it go, dudes.

  • Dec. 18, 2011, 10:40 a.m. CST

    Killik, thanks for the Lazarus thing

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    I just took your advice and added it. Didn't even know about it, so thanks! I had a huge response to the junkie thing. Suffice it to say that the common conception of a junkie and how Holmes behaves in the novels even and especially when seemingly under the influence are two completely different things. Furthermore, the omission of drug-use from family fare (and when, truly, Holmes' drug use was in no way the constantly mentioned, examined and dwelt upon thing that it is following the post-modern deconstruction of the character) is hardly the same as the wholesale slaughter of character committed in the movies. Holmes is spoken of as a user of cocaine several times, but only (if I remember correctly) shown using it once at the very beginning of "The Sign of the Four." Watson watches Holmes as he "thrust the sharp point home, pressed down the tiny piston, and sank back into the velvet-lined armchair with a long sigh of satisfaction." Follow the action immediately thereafter. Watson and Holmes engage in a conversation about Holmes' work. Holmes doesn't behave like a madman, leaping and sweating and chattering away. He calmly enters a discourse with Watson about Homes' work and Watson's stories. Holmes even goes so far as to be a little insulting about Watson's tales because he has treated it not as cold deduction, but in a romanticized manner. As Watson broods on the insult, he thinks that "[m]ore than once during the years that [he] had lived with him in Baker Street [he] had observed that a small vanity underlay [his] companion's quiet and didactic manner." I noted above that "didactic" means "academic," "professorial," and "like a teacher." All this is in the Victorian sense of academe. Not in the Hollywood vision of ranting lunatics as "quirky" teachers. And quiet? Well, that speaks for itself and certainly stands quite at odds with both RDJ's interpretation and common notions of "junkie." Again, far more is made today of the idea of Holmes as "junkie" than is ever made of Holmes as "junkie" in the stories themselves. And, even when referencing this in the canon, Holmes is a far, far, far cry from the demented hysteric that he is portrayed by GR and RDJ.

  • Dec. 18, 2011, 10:55 a.m. CST

    Holmes and the moon and the impact of everything

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    I have my own theory about this and it is this -- Holmes liked to fuck with Watson. Holmes had a dry, sarcastic sense of humor and used it often with his oh-too-credulous biographer. Everyone everywhere knows that the earth moves 'round the sun and so did Holmes. Furthermore, most of the things that Watson notes (in "A Study In Scarlet") that Holmes possesses no knowledge of he eventually betrays some familiarity with. And the notion that Holmes was ignorant of subjects really just betrays Watson's poor deduction skills. Saying that you no nothing of something and not wanting to discuss it is not the same as ACTUALLY knowing nothing about it. However, to your point about baritsu, fencing, and the rest, I cede that Holmes actually did possess some familiarity with these and used them upon occasion. One would hope that you'd likewise cede the point that occasional use in some of the stories was a very different thing than every five to ten minutes. Additionally, I'd love for you to point out the explosions in the canon, so to speak. I witnessed no fewer than three in "A Game of Shadows" yet I can recall none in 56 short stories and four novels. Once more, you seem to miss the point here. No one is arguing that Holmes didn't possess those skills and use them, but the VAST PREDOMINANCE of the Holmes stories were exercises in logic and deduction performed in almost sedentary leisure, not hyper-spastic action and random, almost inexplicable attacks every five to ten minutes. I've nothing against great direction, random explosions, and inexplicable attacks by arcane cults, but, if you're going to use the name "Sherlock Holmes," you might bother with attempting to at least a LITTLE more accurately include the man's character.

  • Dec. 18, 2011, 11:01 a.m. CST

    For all the apologists, a question

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Moriarty, the "Napoleon of crime" up against the world's first consulting detective, right? And one of the incidents in the investigation was the explosion at the Paris gathering of diplomats, a thunderous bomb blast that killed everyone in the room. Oh, but wait! Holmes "detects" something! One of the men was killed by rifle, not be explosion! The explosion was meant to cover the assassination! Can someone explain the necessity of bombing EVERYONE in a room where you'd just shot someone? To cover it up? Well, wouldn't the bomb blast THAT KILLED EVERYONE IN THE ROOM have killed the intended victim? And how is a bomb blast someone linked to German anarchists somehow more worthy of "war" than an assassination by same?

  • Dec. 18, 2011, 11:22 a.m. CST

    Sherlock Holmes, the implications of baritsu and human necessity

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Deduction and logic tell me that Sherlock Holmes took shits and probably some pretty nasty ones at that. That doesn't mean that it's "the same Sherlock" to watch him grunting and groaning in a privy then join him in picking through the kernels and deducing what elements were most quickly digested, three times a day. That's the problem of most Sherlockians with these movies and the use of baritsu, fencing, et al. It's not that anyone disbelieves that he knew and used them. Just that it wasn't thrice daily on the way to the loo in order to defeat random, unexplained attackers seeking to prevent the good detective a decent bowel movement.

  • Dec. 18, 2011, 11:27 a.m. CST

    Just picked up a book called "The Annals of Imperial Rome" by Tacitus

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Wow. Was I disappointed! Not at all what I was expecting. Practically no butt secks at all.

  • Dec. 18, 2011, 11:36 a.m. CST

    wacko_jackos_drug_filled_corpse, it's "portuguese", you ignorant ass.

    by AsimovLives

  • Dec. 18, 2011, 11:38 a.m. CST

    Someone who USES drugs is not necessarily a junkie

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Where did you come by that notion, killik? I use Ibuprofen almost every day and thyroid medicine every single day. I'm not a junkie. There are occasional, recreational users of cocaine and acid and pot. They're not junkies. Junkie mean "a person with a compulsive habit or obsessive dependency on something." Occasional recreational use or an actual life-preserving medication does not a junkie make. Holmes was NEVER said to wake up and hit the needle. Nor to do so at any time period save when boredom between cases compelled him. Now, I'd call that a crutch, personally. Holmes was not "addicted" to drugs. He simply used them recklessly and recreationally, not out of necessity, as the notion of "junkie" necessarily implies. And, again, the common notion, post-modern interpretation, and RDJ's performance are all a very, very far cry for the Holmes of the books. I could repost a selection of Holmes' behavior as described in "The Sign of Four" immediately after injecting the "seven-percent solution," but trust me. It is quite at odds with the idea of "junkie."

  • Dec. 18, 2011, 11:54 a.m. CST

    Killik

    by AsimovLives

    at the time when the sher5lock holmes storíes were writen, cocaine didn't had the negative connotation it has today. back then it was seen a near magical drug that was prescribed both for local anestetics and as a revigorator. cocaine used to be an ingredient of coca-cola, ence the name (coca is from cocaine). cocaine was also use to boast work performance. it's well known that enployers of black workforce in the 19th century gave cocaine for their labourers so they could work harder. cocaine began to be sen as a bad drug only by the very late 19th century, early 20th century, and believe it or not, that wss due to Sigmund Freud's work in investigation the drug. inicially, like verybody else, he though it was a miracle drug that could be used for anything, from anestetics to cure cough, flu and tireness. he evne experimented on himself. but later he saw a fellow dear friend and fellow researcher fall into extreme addiction and die from it. Freud himself might have suffered sequels from his own cocaine testing, and many think his love for cigars, which became an addiction (which he himself acknowledged) was a way to coup with and substitude his craving resulted from his experimentation and use of cocaine. i think arthur conan doyle was a bit naive or ignorant of the worst aspects of cocaine,and this is why he made sherlock use it as a mental stimulant in this stories, to counter-ballance the utter boredom that sherlock suffered when not active on a case. i really don't think it was conan doyle's intention to depict Sherlock as a junkie, he just didn't knew how nefarious cocaine is.

  • Dec. 18, 2011, 12:01 p.m. CST

    Asimov, we're agreed again

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Well said on the Holmes-as-junkie thing.

  • Dec. 18, 2011, 12:04 p.m. CST

    Killik -- that Lazarus is great!

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Thanks again, dude! My sanity is saved! Along with my rants. ;-)

  • Dec. 18, 2011, 4:01 p.m. CST

    Bicycle Sharer...

    by Hipshot

    You are 100% accurate that that vast majority of the stories were deduction, logic and thought. It was Watson who said Holmes was "expert" in martial arts, however, not "somewhat familiar." Big, big difference. If you didn't take exception to films in which Holmes was presented as a physical weakling ("Murder by Decree") then him being presented as quite physically formidable for once out of a hundred films shouldn't be too much of a stretch. That said, "Game of Shadows" wasn't a good movie. 2/3 running and jumping rather than thinking. 1/3 very nice climax. I think Richie exaggerated the "unique" qualities of the first film (including endless homsexual subtext) at the expense of the thoughtfulness. That is a real shame, because the idea of a Holmes who is presented as a creature of both thought and action would have been great. I defend the characterization, but not the film.

  • Dec. 18, 2011, 4:06 p.m. CST

    Saw it today

    by Peter David

    Liked it a lot. It was like the previous one, only more so. PAD

  • Dec. 18, 2011, 4:25 p.m. CST

    Pretty trippy movie.. but still

    by Avon

    The Cumberbatch version is better. A Scandal in Belgravia - 1st Jan 2012, The Hounds of Baskerville - 8th Jan 2012, The Reichenbach Fall -15th Jan 2012.

  • Dec. 18, 2011, 4:30 p.m. CST

    bicycle Sharer: regarding Holmes' cocaine use...

    by Hipshot

    For years I had gradually weaned him from that drug mania which had threatened once to check his remarkable career. Now I knew that under ordinary conditions he no longer craved for this artificial stimulus, but I was well aware that the fiend was not dead, but sleeping.

  • "escape" from reality,is considered a junkie or a drug user in my vocabulary.and that what Holmes was doing in some of the stories. Besides Watson has frequently mentioned Holmes' cocaine use and described it as a bad hobby.In one story he expresses his worry that Holmes might have been addicted to the drug and that he is afraid about his mental health. In fact the excellent Seven Percent Solution pastiche written by the Star Trek savior Nicholas Meyer is based on and explores Holmes' drug problem. I am glad that in RDJ's Holmes,Watson is making an indirect reference to his drug use.Does the BBC series mentions that aspect of his character? or the writers have him eating M&Ms as an addictive habit which helps him clear his mind and escape from boredom? heh

  • Dec. 18, 2011, 4:41 p.m. CST

    Too much Downey is bad for any movie.

    by kabong

    Or too much Cruise.

  • These SH films might be a bit dumbed down and Hollywoodized.......but at least they've got them set in Victorian England unlike that awful Spielberg travesty of H.G. Wells masterpiece The War of the Worlds.

  • Dec. 18, 2011, 4:54 p.m. CST

    lordoflight

    by Hipshot

    But "WoTW" was also contemporized in the 1953 George Pal classic, and the 1938 Orson Wells radio broadcast--arguably the most honored and famous radio play ever created.. If the 2005 was poor, it wasn't because of the year in which it was set.

  • Dec. 18, 2011, 4:56 p.m. CST

    Holmes for Dummies

    by severianx1

    Sherlock Holmes is not an action hero, Holmes and Watson are not buddycops, and Holmes stories are not action-comedies. The director is simply using the Holmes character to sell just another lamess actioncomedybuddycop movie series that no one would give a shit about if it didn't feature one of the most famous literary characters of all time. The whole thing could just as easily star Will Smith and Kevin Kline and be the Wild Wild West in Victorian England. I haven't actually seen this one yet, but all I can remember about the last one is drooling over Kelly Reilly, and I'm pretty sure that's because there's really nothing else worth remembering. Oh wait, I do remember one more thing. Looking at the two stars together, I couldn't help but thinking, and still can't, that Jude Law should be the one playing Sherlock Holmes, and Robert Downey Jr. should be, uh, somewhere else...

  • Dec. 18, 2011, 5:16 p.m. CST

    bicycle sharer-- if he said it, I missed it ....

    by profp

    Which events of 1891 do you mean? B/c the early draft of the screenplay had it set in 1898.

  • the Holmes character and his stories while the reality about them is quite different: His detective stories are very overrated.They are simplistic to the point of being childish with no real mystery in them.A modern reader can easily guess how the crime was done and who was the villain,even by the start of the story.I know that because i have done it numerous times while reading his stories for the first time. The crimes are not complicated and the so-called mystery is non-existent.The twists are rare and the motives of the villains are quite obvious. Although i like Holmes a lot,his deduction skills are overrated.Everyone,and i mean everyone,can deduct the correct conclusions about the crime and its perpetrator,provided that he has all the information presented to him like Holmes does. The only thing that distinguishes Holmes from your average CSI model who pretends to be a crime investigator,is his extraordinary observation skills and his vast array of knowledge which expands beyond the typical academic criminology. That's why i always preferred Agatha Cristie's stories more than Doyle's.you do get a sense of mystery and the unknown in her crime stories and the who-did-it surprises make a frequent appearance.

  • Dec. 18, 2011, 5:53 p.m. CST

    A Victorian England WOTW should be made hipshot.

    by LORDOFLIGHT

    I see your point to a certain extent but there's been countless alien invasion flicks set in America so setting the story as Wells wrote it in Victorian England would at least be different. The 1953 film was good for it's time........but now it just comes across like a B movie and the Orson Welles broadcast wasn't exactly brilliant either. It's only really remembered as it's supposed to have created a bit of panic. And if a movie followed Wells story VERY, VERY closely it would probably be a superb film.......done with a decent budget and actors of course..........unlike that shit cheap version which came out at the same time as Spielberg Tom Cruise vehicle crap. H.G. Wells original story is a masterpiece compared to any of the tv, radio and movie adaptations which followed.

  • Dec. 18, 2011, 6:10 p.m. CST

    lordoflight

    by Hipshot

    I believe a cheap DTV was made---and I agree with you 100%. It could be just wonderful. I'd be there on opening day, and if it was done right, I'd bet millions of others would as well.

  • Dec. 18, 2011, 6:11 p.m. CST

    Movie Was Good, Bullshit Review

    by Henry

  • Dec. 18, 2011, 6:17 p.m. CST

    Yeah that cheap WOTW was shite hipshot.

    by LORDOFLIGHT

    Not even worth watching. Some idiots use that as an example as to why a Victorian England WOTW shouldn't be made......but that's complete balderdash. All it proves is it shouldn't be made like that.

  • Dec. 18, 2011, 7:25 p.m. CST

    WOTW should be set in a Steampunk Victorian era.

    by KilliK

    It should be like a WW2 movie depicting the two sides with different technologies but equally powerful and destructive. The alien invasion force should have a 50s retro like futuristic technology: death rays,shrinking rays,ufos flying using anti-gravity technology,mutogen chemicals which turn the earth insects,like ants, into gigantic insectoid monsters,bombs which release plant seeds which grow into big,walking,flesh-eating plants and ofc the tripods with their mechanical tentacles,etc The human defense force should have a mixture of Victorian Steampunk/Industrial Technology: gigantic pneumatic robots,lightning emitting tesla coils,steam-powered power suits,zeppelins which carry large MOAB bombs,pneumatic computers which calculate efficient strategies and tactics,steam-propelled jetpacks,etc I would like to see these two forces colliding while using these technologies.

  • Dec. 18, 2011, 7:27 p.m. CST

    lordoflight...

    by Hipshot

    Who would be your ideal director for a Victorian-era WoW? A Brit? The Wachowski brothers? Just curious. I do think it's a great idea.

  • Dec. 18, 2011, 9:32 p.m. CST

    KIllik--

    by Hipshot

    I don't know about a movie, but that would make a hell of a graphic novel.

  • Dec. 18, 2011, 11:15 p.m. CST

    Never trust a critic, see it for yourself...

    by Mojo-Wan

    Call me crazy, but I'd rather know a movie wasn't for me before wasting my freaking money. Critics provide a valuable service if you know how to use them. Here's a hint... you don't just look at a random critic and scroll down to whether he liked it or not.

  • Dec. 19, 2011, 12:03 a.m. CST

    If you would like to see more of Fry...

    by BBSloth

    He was in a show called Blackadder. But I expect you already knew that.

  • Dec. 19, 2011, 12:43 a.m. CST

    Are our expectations SO high

    by Jarrete Barnett

    that a 40 million dollar opening weekend (and number one spot no less) is considered a "disappointment"?? Did people really expect to see Transformers numbers in the middle of December? Luke-warm reviews and "disappointment" slander aside, I'm still planning on seeing this movie asap.

  • Dec. 19, 2011, 1:06 a.m. CST

    The sequel to a highly popular movie often does more box office opening weekend

    by WINONA_RYDERS_PUSSY_JUICE

    and yet this was a pretty big drop off. I'm kind of shocked, 50 million should have been in reach. Although the trailers have been weak so there's that.

  • You know. The whole fact that his final showdown with Moriarty in the books was a fistfight on a waterfall. On that note, the movie does the opposite and has them IMAGINE a fistfight on the waterfall.

  • Dec. 19, 2011, 1:54 a.m. CST

    WOTW

    by cushing1967

    Much as I would absolutely love to see a period War of the Worlds I don't necessarily mind it being set in modern day in versions - particularly because it was never written as a period piece in fact it was written as a commentary / satire on events of the time. Specifically the British colonization of Tasmania and the horrors that we proud Brits reigned down upon an indigenous people that had no way with which to defend itself. So, modern versions don't bother me in principle - in practice it's a bit different though.

  • Dec. 19, 2011, 2:31 a.m. CST

    The first one...

    by cheekerpot

    Was one of the rare few films I couldn't sit through. Didn't see the whole thing because I felt it was that bad. I'm not even considering bothering with this one which saddens me because I like most of the individual actors. That said I usually can't stand Ritchie's way of film making any way. It's filled with stereotypes and devoid of any desire to bring emotion to his films.

  • Dec. 19, 2011, 7:08 a.m. CST

    baked--

    by Hipshot

    I have no idea what you're talking about. The final battle was not seen by Watson. It was never described as a "fistfight." When Holmes reappeared years later, it was he who told Watson that he had applied his expertise in Bartistu, a British varient of Jiu-Jitsu, to defeat Moriary. Jiu-Jitsu is a combination art, largely grappling, with some striking elements. Your point?

  • Dec. 19, 2011, 8:35 a.m. CST

    The amount of Ignorance on this talk back

    by Gordak

    Is staggering. If you didn't see it, step away from the keyboard. Seriously you guys just sound like idiots with time to burn.

  • Dec. 19, 2011, 8:47 a.m. CST

    Hipshot, Killik, et al.

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Haha! You never said you hated the fan film from 1991! Therefore, you cannot discuss this one!

  • Haha! You never said you hated the fan film from 1991! Therefore, you cannot discuss this one!

  • Haha! You never said you hated the fan film from 1991! Therefore, you cannot discuss this one!

  • Dec. 19, 2011, 8:51 a.m. CST

    All right, Killik. Any suggestions.

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Three posts above. All three cut of the body of my post, but I used Lazarus every time. What the fuck is wrong with this site? I mean, that shit is frustrating is hell. And I pray that it's not a triple post of the whole thing and I'm just getting a piece of it. Here, let me refresh.

  • Dec. 19, 2011, 8:53 a.m. CST

    All right. Fuck it. I lived without AICN for a year.

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    I can live without it forever. Why should I waste my time visiting and posting on this site when posts are selectively fucked up the ass based on no discernible criteria? Slashfilm is quite fun as well The Playlist. Unless, perhaps, someone can explain why post after post after post is randomly just half not there.

  • Dec. 19, 2011, 8:54 a.m. CST

    bicycle sharer...

    by Hipshot

    What fan film? Please, inform me.

  • Dec. 19, 2011, 9:02 a.m. CST

    Hipshot

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    Haha! You never said you hated the fan film from 1991! Therefore, you cannot discuss this one!

  • Dec. 19, 2011, 9:03 a.m. CST

    Hipshot

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    That's a slice of what I wrote. The whole thing is much longer and makes the point, but I can't get it to post and I'm not retyping it. Just tried to fill it in again and it didn't work. AICN sucks dick. That was a facetious example that you get part of. The whole thing is much longer and, apparently, verboten on AICN.

  • Dec. 19, 2011, 9:20 a.m. CST

    Hipshot

    by The Bicycle Sharer

    I was just saying that the point is that this is not a game of "gotcha" or "you're inconsistent." I offered opinions, backed with evidence, based on the stories. This isn't a contest of "well-you-can't-like-X" or "Haha! You said that you were okay with blah blah blah." I like the new movies just fine as Victorian action adventures. I don't think that they are very good in their portrayal of Holmes or in their even being remotely similar to ACD's tales. I've given my reasons above with evidence. If you have a different opinion, good for you. I'll even be willing to listen to your views and evidence. That having been said, I completely agree with you on the movie and every point that you made above. You're 100 percent right. And I'm just stunned at the people who have the vaguest of familiarity with Holmes ("Haha! He used baritsu against Moriarty!" -- Uh. Told. Not shown. Read a fucking book.) who continue to want to fucking argue this. It's just this simple to me. If you like these movies, good for you. I like them, too. But it's not even fucking debatable (Well, it *IS* if you're ignorant.) whether these are very accurate or close to ACD. They're not. I say so and every fucking Sherlockian in the fucking world says so. Doesn't mean that others are shitty people for liking them. Doesn't mean that the things DONE in the movies aren't INSPIRED by the stories; they clearly are. But I'm not a lone voice crying in the wilderness. Hipshot is not a lone voice. Most Sherlockians understand that these are IN NO WAY like the books. INSPIRED? Yes. LIKE? No. Now, everyone can agree or disagree on whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. I happen to indirectly agree with the person who said that if they were very accurat that they'd being boring. Or, more accurately, I agree that most of the audience would find them boring. I wouldn't. Because I love the stories. But most people haven't read them all multiple times. Most people don't reread them every year. Most people don't seek out pastiches. I understand all that. I agree that a too accurate version of these would be too expensive and would get too few asses in seats. The best compromise, to me, is the new BBC series. Close enough to the tales, the character, and the spirit of the stories without becoming too boring for a post-Victorian audience. Others disagree. But, I think, the notion that these are ACCURATE to the original is ludicrous and I've given my reasons why. I don't disagree with anyone who says that Holmes knew baritsu or fencing or boxing, but I do disagree with the manner in which they're presented and with Holmes' overall character. As my wife noted last night, RDJ presents Holmes about as accurately as Johnny Depp presents pirates. The elements are there. It's just what's stressed and the way that they're presented. More accurately, these movies should be called "Sherlock Sparrow" or "Captain Jack Holmes" and ought to feature a cheeky monkey. Doesn't mean that I don't like 'em or that others are fucking less-than-human for enjoying them. They're fun. But they're not Sherlock Holmes.

  • Dec. 19, 2011, 9:28 a.m. CST

    bicycle sharer...

    by Hipshot

    Thank you for the clarification.

  • Dec. 19, 2011, 1:27 p.m. CST

    The game's afoot, and I enjoyed it immensely.

    by impossibledreamers

    Considering that the film runs 128 minutes, I thought it breezed along pretty well. I very much enjoyed all of the characters and admired the consistency with which their personalities and relationships remained intact. Stephen Fry was wonderous as Mycroft. Brilliant, peculiar and sharply witty. Mirroring his own social and mental quirks to Sherlock's was well done though the only difficulty might be believing that the two men would share any physical DNA. But, you don't really focus on that as opposed to the banter. Personally, I was grateful for the quick departure of McAdams character - who was one of the few things in the first I didn't like. Rapace's gypsy was a good addition, in the form of a strong woman who was not there as a simple romantic element. Granted, she was part of the plot, but she had her own reasons for coming along for the ride. And provided some good moments. Sadly, I was hoping for more scenes with Mrs. Watson - but they still made good use of her. Harris was inspired as Moriarity I thought. Previous versions made him glowering and often only existing in shadowy places. This professor lived the full double life of a scholar and very well connected politico - which moreover gave him more access and he hid in plain sight. There was no reason to split hairs over the Falls fight considering that the entire story was contrived for the film, so any elements taken from the original stories was welcome. I do love the little bits and pieces of emerging tech they put into the film, BUT I do think it was more forced this time 'round. Sherlock's motorized carriage might have been in existance in 1891, but I could never imagine him owning or using one. And the moment were Colonel Marand shows him the Mauser semi-auto didn't make any sense at all. Why show it to him? If it was a plot device, Sherlock is smart enough to deduce their usage. And of course the big plot device object but I won't go into it. Other than running the poison the dog routine one or two more times than needed, as well Holmes experiments with cameoflage - I had a great time at the movie and that's what I paid for.

  • Dec. 19, 2011, 10:22 p.m. CST

    Holmes is NOT the 1890s Batman, no matter what you dinks think...

    by BrashHulk

    ... and no matter how much Guy Ritchie wants to make him exactly that. Holmes was more like the 1890s version of Kojak.

  • Dec. 20, 2011, 12:33 a.m. CST

    The fundamental problem inherent in all Holmes endeavors

    by wcolbert

    Is simply that nobody involved in the film - be they the writer, director, or whatnot, is going to be anywhere near as clever or talented in the area of deductive and inductive reasoning as the character Holmes is meant to be. He's Batman without the billions, gadgets, and world-class ninja training. A purely thinking machine (or was until they tried to go Fight Club with him). It would take an extraordinarily clever director and a magnificent actor to really get across who this man is.