Do you have to be a Sherlock Holmes fan? I have been told by many people that it was awesome. I watched it twice and was pretty bored. I don't get the love for it.
shareNeither to I. The second film is even more boring.
shareI remain uninvolved...the first time I just thought it ridiculous, over-the-top and uninvolving, although I had really WANTED to like it...
So I gave it another shot, thinking, there are days when you just aren't in the mood or something, there are films that have grown on me.
But it was worse the second time round. I fell asleep, probably to avoid being bored out of my mind... The storyline about Watson and his fiance is annoying, and the rest just completely uninteresting.
Shame. I like Bob Downey, I like Jude Law, I like Rachel McAdams, I like Mark Strong. I like Eddie Marsan. Just not in this.
"I remain uninvolved...the first time I just thought it ridiculous, over-the-top and uninvolving, although I had really WANTED to like it...
So I gave it another shot, thinking, there are days when you just aren't in the mood or something, there are films that have grown on me."
Ha. that is exactly how i felt, and how i logic-ed my second viewing that i jsut did.
It was better for me the 2nd time, though. I rated it a 6. There are def aspects i enjoy, mainly the way Holmes' and Watson's relationship is characterized. But, again I found myself not really able to connect. On this viewing, I think I figured out what the problem is for me. To me, the actual case is not very interesting, The "magic" and political takeover and all.
Also, the story did not feel like a mystery at all. It lacked that trademark feeling of going along and trying to piece together the clues as you watch. that's me, anyway.
"Also, the story did not feel like a mystery at all. It lacked that trademark feeling of going along and trying to piece together the clues as you watch."
If thats what you look for in a Sherlock Holmes story you will likely be disappointed. The stories have a pretty standard formula where Holmes is hired by a client, we follow Holmes through the assignment (usually a mystery but not always) and at the end Holmes reveals how he solved it. The fun of the stories comes from the character and the way he is able to solve things through seemingly insignificant details (Holmesian deduction). Its virtually impossible to follow along since Holmes frequently withholds evidence from Watson/the reader.
Its virtually impossible to follow along since Holmes frequently withholds evidence from Watson/the reader.
True. Moreover, in a few stories, including the one on which this film is largely based ("The Final Problem"), there's no "mystery" to speak of anyway. This film has actually added mystery to the story.
----
Lazy + smart = efficient.
You're kidding! Have you read more than one Sherlock story?
It's not always an assignment. "The scandal in Bohemia" is an assignment. "The lone cyclist" is an assignment. But "The letter in Scarlet" wasn't an assignment, it was a case the police brought to him, as very often so. Sherlock, in the book, NEVER took credits for the case if it was something the police brought to his attention. He would withdraw his name from the public, letting the newspapers praise the police for getting the guy. Most of his assignments came from recommendation, like "Mrs. X my friend told me about that time you helped her with her incident, so I thought that maybe you could help me with mine." It's absolutely shocking to me to know that somebody thinks that every Sherlock story is the same standard formula. That's like saying every Agatha story has a detective solving the case.
The evidences, even the insignificant details, are usually all there, described in the storyline. But since Watson couldn't see it, he never dwelled into it for the readers.
These movies were bad because they portrayed Holmes like Robert Downer Jr., not the other way around. Holmes in the book was never that arrogant; he was arrogant, but not that much. He was willing to admit defeats twice (once to Irene Adler, the other time to the yellow faced person); he admitted that he was inferior, in terms of intelligence to his brother Mycroft. He is not that egoistical, as stated above, he didn't always take credits for his cases, letting the police be praised many times, even though it was all his work. He wasn't that much of a miserable member of the society, as many seemed to believe. He mocked his friend, yes; he mocked the police, yes; but he always gave his reasons as to why he mocked them. He was always a gentleman to women, and he was kind to children.
In any case these movies are not good Sherlock movies, and Robert Downey Jr. was a terrible choice as Sherlock Holmes.
Whatz up with those cheap CSI Flash forwards/backwards?
It seemed like a made for TV-movie.
He's less a detective than a early day Rocky
No, I don't think it has anything to do with being a Sherlock Holmes fan. I'm a huge Sherlock Holmes fan and I don't care for either of these movies. The only reason I can sit through them is the playful chemistry between RDJ and Jude Law.
-----------
I am Jack's broken heart
By everybody you mean the fangirls who are into the semi-homoerotic dynamic and pretty boys masquerade? Because the critics were rather unanimous in their reviews of tepid mediocrity.
For every lie I unlearn I learn something new - Ani Difranco
[deleted]
I tend to agree with the original poster. But a lot of people like it. I enjoyed the chemistry between Holmes and watson. It had some intrigue. Some action is fine for me. However...To me it was a too weird Holmes. The violence was too over the top. It went on a little too long. For me, it was fair at best. Not bad, just not that good. To each their own .
shareHolmes was "weirder" in Game of Shadows than he was in the first Sherlock Holmes and I think he'll be more so in the third one. My first impulse was to say they can't make the character too weird for my taste, but yeah, I can see it going too far. All they need is a good mystery and another good villain - I'm afraid Moriarty is the best, though. I'm sure all the creative minds in this process can come up with someone or something - maybe - the Hound of the Baskervilles???? That's one of my favorite old-time Sherlock Holmes movies and I think modern FX could really do it well.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In me the tiger smells the rose - Siegfried Sassoon
Neither do I. I love the guy that plays Sherlock on Elementary. Apparently, the show Sherlock is really good too. Lucy Liu was a cool twist on Watson. Although, I'm sure there is a group of people who would disagree.
shareBecause it is a new take on the classic stories. And because it stars RDJ and Jude Law and the chemistry between them is tense, to say the least;)
Because it is a gorgeous film to look at, with great costumes and art direction.
I like it, but I don't think it's that good. I gave it 7/10.
I agree with you about a lot of the visuals being good, mainly the costumes.
share