my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » Sherlock Holmes (2009)

Author Topic: Sherlock Holmes (2009) Martin McCaffery Film God Posts: 2481 From: Montgomery, AL Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-01-2010 10:54 PM                        I think Guy Ritchie has only one movie in him and he keeps remaking it. This Sherlock Holmes is a collection of fight scenes broken up by the random plot point. Could easily have been cut by 30-45mins. Downey and Law are entertaining as Holmes and Watson, though they have clearly been re-imagined as House and Wilson (who, of course, are a re-imagining of Holmes and Watson). And in case you don't get it, there is a shot in the movie where Holmes is sitting against a wall with the word House written above him. Add in some James Bond and Batman and you have the new and improved Holmes. Nice try, maybe someone else will do the sequel. [ 01-24-2010, 04:49 PM: Message edited by: Mike Olpin ]  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Althaus Master Film Handler Posts: 435 From: Bedford, TX Registered: Dec 2008 posted 01-01-2010 11:05 PM                     Theatre: Rave NorthEast Mall, Ft. Worth, Tx Auditorium: 8 Christie Digital Projection, not knowledgeable enough to know what exactly they use there. Movie was decent enough, but I couldn't stand the lack of sound. Couldn't distinguish any left/right, or surround and the center was too underpowering. I wanted to see an amazing pure digital projection (like they advertise) and was highly unimpressed. Movie: 4/5 Experience: 1/5  |  IP: Logged Stu Jamieson Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 524 From: Buccan, Qld, Australia Registered: Jan 2008 posted 01-02-2010 07:14 PM                     And this is Sherlock Holmes through the Guy Ritchie prism. An action buddy caper flick to bring Arthur Conan Doyle's celebrated hobbyist detective into the sphere of Lock Stock And Two Smoking Barrels. Being largely ignorant of Doyle's stories myself, a cursory glance at the appropriate Wiki page suggests Ritchie's interpretation may not be far from the mark but it does feel off kilter to 20th century generations raised on Basil Rathbone pop culture. It does, however, confirm (yet again) that Ritchie is capable of making only one kind of movie. Whether this is a burden or a boon depends on one's regards for Ritchie's prior body of work. Sherlock Holmes vis-à-vis Ritchie favours action movie over suspense mystery and the film is generally poorer for it. Part of the appeal of a whodunit is allowing the audience a stab at solving the mystery and the inherent intrigue this affords. Here Ritchie shows us the outcome and then points out the cleverness of Holmes' deductions in flashback. This results in a decidedly vanilla film whose flat pacing continues right up to it's predictable conclusion whereby Holmes dispels all paranormal possibilities with an inevitable proclamation of rational thought. This is not so much a climactic revelation as a wholly expected outcome. There are positives, however, in the excellent witty banter between Holmes and Watson which is a joy to behold and the delivery by Robert Downey, Jr. and Jude Law, respectively, is just great. This is far and away the highlight of the film, saving it from mediocrity and singly justifying the price of admission. Sadly, the thoroughly affable Rachel McAdams is largely inconsequential; a small edit would have removed her from the script entirely. Following on from the trend of the latest James Bond flicks, Ritchie fails to end the film definitively, instead suggesting a sequel which, given the elementary treatment here, seems more than a little superfluous. 7 out of 10.  |  IP: Logged David Stambaugh Film God Posts: 4021 From: Eugene, Oregon Registered: Jan 2002 posted 01-03-2010 07:28 PM                        Today at Regal 15 in Eugene, #9, 35mm. No presentation problems but man what an ugly-looking low-res print (intentionally or not). The extended fights and chase scenes bored me. Holmes doing stuff without any explanation until those later flashbacks was lame (stealing things from the crime scene for example). Were those supposed to be useful clues to the audience? I don't think so. Martin's comparison of Homes and Watson to House and Wilson is dead-on. I could not get that out of my head as scenes played out. I can't recommend an action-mystery movie that made me want to doze off in parts and only mildly entertained me at the reveal and whose characters seem modeled after a Fox TV show (even if the Fox characters are themselves based on Holmes and Watson).  |  IP: Logged Mark Lensenmayer Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1605 From: Upper Arlington, OH Registered: Sep 1999 posted 01-04-2010 05:29 PM                     Was this a detective film or a Batman movie? Hard to tell at times. Looked like Sherlock Holmes went to the same monastary as Bruce Wayne. I thought of Butch and Sundance at times. I half expected to see Sherlock get on a bike and hear RAINDROPS KEEP FALLING ON MY HEAD. This was one of the worst looking movies I've seen in awhile. The whole film was rather dull looking. The last sequence on the bridge looked more like 90's special effects than todays. Did they run out of money there? Robert Downey is the best thing here. It would be horrible without him. The rest of the characters are totally forgettable. In the classic words of the British cops: "Nothing to see here...move along...move along." Rating: C- (Not awful, but surely not very good.)  |  IP: Logged Eric Hooper Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 532 From: Fort Worth, TX, USA Registered: May 2003 posted 01-06-2010 01:19 PM                     I liked it.  |  IP: Logged Jeremy Jorgenson Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1002 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: Feb 2005 posted 01-06-2010 05:51 PM                        A year of release in the subject line would be nice ... after all, Sherlock Holmes has been done plenty of times! With regard to the 2009 Guy Ritchie directed one: quote: Eric Hooper I liked it Me too.  |  IP: Logged Sam Graham AKA: "The Evil Sam Graham". Wackiness ensues. Posts: 1431 From: Waukee, IA Registered: Dec 2004 posted 01-09-2010 03:33 PM                        CINEMA: 13th Avenue Warren, Wichita, KS AUDITORIUM: 16 PRESENTATION: Dolby Digital Cinema DLP/THX PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: The Voice of the Theatre was regulated to the left channel RATING: Two and one half stars (out of four) I wasn't the biggest fan of the first Iron Man movie, but I'll admit...the Iron Man 2 trailer looks pretty good. THE PLOT: A dead guy isn't. Wackiness ensues. Well it looks good and it's witty and campy and not that hard to follow. Yet it's nothing special either. It was kind of like watching a Guy Ritchie directed Jerry Bruckheimer production.  |  IP: Logged Pravin Ratnam Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 844 From: Atlanta, GA,USA Registered: Sep 2002 posted 01-24-2010 06:25 AM                     I saw a digital presentation of this at AMC Mansell Crossing in Atlanta. I am guessing it is a 4K projection. The screen and auditorium was medium sized stadium seating. The person who answered the phone had no idea what the digital projection specs were. I did not bother to ask someone else. I peeked in two other auditoriums playing the movie on film. The digital projection was sharper. I am guessing that in this day of chains ignoring film projection quality, I might actually prefer digital for small to medium screens. While brightness and focus could obviously suffer due to management neglect even with digital, I think the number of variables that could go wrong are less. And while I am no expert on this, from what I am reading on these forums, aren't rushed printing of film prints in these days where movies are frontloaded in multiplexes leading to inferior quality? Hopefully studios will start spending extra for the 4K digital intermediates which is not a big fraction of total costs spent on most movies. As far as the movie, I liked the beginning and the final thirds. THe middle third had me dozing off at times. All the magic stuff had me fearing this would be Harry Potterish but thankfully the resolutions are done in classic Holmesian fashion even if the screenplay doesn't match the books(I read the whole collection many years ago in middle school). Robert Downey Jr was predictably good and I got used to the idea of seeing Jude Law as Watson. The movie could be better but hopefully this will signal the beginning of the path for Guy Ritchie to find his cinematic mojo. Hopefully his divorce from madonna will help him regain that though I noticed he did cast his new girlfriend as Watson's fiancee in this movie( she was the English chick in that Spain based french movie about European students studying together).  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.