24 response about Sherlock Holmes Trailer »

1. 

   that slow down “action” BS drives me nuts. Why do they need to do slow motion for impact then speed up the film? Is there NO movie that avoids this?

   Comment by scary film reviewer — May 19, 2009
2. 

   When Holmes jumps out the window in the beginning, I thought he zipped out of there with a smoke cloud (ala Road Runner or Kung Fu Hustle). Watching it again I realized it’s just a bullet ricoche. Whew!

   Comment by Andrew James — May 19, 2009
3. 

   This’ll be another fun movie to check out at the theatre. Lots of action crammed into this sucker. I’m going to go out on a limb and say Jude Law will have a solid performance alongside of RDJ.

   Comment by Andy — May 19, 2009
4. 

   SHOUT it with me now, “THIS IS LONDON!” – looks like 300 meets Moulin Rouge with a dash of Indiana Jones thrown in. I can’t believe that they somehow turned Sherlock Holmes into “BIG STUPID FUN” but they did.

   I hope the new Confucius biopic has some Wire-fu in it.

   And that they make a movie about Rene Descartes that involves demolitions or something…

   I do dig the ‘metal type’ titles though. I guess that is as close as we are going to get to a typewriter or printing press in the film, unless someone is throwing it at someone else…

   Comment by Kurt Halfyard — May 19, 2009
5. 

   It’s like “Bad Boys” in 19th century London. I’m game.

   SHOUT it with me now, “THIS IS LONDON!” – looks like 300 meets Moulin Rouge with a dash of Indiana Jones thrown in. I can’t believe that they somehow turned Sherlock Holmes into “BIG STUPID FUN” but they did.

   You really expected different from Guy Ritchie?

   Let me just say this: It’s nice to see Jude Law back. Where the hell did that man disappear off to?

   Comment by Marina Antunes — May 19, 2009
6. 

   Good point on the Ritchie thing Marina, but I didn’t quite expect to see PLUNKETT & MACLEANE 2. I hope there is a rocking Techno-soundtrack to this new Sherlock Holmes and maybe they can end with RDJ rapping or something. And let me tell you, that Rachel McAdams is no Liv Tyler!! ha. I hope to eat my words, but man this looks dreadful despite the two talented actors in the center of it all.

   Yea, I also dig Jude Law (and liked law in a lot of pictures in the past few years, namely CLOSER, MY BLUEBERRY NIGHTS, I HEART HUCKABEES)

   Comment by Kurt Halfyard — May 19, 2009
7. 

   I’m so with you Kurt…

   When the heck did Sherlock Holmes become a fighter type dude? Seriously? He looks like Johnny Depp from Sleepy Hollow lands into a Bond film and add the costumes from Wild Wild West.

   I thought this would be interesting, but just looks like another action film.

   Comment by Shannon the Movie Moxie — May 19, 2009
8. 

   Knowing there were two Holmes films in production, I was under the impression that this was the serious one.
   Richie brings his usual empty flare and comedic tone to what should have been cracking yarn with at least a modicum of character depth and atmosphere.

   It’s nice to see Mark Strong and Eddie Marsan get the work though. But if that’s all there is then I think ‘Without a Clue’ would hit the mark just as well.

   Comment by lee — May 20, 2009
9. 

   “I hope there is a rocking Techno-soundtrack to this new Sherlock Holmes and maybe they can end with RDJ rapping or something.”

   So much exaggeration here. They turned Holmes into an action hero, but even with your tongue in cheek its not exactly an on-the-mark comment. This isnt the Simpsons animated version of Zorro here. They’re sexing up Holmes the same way Disney sexed up a crappy ride for children.

   Comment by Goon — May 20, 2009
10. 

    Unless somehow everyone was expecting a serious Holmes film?

    From Guy Ritchie?

    I quietly laugh.

    Comment by Goon — May 20, 2009
11. 

    Well, Goon, it’s like seing somebody die of cancer. First you hear that they have cancer, but live still goes on and they are able to function and you get along, sometimes not even thinking about the fact that the cancer exists. Then the symptoms start. This trailer is like the first major symptom of the death sentence that was put on Sherlock Holmes. So laugh all you want, it still hurts.

    Comment by Henrik — May 20, 2009
12. 

    I’m tired of this “Sexing Up” process. probably what left such a sour taste after Star Trek…

    And Henrik, AGREED. OH SO AGREED…

    Comment by kurt — May 20, 2009
13. 

    I’m disappointed that Depak Chopra’s not playing Watson. Therefore I feel that this doesn’t live up to the bar of guy ritchian genius set by his previous work.

    Comment by Rusty James — May 20, 2009
14. 

    Kurt, the problem with you is that you don’t understand your own emotions.

    Comment by Henrik — May 20, 2009
15. 

    Kurt, don’t suck up to H. It is unbecoming.

    Comment by Matt Gamble — May 20, 2009
16. 

    Thanks for the pop psychology, H. But I never claimed to be consistent or easily classify-able.

    Comment by Kurt — May 20, 2009
17. 

    This movie is going to win best picture! I can tell already!

    Comment by Andy — May 21, 2009
18. 

    I think Ritchie’s next flick is a remake of Gandhi, with Ben Kingsly’s role being given to Vin Deisel who kicks some British pith helmeted ass in between trysts with a very young Mother Theresa.

    Yeah, I think this borders on sherlock sacrilege.

    Comment by rodge — May 21, 2009
19. 

    @rodge Didn’t Weird Al do that already in UHF?

    Comment by Kurt Halfyard — May 21, 2009
20. 

    I never saw uhf but just watched “Gandhi II” on youtube. So yeah, Ritchie’s cinematic license has placed in the same class as Weird Al. (sorry Al)

    Comment by rodge — May 21, 2009
21. 

    It’s Robert Downey Jr. With a British accent. That’s all that matters.

    It looks silly. It will probably have the entertainment value of Pirates of the Caribbean. I’m fine with that. I’m sure, like with Iron Man, the performance will be fun enough to carry the movie.

    As for the fighting, of course they’re going to play it up here, but Sherlock Holmes, in the books, had been a prize-fighter in his early years. That isn’t made up.

    Comment by Jonathan B. — May 22, 2009
22. 

    3.5 – I think this will be much more popular with viewers than the current critical consensus – that a lot of critics have a problem with Holmes getting THIS kind of update, rather than the movie itself. It’s flawed but difficult to dislike, the characters are very well cast with excellent chemistry. Lots of one liners and snappy dialogue.

    The trailers would have you believe this would be a bit more of a typical action blockbuster (ie the slow motion fist fights and money shots), and while there’s plenty of it, its shot very dark and is quite tightly scripted. It’s not dumb.

    It also doesn’t feel much like a Guy Ritchie movie, gone are a lot of the second string Tarantinoisms that for better or worse carry his more popular films, and it’s just plain better edited and directed. He’s grown.

    The score is pretty great.

    What brings it down though is that it may be TOO tightly scripted, everything in a tight little package by the end. Some of the action is a bit confusing and not very fluidly shot, and for its pace the action climax isn’t nearly as strong as it’s build would suggest.

    They kept the door wide open for a sequel. I’m on board, if they can fix some of the problems here I think there’s a making of a successful franchise here.

    Comment by Goon — December 25, 2009
23. 

    btw, as for ’sexing up’, Star Trek was sexed up more than this was. The trailer makes Sherlock look a lot more OMG EXTREME MODERN WOW than it really is.

    Comment by Goon — December 25, 2009
24. 

    The score is pretty great.

    Without a doubt. Probably my favorite score of the ear and one I plan on buying.

    I pretty much completely agree with Goon. The action elements fit well with the character, the chemistry between the actors is quite good and I loved that Holmes was a drug riddled drunk and a bit of a douchebag.

    There have been a lot of bad Sherlock Holmes films but this certainly isn’t one of them.

    Comment by Matt Gamble — December 26, 2009

Leave a comment