Mixed or average reviews - based on 34 Critics What's this?

User Score

Generally favorable reviews- based on 516 Ratings

Your Score
0 out of 10
Rate this:
  • 10
  • 9
  • 8
  • 7
  • 6
  • 5
  • 4
  • 3
  • 2
  • 1
  • 0
  • 0
  • Starring: , ,
  • Summary: Sherlock Holmes has made his reputation finding the truth at the heart of the most complex mysteries. With the aid of Dr. John Watson, his trusted ally, the renowned "consulting detective" is unequaled in his pursuit of criminals of every stripe, whether relying on his singular powers of observation, his remarkable deductive skills, or the blunt force of his fists. But now a storm is gathering over London, a threat unlike anything that Holmes has ever confronted...and just the challenge he's looking for. (Warner Bros.) Expand
  • Director: Guy Ritchie
  • Genre(s): Action, Adventure, Mystery, Thriller, Crime
  • Rating: PG-13
  • Runtime: 128 min
  • More Details and Credits »
Score distribution:
  1. Positive: 17 out of 34
  2. Negative: 4 out of 34
  1. Downey has a winning take on Holmes: He's always on.
  2. 75
    This is very much a Sherlock Holmes movie for the blockbuster era.
  3. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    Ritchie has never worked on a scale anything approaching this before and, while some of the directorial affectations are distracting, he keeps the action humming.
  4. Reviewed by: Bob Mondello
    In short, Ritchie's come up with precisely what you'd expect of him — a pumped-up, anachronistically modern Sherlock Holmes designed for the ADD crowd. Expect a sequel. Or six.
  5. 50
    Not even Sherlock Holmes could make much sense out of the overplotted, murky mess that is "Sherlock Holmes," although Arthur Conan Doyle's legendarily brainy detective would probably never buy a ticket to a movie as elephant-footed as this one.
  6. 50
    Despite some arresting visual flourishes and Downey’s inherent likeability, it’s nearly incoherent both as cinema and as story. No, this isn’t your grandfather’s or your father’s Sherlock Holmes, but if theirs featured Basil Rathbone or Jeremy Brett in the lead, it was better by miles.
  7. 30
    The very idea of handing him over to professional lad Guy Ritchie (who directed Snatch, Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels), to be played as a punch-throwing quipster by Robert Downey Jr., is so profoundly stupid one can only step back in dismay.

See all 34 Critic Reviews

Score distribution:
  1. Negative: 21 out of 190
  1. Sep 6, 2010
    I'm loving the reviews here, the stupidity within the statements: "It was too rational" and "It was too complicated and boring" are reminding me once again that most movie-goers prefer to have their hand held throughout an entire movie rather than use their deductive skills. Too rational? are you kidding? you actually need 'magic' to enjoy something? Sherlock Holmes is ALL about the mystery being solved, everything being presented and known. If you don't like that then why did you even bother to go watch? @the Sherlock Holmes purists, every other hero of some of the oldest stories in time have transitioned into numerous changes like this one(batman, being a man without powers, being a sort of detective on his own, was changed a lot over the years). The picture of however you imagined Sherlock to be might not be the same as the next person beside you. Its open to interpretation, unless you seek to extinguish everyone's creativity due to your close mindedness. The characters weren't empty, their relationship was fully realized (Sherlock and Watson, two detectives fighting over small, inconsequential things, Watson being tired of Sherlock's antics, and yet what unifies them is the mystery for the time being. Sherlock feeling stuck in his life, feeling as though he is being abandoned, trying to pull his old friend back into the game so he wont be the only one who's trapped and alone, his character develops from there but I wont spoil it) and it was very much apparent that they cared deeply about each other, but most would rather that their emotions surface in a much more obvious way. Its ridiculous to give this movie a bad review just because you didn't bother paying attention.

    As for the science and the technology in this movie, it wasn't a copout. All of this was at their disposal back then. Sherlock Holmes, whatever version you prefer of him, was above all else a man of science. Also it goes without saying that in the books and in the cartoon or live action series on tv, things did go slower and there was less action. However in movie format things have to be sped up a bit in order to fit everything in, otherwise the movie would wind up being 3-4 hours and coming wayyy over their estimated budget. Its impractical, and to say otherwise means most of you don't have a clear grasp on what making a movie entails, including the reviewers of these magazines. Besides it all works out in the end, and I found the pacing to be especially stimulating, kept me at attention the entire time.

    I understand that you have to pump out these reviews almost everyday, but it doesn't mean you have to rush them like this. Hating a movie like this one while its successful doesn't make you a good critic, it just makes an idiot, especially when you assume this was made for a younger generation or for the "ADD crowd". Branding them the ADD crowd while skipping over the fountain of medical terms used in the proper way(for once in a mainstream movie, no pseudo-science, no **** spells or rituals), the witty jokes and all of the deductions and experiments Holmes made all tied together in one neat conspiracy(Which given a little thought, wasn't all that complicated to those who said it was) just makes you look like your the one who deserves the label.

    Also what was mentioned was the exaggerated scenarios. They were pretty lucky to survive I will admit, but one thing I found realistic was the part when they lost a whole night's sleep after the fight. This is something I rarely see in movies, usually the fight is over, hero carries on like a good soldier. This humanized them, and it wasn't the only occasion in the movie where they did this.

    One last comment before I leave this review to those whom aren't as gullible as the rest, the hand to hand combat wasn't as uninspired as some claim it to be. While being as intelligent as Holmes with the reflexes he possessed, its not hard to observe the fact that every hit he made was calculated beforehand, as displayed in the very beginning of the movie. When he didn't have time to calculate his every movement he used things like the electricity conductor or chains or guns etc to gain an advantage. I honestly don't get how all of this could have been missed by so many reviewers, but that's fine. I hope that if you've read this you've decided to rent or buy this movie. Whatever you decide, its definitely worth the look.
  2. WilliamJ.
    Dec 28, 2009
    This movie seems to have more of the original books in mind than the old Holmes movies, to which I believe is an optimal decision. If Doyle was alive today, he would've made a Holmes movie similar to this one. Expand
  3. RuthK.
    Jan 13, 2010
    I have read all the Sherlock Holmes stories several times over AND I am a mature person of 60ish. I thought the plot was a clever interpretation of the stories for today's cinema - the biffo and the World Domination seem essential for an action/adventure movie to hold its own. Interesting Holmes only plucked at his violin, I thought this verged on looking odd, but perhaps it was necessary. A violin sounds better in a book! I thought the characterisations were very true to the stories, interpreted for the biffo and also to lighten the tone a bit. I really liked the sense of fun of the actors and in the plot, that helped the movie a lot. RDJ and Jude law were excellent, each challenging the other to lift their game. The set and scenes were pretty good too, I like the grey and dull tones for the atmosphere. Expand
  4. JoeS
    Jan 25, 2010
    I liked the pics for Sherlock Holmes and Watson I thought Jude Law and Robert Downy JR were great and not bad action stars it also has a nice plot to it. Expand
  5. JonlunD
    Feb 7, 2010
    Very good but felt a little long by 3/4 of the way through.
  6. RickA
    Jan 8, 2010
    Pretty good movie. I would recommend seeing it.
  7. JohnW.
    Dec 25, 2009
    I walked out...A piece of garbage. Writing is terrible, Acting by Downing is google eyed. A TOTAL Disaster!!

See all 190 User Reviews


Related Articles

  1. All Films Considered: Guy Ritchie

    All Films Considered: Guy Ritchie Image
    Published: December 21, 2009
    With Sherlock Holmes opening on Friday, we take the opportunity to get swept away by the previous films directed by Guy Ritchie. The results are not pretty.