Sherlock Holmes

User Score
7.4

Generally favorable reviews- based on 597 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 46 out of 597

Where To Watch

Stream On
Stream On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

  1. Nov 16, 2013
    5
    Sherlock Holmes detects moments of clever intrigue.
    The overall film is simply uninteresting. The acting is good and the script is average. The direction is bizarre with random slow motions that attempt to enhance anti climatic sequences of action.
  2. Aug 27, 2010
    4
    Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law work great together. It's a shame that nothing else in this movie works at all - the worst part is how hard it tries to.
  3. Aug 25, 2012
    6
    The film was fine but I genuinely think that it would have been better off without Rachel McAdams. Nothing against the lady but her character just seemed to be put in there to incorporate a female lead. The story itself is rather good and I thought that Jude Law in particular was great.
  4. Dec 17, 2011
    6
    Trop attaché à l'image qu'on lui donnait dans les films précédents, il m'a été difficile d'accorder le moindre intérêt à ce Sherlock Holmes version 2010. Et franchement, s'il n'avait pas quelques atouts en poche, je resterais sur ma décision. A commencer par sonTrop attaché à l'image qu'on lui donnait dans les films précédents, il m'a été difficile d'accorder le moindre intérêt à ce Sherlock Holmes version 2010. Et franchement, s'il n'avait pas quelques atouts en poche, je resterais sur ma décision. A commencer par son allure de blockbuster et sa mise en scène (ralentis, certains cadrages) parfaitement inutile, sans parler de l'ambiance un brin agaçante (Hans Zimmer n'est pas le meilleur à chaque fois). Mais je dois reconnaître que l'ensemble est largement sauvé par l'interprétation et par le scénario, véritable enquête policière qui rend le film divertissant et intrigant. Car voilà les seuls qualificatifs que je donnerais pour juger ce Sherlock Holmes : un blockbuster plutôt sympathique, mais pas aussi exceptionnel de ce qui se faisait entendre. Expand
  5. Jan 15, 2012
    6
    Brilliant acting from Downey Jr raises this movie from middle of the road to a good film. Some good camera work adds to the fight scene although at times it feels a bit like a Victorian CSI episode.
  6. Mar 17, 2013
    5
    Sherlock Holmes is one of those immortal literary characters who boasts so many film adaptations under his belt that he needs no introduction beyond his name. Even if you've never read any of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's classic mystery stories involving the British detective, you probably already know of his astounding observational powers, proclivity for cocaine in the absence of mentalSherlock Holmes is one of those immortal literary characters who boasts so many film adaptations under his belt that he needs no introduction beyond his name. Even if you've never read any of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's classic mystery stories involving the British detective, you probably already know of his astounding observational powers, proclivity for cocaine in the absence of mental stimulation, and that he's a master fighter? All right, so obviously, Robert Downey Jr.'s Holmes is taking some slight liberties in that arena, and overall the movie is certainly aiming to please the modern action audience with a tale inclusive of rather frenetic action sequences and quickly-paced mystery elements. Too quickly-paced, in my opinion. The film just seemed to go by a little too fast for me, and I never really got the sense of any real suspense or palpable conflict. In all honesty, this really felt more like a 2-hour promo for the sequel to get you primed for a battle against Holmes's equally immortal archnemesis, Moriarty. However, there is still some fair entertainment value to it all, and in the end I enjoyed it enough to want to check out the second film. Expand
  7. May 30, 2016
    5
    Sherlock Holmes is quite an entertaining movie but by no means a good one. The obvious fault is the script, it's all over the place, same thing with the cheesy villain, the movie is over long and many scenes could have easily been scrapped to resolve the pacing issues Sherlock Holmes has. As for Mr Holmes, Robert Downey Jr. portrays him beautifully however the character is ridiculous, howSherlock Holmes is quite an entertaining movie but by no means a good one. The obvious fault is the script, it's all over the place, same thing with the cheesy villain, the movie is over long and many scenes could have easily been scrapped to resolve the pacing issues Sherlock Holmes has. As for Mr Holmes, Robert Downey Jr. portrays him beautifully however the character is ridiculous, how he is put in this film makes him look like an action hero, he fights, shoots, kicks runs, and everything an action hero would do. Sherlock Holmes is more of an action movie than a witty, mysterious, compelling thriller, what a Sherlock Holmes should be! Just look at the show Sherlock, they hit everything right on the head with how to portray a diverse character like Holmes perfectly. Aside from Holmes being an action hero, there is also a very Holmes-like trait missing in this flick. He is not funny, neither sarcastic nor cynical throughout the entire film! That's something what makes the show Sherlock so immaculate. It's bloody hilarious! Sherlock Holmes may get you to chuckle softly a couple of times but by no means is this movie hilarious (in a dark way) as it should be.

    Sherlock Holmes is just the next thing that is being thrown into the SFX reboot machine called Hollywood, and instead of making a compelling film that is genuinely good, they take the easy way out to make a complex character simple and throw him into an action movie to please average audiences and cash in on a massive box-office.

    I gave it a 7/10 because Sherlock Holmes is still somewhat entertaining, despite being too long and uninteresting at times. If you have nothing better to do and want to watch something decent. Sherlock Holmes isnt a terrible way to spend the evening.
    Expand
  8. Mar 27, 2016
    5
    Meh. I don't care, and I don't think anyone in this movie cares. It is so depressing looking and acted. Sure Downey gives an okay performance, but nothing special. Expected a lot more.
  9. Sep 29, 2010
    5
    When it comes to big blockbusters, I generally dislike movies that fall into this category because they simply lack any cerebral characteristic. Surprisingly, Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes is dissimilar to my tendency of aversion of big budget films. Contrary to what I just stated, Sherlock Holmes is undoubtedly not a thoughtful film. But unlike other films in my categorical standards,When it comes to big blockbusters, I generally dislike movies that fall into this category because they simply lack any cerebral characteristic. Surprisingly, Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes is dissimilar to my tendency of aversion of big budget films. Contrary to what I just stated, Sherlock Holmes is undoubtedly not a thoughtful film. But unlike other films in my categorical standards, Holmes makes up for it with its beautiful art direction and action sequences. Even though they are not accurate to the time setting, the scenes of combat are well choreographed and give the film personality. Additionally, the art direction is great, the images of vintage London are just mesmerizing giving the film much needed charm to successfully emulate the original Sherlock Holmes. Lastly, Downey Jr's replicates Conan Doyle's literary character to English perfection with his remarkable false accent and smug personality. With these statements said, the main flaw is the lack of mystery. Sherlock Holmes is a renowned literary character that was famous for the mysteries he solved and how he manipulated every sort of evidence to solve the case. Even though there are some traces of it, Sherlock Holmes ultimately doesn't create a plot of anonymity. It is obvious that the film focuses on action, and that only. That does not necessarily ruin the film, I found the film thoroughly entertaining. But the audience should simply lose the thought that Sherlock Holmes is a mystery; because it ultimately is not thought provoking or mysterious in any way. Expand
  10. Nov 11, 2010
    6
    Ehhh, not nearly what I expected. I'm a huge fan of Robert Downey Jr. and an even bigger one of Guy Ritchie, so naturally when I heard this film was being made I got excited. Not at all lived up to the anticipation. Watch if you like, but you're not missing anything if you don't.
  11. Jul 29, 2012
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The first half of Sherlock Holmes was boring, the second half was much better, and then the ending was just dumb. I'm not saying it was a bad film, it just wasn't Sherlock Holmes. The ending when Blackwood comes out of nowhere and pushes Sherlock's "girlfriend" off the bridge was so dumb that I really started laughing. It was just silly, but even this movie isn't great, it can still be mildly entertaining with some clever moments with Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law. Expand
  12. Sep 22, 2010
    6
    Holmes works out and is sort of American, and Watson is young and not fat? Gotcha. Better keep Guy Richie away from the franchises that actually hinge on obesity.
  13. May 14, 2011
    6
    So I rented this one, expecting it to be like an old crime whodonnit thing - and was kinda surprised. Never knew the Holmes / Watson combination were like Batman and Robin!?!
    ... Come to think of it, this IS Batman in the 19th century! (or was it early 20th century!?)
    The plot was far too difficult for my wife to understand, - was similar to "Da Vinci Code" but added a "bit" of reality to
    So I rented this one, expecting it to be like an old crime whodonnit thing - and was kinda surprised. Never knew the Holmes / Watson combination were like Batman and Robin!?!
    ... Come to think of it, this IS Batman in the 19th century! (or was it early 20th century!?)
    The plot was far too difficult for my wife to understand, - was similar to "Da Vinci Code" but added a "bit" of reality to the ending (still I understood, wife, not a clue)
    As it got to around an hour in, it felt like the story was dragging a little longer than it needed.
    As a rundown, Batman (the new style) + Da Vinci Code = Sherlock Holmes. .. who'd have guessed!?
    Expand
  14. Jan 23, 2013
    6
    I give it a 6 because I genuinely enjoyed the movie, the actors and the scenarios; it's a good little unassuming action flick. On the other hand, I can't give more than 6 because it was advertised as Sherlock Holmes and it's not Holmes. To those people who didn't like the movie on account of it not being a Holmes film, erase the title from your mind and start thinking about the characterI give it a 6 because I genuinely enjoyed the movie, the actors and the scenarios; it's a good little unassuming action flick. On the other hand, I can't give more than 6 because it was advertised as Sherlock Holmes and it's not Holmes. To those people who didn't like the movie on account of it not being a Holmes film, erase the title from your mind and start thinking about the character as Johnny McAwesomeville, and you'll find yourselves enjoying it too; it worked for me. Expand
  15. Cat
    Jan 8, 2010
    4
    Bears not the slightest resemblance to Sherlock Holmes, and I was so tired of watching people beat each other up. Rachel MacAdams doesn't seem bright enough to be any kind of mastermind, and the plot of the story is a total snooze. Downey Jr. is fine, Jude Law is forgettable.
  16. zekeb.
    Jan 1, 2010
    6
    Better than the last Indiana Jones, not as good as most Indy action thrillers, same sort of crazy ass plot. Annoying ending, middling muddled middle, good beginning. Ii will make Madonna jealous.
  17. RanelG.
    Jan 4, 2010
    4
    It has a good premise, the action was pretty great, but for the most part it bores you to death with it's complicated plot.
  18. RickA
    Jan 8, 2010
    6
    Pretty good movie. I would recommend seeing it.
  19. ChadS
    Dec 26, 2009
    5
    Do Sherlock Holmes purists exist? When James Bond was revamped for Martin Campbell's "Casino Royale", people were taken aback by Daniel Craig's hooligan interpretation of the 007 agent, because the long-running series never went away. Many missed the gentleman Bond, even George Lazenby. On the other hand, the Scotland Yard detective(created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle) has not Do Sherlock Holmes purists exist? When James Bond was revamped for Martin Campbell's "Casino Royale", people were taken aback by Daniel Craig's hooligan interpretation of the 007 agent, because the long-running series never went away. Many missed the gentleman Bond, even George Lazenby. On the other hand, the Scotland Yard detective(created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle) has not graced the big screen since Barry Levinson's "Young Sherlock Holmes", almost twenty-five years ago. Does anybody miss the non-boxing Holmes? Probably not. In effect, the filmmaker has carte blanche on remaking this pop culture figure(who hasn't been popular since the Seattle music scene was headed by The Young Fresh Fellows), and as a result, he turned Holmes and Dr. Watson into "Perfect Strangers"(the ABC sitcom from the late-eighties, starring Pierce Brosnan and Mark Linn-Baker), two heterosexual males with man crushes on each other. Although there is nothing in "Sherlock Holmes" that resembles a "Brokeback England", curiously(curious because Holmes' squeeze is the squeezable Rachel McAdams), neither man gets hot and heavy with their readily available women. It's a buddy movie: pure testosterone, an action film with a "Scooby-Doo" mentality, in which Holmes goes about debunking the existence of a supernatural realm. Almost as an afterthought, "Sherlock Holmes" does indeed find time to show the detective not being an action hero, but his sleuthing powers somehow seems diminished by the scale of the production. The powers of his brain is subordinate to the special effects. Expand
  20. RN
    Jan 1, 2010
    5
    The movie is at it's very best only ok. Although it portrays a very likable cast of characters and the leads give off a great performance, the story is lacking. It shows almost too much predictablity and as for fans of the Doyle's original works... well if they really liked the originals they'll find themselves disapointed. However for the rest of us whom aren't harsh The movie is at it's very best only ok. Although it portrays a very likable cast of characters and the leads give off a great performance, the story is lacking. It shows almost too much predictablity and as for fans of the Doyle's original works... well if they really liked the originals they'll find themselves disapointed. However for the rest of us whom aren't harsh critics or hard headed fan boys, the movie worth watching once or twice. Expand
  21. RobertI.
    Jan 13, 2010
    4
    A sensationalized version of a cerebral sleuth, with high production values and a poor script. Robert Downey, Jr., as a would-be ninja? I don't think so.
  22. Sandy
    Jan 23, 2010
    5
    Pants. Oh, alright then, if I must say more... Unbearable fake English accent from Downey ( like DvDyke's cocker-nee chimney sweep) grates throughout. No chemistry with Jude Law (who, IMO, has no chemistry in anything I've seen him in on his own, never mind with others). Typical Ritchie cockney geezers, silly plot, slo-mo fights (Sooo overdone these days). One decent gag - the Pants. Oh, alright then, if I must say more... Unbearable fake English accent from Downey ( like DvDyke's cocker-nee chimney sweep) grates throughout. No chemistry with Jude Law (who, IMO, has no chemistry in anything I've seen him in on his own, never mind with others). Typical Ritchie cockney geezers, silly plot, slo-mo fights (Sooo overdone these days). One decent gag - the fight on the slipway - and one decent actor - Mark Strong - but limp climax. 5 is generous! Expand
  23. DanB
    Jan 26, 2010
    5
    Entertaining, but basically a Victorian period carbon copy of every plot most of uf have seen time and time again.
  24. kgm
    Jan 30, 2010
    5
    This certainly isn
  25. martinJ.
    Jan 3, 2010
    4
    I'm a fan of Holmes in all iterations. But, this version was too ambiguous. You never understood why Holmes was so tortured, i.e. his addictions and obsessions. Plus, plot was overly convenient albeit in Doyle-like fashion, but come on, the guy Holmes is looking for is in the coffin. Weak. Finally, the relationship between Holmes and Watson was far less adversarial then presented. I'm a fan of Holmes in all iterations. But, this version was too ambiguous. You never understood why Holmes was so tortured, i.e. his addictions and obsessions. Plus, plot was overly convenient albeit in Doyle-like fashion, but come on, the guy Holmes is looking for is in the coffin. Weak. Finally, the relationship between Holmes and Watson was far less adversarial then presented. While action packed, I found the movie rather dull. Expand
  26. CarolynM.
    Jan 4, 2010
    6
    Gorgeous to look at, and great performances by Downey and Law, but an eminently forgettable plot: I won't need to see this twice.
  27. marlac.
    Jan 8, 2010
    6
    I love Robert Downey but he never once said "elementary my dear Watson".
  28. tylerw.
    Jan 8, 2010
    4
    Started off interesting enough and then quickly dropped off the edge of the table. why ham it up with the gay angle if you are going to introduce the beard/love interest for holmes? made absolutely no sense. guy ritchyyyy at his absolute worst.
  29. NerijusD.
    Feb 7, 2010
    4
    Not interesting at all. And I hate unrealistic films.
  30. LeoT.
    Dec 25, 2009
    4
    As of character portrait, it gives us two fresh, more human like Homes and Watson. As of the rest, it is quite disappointing.
  31. MatthewW
    Apr 29, 2010
    5
    Let me begin by saying that "Sherlock Holmes" is a lot of fun. That said, as a movie about Sherlock Holmes, it is a failure. As a lifelong fan of the stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, I have seen many screen adaptations and interpretations of his most enduring creation, and this movie simply fails to do the subject matter any kind of justice. While billed, somewhat schizophrenically, as Let me begin by saying that "Sherlock Holmes" is a lot of fun. That said, as a movie about Sherlock Holmes, it is a failure. As a lifelong fan of the stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, I have seen many screen adaptations and interpretations of his most enduring creation, and this movie simply fails to do the subject matter any kind of justice. While billed, somewhat schizophrenically, as both a "return to origin" and "reinterpretation", the film definitely inclines to the latter. A romance is added, as is an emphasis on chop-socky action and physical comedy. The joy of the Holmes stories, and of all his best films, is the unraveling of the mystery. Here the mystery takes a back seat, serving as a vehicle to propel the film from one frenetic action sequence to another. The fights are kinetic and exciting, but ultimately many of them seem included for their own sake, not the sake of the story. This is truly a Sherlock Holmes for the MTV generation. Between the whizz-bang fights, some plot sometimes occurs. There is not very much, however, and what is there is underwhelming. Mark Strong is given little to do as the main villian, and his nefarious scheme does not hold up to close scrutiny. Rachel McAdams plays a totally reimagined Irene Adler, who is now a master criminal and Sherlock Holmes's love interest, a development which never appears in Conan Doyle's books. Love, in the books, is anathema to Holmes, and he would no sooner form a romantic relationship than dance naked down the Strand. A good Sherlock Holmes story must remain within the parameters that Conan Doyle set down. It must be a convincing story about Sherlock Holmes. Otherwise, why have it be about Holmes at all? Why not a different detective? The obvious answer is, of course, because the Holmes name is arguably one of the most famous brands in the English speaking world. But this is not an excuse to run roughshod over such a unique character. This is not to say that the movie is without its strong points. Quite apart from its failings as a Sherlock Holmes adventure, it is fun and features two fanstic actors (Downey and Law) as Holmes and Watson. The fights are, admittedly exciting, and the views of 1800s London are top-knotch. I can only hope that the sequel will include more plot, more mystery, and more of Conan Doyle's Holmes, not Guy Ritchie's. Expand
  32. SamJ
    May 16, 2010
    4
    This movie was boring. It was also very gray; not fun to look at, and it didn't make any sense.
  33. SusanL.
    Dec 25, 2009
    5
    The film comes across as a cartoon... characters which should have died multiple times, rise with nary a scratch on them.
  34. FrankO.
    Dec 28, 2009
    6
    I enjoyed this movie but it felt very long. The chase scenes and the beginning set-up were too long. I liked the interaction and relationship between Holmes and Watson. Was this suppose to be an action/adventure story or a mystery? It did not do justice to either.
  35. criticsRmad
    Dec 30, 2009
    4
    Critcs weren't so mad this time around. This was boring, boring, boring drivel. I haven't been this disappointed in a movie in a long time. Didn't care about the characters and couldn't care less what happened to them. I like the new idea of Holmes and Watson, but the movie just didn't start up. I couldn't wait for it to be over.
  36. SteveS
    Dec 30, 2009
    4
    Slapdash, senseless and all about effects. Yes RD Jr is fabulous but this vehicle is in constant overdrive and not worth the trip!
  37. AaronG
    Dec 26, 2009
    6
    It's kind of a hard movie to like. I mean, the cast and acting is great, and the script is never really bad, but at the same time nothing that happens makes you go "OH MY GOD I HAVE TO SEE THAT AGAIN". The story is a bit hard to follow and the way Sherlock figures things out are kind of silly. There's huge potential for Guy Ritchie to make a franchise off this movie, and I think It's kind of a hard movie to like. I mean, the cast and acting is great, and the script is never really bad, but at the same time nothing that happens makes you go "OH MY GOD I HAVE TO SEE THAT AGAIN". The story is a bit hard to follow and the way Sherlock figures things out are kind of silly. There's huge potential for Guy Ritchie to make a franchise off this movie, and I think I might like that. But one thing I've GOT to say, this is a beautifully made movie. All the sets and costumes, even the scenery, matches the mood of the plot perfectly. The grey-blue color scheme adds to the mood instead of taking away from it like some other films (coughtwilightcough). It wasn't a bad movie at all, but I can understand why some won't like it. If you're interested in seeing this, go ahead and watch it, you'll enjoy. Expand
  38. larryk.
    Dec 29, 2009
    5
    Boring. Where was the tension? Where was the drama? Ordinary. Law and Downey tried to click but no real chemistry ever developed. McAdams was thrown into the mix, but still no chemistry. Humor was lame, drawing out nary a chuckle. Too bad, it looked like a lot of work went into creating this period piece. It was a great looking movie. And although Downey threw a lot of punches in the Boring. Where was the tension? Where was the drama? Ordinary. Law and Downey tried to click but no real chemistry ever developed. McAdams was thrown into the mix, but still no chemistry. Humor was lame, drawing out nary a chuckle. Too bad, it looked like a lot of work went into creating this period piece. It was a great looking movie. And although Downey threw a lot of punches in the film, "Sherlock Holmes" as a whole delivers only soft blows at best. It won't knock you out. Expand
  39. JasonW
    Dec 29, 2009
    5
    They turned Sherlock Holmes in to a freaking ninja / action hero. Thanks for f'ing it up, Hollywood.
Metascore
57

Mixed or average reviews - based on 34 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 17 out of 34
  2. Negative: 4 out of 34
  1. Sherlock Holmes goes wrong in many ways except for one -- at the boxoffice.
  2. This is the ultimate sin of the film, generically helmed by lad-auteur Guy Ritchie: Logic seems to be thrown out the window in order to make room for clashes on a partially completed Tower Bridge. It’s way too elementary.
  3. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    70
    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.