User Score
7.4

Generally favorable reviews- based on 543 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 45 out of 543
Watch 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
  1. Sep 6, 2010
    10
    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 theI'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.
    Expand
  2. PeterS
    Jan 16, 2010
    8
    I liked it a lot! But I had to forget everything I read as a kid. As an action movie it's great.
  3. DanielT
    Apr 6, 2010
    10
    What the hell are the critics complaining about? They are basically saying that the movie is nothing like thew books. Have you even read them? It is a brilliant adaptation of the stories that Doyle wrote!
  4. JakeR
    Dec 27, 2009
    10
    A perfect movie. The critics should stop acting like elitist bastards. Some say it was too much action for Holmes, some say it was boring. We either have snooty elitists or gun-obsessed action-heads. It was a the best movie of 09
  5. Apr 19, 2012
    7
    Hmmmm. There are action sequences, plenty of one liners, and Robert Downey Jr. I can only deduce that this is another Hollywood box office smash. And silly old me, I just saw the film. My friends pestered me about this for the longest time. They loved the film, and were positive I would too. I told them I'd get around to it, until finally one of my friends lent me the movie to watch. MyHmmmm. There are action sequences, plenty of one liners, and Robert Downey Jr. I can only deduce that this is another Hollywood box office smash. And silly old me, I just saw the film. My friends pestered me about this for the longest time. They loved the film, and were positive I would too. I told them I'd get around to it, until finally one of my friends lent me the movie to watch. My feelings about this unique film are a little mixed. The film wants to be clever, but very little smarts at all are needed to view this film. Naturally, this film is geared towards teenage boys, who for the most part, are not interested in an intellectually stimulating film. They just want to see Downey deliver witty lines, and watch him beat up thugs. So, if that's what you came to see, you will not be disappointed. However those wanting a more intelligent film, should not look here. Even when the Sherlock Holmes is explaining how he figured out the case at the end, it's through many clues that the viewer didn't have a chance of deciphering themselves, which is quite contradictory to what Sherlock Holmes is all about. I know the target audience, so I expected as much, but my mother who viewed the film with me, was quite irritated at the obscure clues. A good mystery should be tailored so that the audience can try to solve the mystery too (and make it hard enough, so that they can't figure it out). This film does nothing of the sort, instead, we merely learn at the end, that Sherlock had seen things that the camera never shows us, making it impossible to solve the mystery ourselves. But like I said, the target audience doesn't care about such things, so therefore, the film is oddly "smartless." But I digress. On the other hand, the cast does a fantastic job at portraying each of their characters, even if some lines were delivered a little hammy. Also, the musical score, composed by Hanz Zimmer, is very good, and absolutely hilarious. Music doesn't commonly make me smile (out of humor anyway), but this score did. Though many of the action sequences were rather ordinary, there were definitely a handful that kept me on the edge of my seat, and I'm sure the target audience will eat it up. The film is quite amusing, as one can expect with from the leading actor, but for some reason, the film wasn't quite as humorous as I was expecting. It was funny enough, anyway. Lastly, and this may be a major problem for some, but this film just doesn't feel like Sherlock Holmes. It feels like Robert Downey Jr. makes another million dollars. I suppose this is to be expected, but somehow, I was hoping that there might be some sort of Sherlock spirit to this, but alas, there was not. I was not wowed, but I most definitely enjoyed myself. I do wish, though, that the film was a bit more intelligent, and this film doesn't feel like Sherlock Holmes at all. Regardless, this is an enjoyable romp, and I'll probably catch the sequel on DVD. Consider me entertained, but not impressed. Expand
  6. Sep 29, 2011
    8
    Guy Richie's "Sherlock Holmes" is a stupid interpretation where Sherlock Holmes is a muscle brute solving murders and mysteries with bullet time and sheer luck. Surprisingly, the movie actually works great with its modern interpretation of Holmes.
  7. GarthN
    Jan 9, 2010
    9
    I have not seen a class movie since Slumdog, this was a very good movie. Guy Ritchie is back now that he is over Madona, maybe now he will continue to make some good movies.
  8. Dec 17, 2011
    8
    Sherlock Holmes was greatly acted, suspenseful picture with a great impersonation of Holmes. Robert Downey Jr. deserved best actor nomination.
  9. 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.
  10. 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
  11. bertk
    Jan 1, 2010
    1
    I looked forward to see this movie but it turned out to be a total dissapointment. I agree with NYP and Washington Post, this film is empty as can be. I was with a friend in the theatre but if I was alone I would have left halfway. First of all, there is no color whatsoever, everything is grey, even the makeup of the 2 ladies is so ugly, and their parts are flat and uninteresting. Jude I looked forward to see this movie but it turned out to be a total dissapointment. I agree with NYP and Washington Post, this film is empty as can be. I was with a friend in the theatre but if I was alone I would have left halfway. First of all, there is no color whatsoever, everything is grey, even the makeup of the 2 ladies is so ugly, and their parts are flat and uninteresting. Jude Law is ok, but Robert Downey jr has this frozen look in his eyes, he is not funny, not intriguing and not worth watching. The story is overcomplex, way too rational. Guy Ritchie seems a testosteron driven visual artist with zero talent to push actors to a great achievement. I cant believe it. No wonder Madonna left him, you can say what you want but her music always has a meaning and feelings, even her most dancy tracks. And this is what I missed the most with this movie, the lack of a soul. Expand
  12. bryans.
    Jan 5, 2010
    0
    I would love to review the whole of this movie but i honestly don't know if it improves after the first hour. Y'see my fiance and i both walked out after what seemed the longest hour of our lifes. I could genuinly find no reason to stay seated as this film completely lacked any kind of heart, and the so called "chemistry" between Law and Downey jnr was completely missing from I would love to review the whole of this movie but i honestly don't know if it improves after the first hour. Y'see my fiance and i both walked out after what seemed the longest hour of our lifes. I could genuinly find no reason to stay seated as this film completely lacked any kind of heart, and the so called "chemistry" between Law and Downey jnr was completely missing from our screening. Normally when i'm sat in a packed cinema and the audience is deadly silent it usually a good sign. It often means they are compelled and fascinated by the on screen perfomances. This time the audience just looked bored. I can only pray that RDJ's performance in Iron Man 2 makes up for this travesty. p.s. this is the only movie i've ever walked out on and i've seen a lot of rubbish in my time. Hell i even watched terminator 3. Expand
  13. BillyS.
    Feb 6, 2010
    7
    If you go in to a movie with low expectations, you'll more than likely be surpized. As was the case for Sherlock Holmes. Don't get me wrong, Guy Ritchie taking on a literary masterpiece is no way the same as Kubrick and The Shining, but Ritchie has incorporated Holmes' intelligence with his usual over the top action pieces and made a much better-than-expected entertaining If you go in to a movie with low expectations, you'll more than likely be surpized. As was the case for Sherlock Holmes. Don't get me wrong, Guy Ritchie taking on a literary masterpiece is no way the same as Kubrick and The Shining, but Ritchie has incorporated Holmes' intelligence with his usual over the top action pieces and made a much better-than-expected entertaining film. Downey and Law play Holmes and Watson with humor and a little gay innuendo, but the way Ritchie has Holmes analyse his fights in slow motion first is a great advantage to all the commotion that follows. All in all, well worth the price of admission. Expand
  14. BobC
    Dec 30, 2009
    3
    If you have read and enjoyed Sherlock Holmes over the years this movie is a major disappointment. More like a fantasy where Sherlock meets Batman and Robin. Boring with a very poor story line. Younger people will enjoy it but for mature adults it is a waste of time.
  15. TomB.
    Jan 18, 2010
    3
    This movie was terrible. Zero points for anything other than Downey, who was his usual great self. But Guy Ritchie shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a camera again.
  16. JosepP
    Jan 31, 2010
    3
    Downey. Jr, even he does not believe in anything happening in the movie,is brilliant. Jude Law Ok. The rest is only BORING. But well, is Guy Ritchie so, what did you expected, a good movie?
  17. 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.
  18. EliasC
    Apr 15, 2010
    3
    The best I could say about this film is that it inspired me to re-read A. Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories. I'd watch Robert Downey Jr in anything but even he was hard to take as he consistently mumbled his lines off screen making him almost unintelligible and and adding confusion to the already obtuse storyline. I am still puzzled over what the plot was really about. The best I could say about this film is that it inspired me to re-read A. Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories. I'd watch Robert Downey Jr in anything but even he was hard to take as he consistently mumbled his lines off screen making him almost unintelligible and and adding confusion to the already obtuse storyline. I am still puzzled over what the plot was really about. Although the fast action and CGI London was amazing, I wanted more of what a Sherlock Holmes story is supposed to be - the use of recognizable deductive reasoning and those 'ah-ha' moments on my part as I understood what the mystery was all about. No such moments here. This film is Holmes as an action hero and although I appreciate the change in character from the old 1940-1950's stogy British gentleman, this version just did not work for me. Maybe I should have paid closer attention but the confused plot made me wish I'd taken a nap instead. Expand
  19. GabrielL
    Dec 30, 2009
    2
    ROFL
  20. 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
  21. Qwerty
    Dec 27, 2009
    3
    OMG, what a disappointing drag. These aren't interpretations (or reinterpretations or even MISinterpretations) of Holmes and Watson. They're two other guys involved in a clownish caper.
  22. NancyT
    Dec 27, 2009
    2
    I agree with John W.- awful!!!!
  23. jg
    Dec 31, 2009
    0
    0worst movie I have ever seen. would have walked out but my wife seemed to be interested in it. A headache. Confusing. No discernible plot. stay home. BTW my wife gave it a seven, she must be getting senile.
  24. JohnW.
    Dec 25, 2009
    0
    I walked out...A piece of garbage. Writing is terrible, Acting by Downing is google eyed. A TOTAL Disaster!!
  25. JanetM
    Dec 27, 2009
    0
    Does Guy Ritchie know how to deliver anything else but this over-stylized crap?
  26. zach
    Dec 29, 2009
    0
    Terrible movie, I sat through the whole thing (sadly) and I must say every single thing about this movie is terrible,vile,horrible,and many other bad things to say about this movie.
  27. Dec 3, 2010
    9
    I thought this film was great. Great performances all around, very atmospheric. It also manages to be authentically Holmes, although the action's on a slightly larger scale. But how could anyone not enjoying watching Holmes work out how to take down his opponents in more unique ways.
  28. 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.
  29. May 11, 2012
    8
    This is probably as good as a Shaerlock Holmes movie is going to get. Robert Downey continues to do great in this movie.
  30. JYT
    Jun 10, 2012
    1
    Little fidelity to the orignal character, very little homework on the history and the period the story took place. This movie is a commercial enterprise to lure bored youngster or people with low reading skills so that they can sit and turn the brain off as usual sitting on the moive theater seat eating some popcorn. Jude Law cannot make a Watson as he does not look at all like a rugbyLittle fidelity to the orignal character, very little homework on the history and the period the story took place. This movie is a commercial enterprise to lure bored youngster or people with low reading skills so that they can sit and turn the brain off as usual sitting on the moive theater seat eating some popcorn. Jude Law cannot make a Watson as he does not look at all like a rugby player. Robert Downety Junior would actually make a good Moriarty and Mark Strong should have been the Sherlock Holmes. They have good the cast inverted. Expand
  31. May 4, 2012
    7
    Sherlock Holmes is known as the brilliant detective of 221B Baker Street, who can spot minute details in the blink of an eye and observe even the smallest and insignificant things and regard them as important. Here in this film we get a more rambunctious, drugged and physical man with the same intellect and persona we'd expect. An excellent film.
  32. Feb 7, 2013
    10
    The scenes between Holmes and Watson were witty and fun to watch. I've not read a lot of Sherlock Holmes, but I can tell the movie presented him to be a little too eccentric. Holmes and Watson excel in hand to hand combat, which I thought unlikely. Ironically, I can believe Watson to be great in fighting, given he's a seasoned soldier. The antagonist was brilliant, so was the plot and theThe scenes between Holmes and Watson were witty and fun to watch. I've not read a lot of Sherlock Holmes, but I can tell the movie presented him to be a little too eccentric. Holmes and Watson excel in hand to hand combat, which I thought unlikely. Ironically, I can believe Watson to be great in fighting, given he's a seasoned soldier. The antagonist was brilliant, so was the plot and the mystery. I thoroughly enjoyed every minute of it. Expand
  33. AnnL
    Jan 1, 2010
    10
    What more do you need in a movie? Great actors leading you on a exciting adventure and keeping you entertained the whole ride. Good work Mr. Richie!
  34. ml
    Jan 10, 2010
    7
    Very hard to rate, but I'll bump it because the average is too low. The plot is stupid, the hand-to-hand combat is dubious, it's no more a Sherlock Holmes movie than it is a mystery (closer to a spy movie) and the use of drugs and technology is a massive copout destroying all sense of crime-solving deduction. Yet Holmes and Watson are just so *funny.* They carry the movie away Very hard to rate, but I'll bump it because the average is too low. The plot is stupid, the hand-to-hand combat is dubious, it's no more a Sherlock Holmes movie than it is a mystery (closer to a spy movie) and the use of drugs and technology is a massive copout destroying all sense of crime-solving deduction. Yet Holmes and Watson are just so *funny.* They carry the movie away from total oblivion and make in entertaining for at least another viewing. Meanwhile their domestic, awkward relationship sets off the homoeroticism alarms of reviewers everywhere. Arthur Conan Doyle's work was always somewhat pulpy. Perhaps this is really a fitting (if entirely faithless) modern reboot. Expand
  35. EvinC.
    Jan 2, 2010
    8
    Cool flick. Downey Jr. and Law make a great duo. Love Them.
  36. 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.
  37. WillL
    Jan 3, 2010
    9
    If this film wasn't marketed as 'Sherlock Holmes" and the characters were unrelated to the Holmes universe, then this film would have far better ratings. The reviews are simply written by people who are dismayed at the re-writing of Holmes' personality and adaptation by Downy Jr.
  38. JonlunD
    Feb 7, 2010
    7
    Very good but felt a little long by 3/4 of the way through.
  39. Wes
    Apr 3, 2010
    9
    I'm not sure why the critics disliked this movie so much. As a person who has never read a Sherlock Holmes novel, I found the movie quite enjoyable. Well shot, well acted, and very entertaining.
  40. 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.
  41. JanelleM.
    Jan 10, 2010
    9
    Very funny and tense which we all love and quite a thinking movie but brilliant.
  42. DonaldC.
    Jan 18, 2010
    8
    Excellent movie, entertaining and fun. Great action. Holmes and Watson compliment each other nicely.
  43. JG.
    Jan 2, 2010
    9
    I am not a Guy RItche movie fan but he did a wonderful spin on the Sherlock Holmes story. I enjoyed every moment and cannot wait for a sequel.
  44. RitchieP.
    Jan 2, 2010
    9
    This movie was awesome. The story was fast paced and intriguing. The acting was phenomenal, and the effects were decent.
  45. XavierE.
    Jan 3, 2010
    10
    One of the wittiest movies I've seen.
  46. Ostaf
    Jan 3, 2010
    7
    It wasn't amazing but I did like how he was a drug addict thug rather then the mystery solving uptight guy people usually think of. He was the original Holmes.
  47. A.C.
    Jan 3, 2010
    7
    It's nice to read the User coments, honestly, I hate everybody hwo makes a critic, there are so many different comments, from "This sh*t sucked" to "Masterpiece". The Users here aren't giving a critic, they are just saying if the movie liked them or not. A lot of people think they can give a mature coment but no, like this guy John W., what a dumbass, what does he know about It's nice to read the User coments, honestly, I hate everybody hwo makes a critic, there are so many different comments, from "This sh*t sucked" to "Masterpiece". The Users here aren't giving a critic, they are just saying if the movie liked them or not. A lot of people think they can give a mature coment but no, like this guy John W., what a dumbass, what does he know about writing or acting? Expand
  48. Dave
    Jan 3, 2010
    9
    This is one of the best movies i have seen so far this year(2009) and maybe one of the best films i have ever seen. The script was very good and the story was extremly enjoying. One of the best things in Sherlock Holmes was the actors; Robert Downey, Jr. And Jude Law. They are perfect and makes the movie great. Everybody has to see this movie. Honestly i cant really see how Sherlock This is one of the best movies i have seen so far this year(2009) and maybe one of the best films i have ever seen. The script was very good and the story was extremly enjoying. One of the best things in Sherlock Holmes was the actors; Robert Downey, Jr. And Jude Law. They are perfect and makes the movie great. Everybody has to see this movie. Honestly i cant really see how Sherlock Holmes can bee called a bad movie. It`s a great moie. Expand
  49. TimA.
    Jan 4, 2010
    10
    Brilliant film.
  50. 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.
  51. kenG
    Jan 4, 2010
    9
    Not Basil Rathbone's Sherlock Holmes. But still a Sherlock Holmes that is an awful lot of fun.
  52. DavidP.
    Jan 5, 2010
    9
    Extremely entertaining.
  53. Colin
    Jan 7, 2010
    9
    Damn good movie. Damn good.
  54. RickA
    Jan 8, 2010
    6
    Pretty good movie. I would recommend seeing it.
  55. JamesH.
    Feb 6, 2010
    8
    Sherlock Holmes brings more than a few quick street fighting scenes that brings some critiques to give an automatic hate to the movie. The use of not your fathers Holmes is an excuse for those who can not get past their own childish nature. The movie itself brings us an interesting take on not just Holmes, but the times he lived in. To chuck it aside because its not him sitting there for Sherlock Holmes brings more than a few quick street fighting scenes that brings some critiques to give an automatic hate to the movie. The use of not your fathers Holmes is an excuse for those who can not get past their own childish nature. The movie itself brings us an interesting take on not just Holmes, but the times he lived in. To chuck it aside because its not him sitting there for 30 minutes smoking his pipe then coming up with the answer is to insult Doyle. Expand
  56. RodneyM.
    Mar 29, 2010
    8
    I enjoyed this movie very much, the relationship between Watson and Holmes, feels very similar to that of Dr.House and hes college Wilson.
  57. JohnB
    Mar 30, 2010
    8
    I'm having a difficult time understanding why the lower end of the critics believe this to movie to be so deficient. Is this the best crime drama since the dawn of time? No. Is this an exact replica of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's famously brilliant short stories and novels? Of course not. But if it where either of the two it would probably be not nearly as entertaining. For those I'm having a difficult time understanding why the lower end of the critics believe this to movie to be so deficient. Is this the best crime drama since the dawn of time? No. Is this an exact replica of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's famously brilliant short stories and novels? Of course not. But if it where either of the two it would probably be not nearly as entertaining. For those of you who remember, I'd like you to imagine making an exact replica of the "Encyclopedia Brown" series on screen. It would be the same with Sherlock Holmes. Both accomplish their tasks of solving the crime by sheer powers of deduction. I imagine it would be quite tiresome after awhile, just watching someone analyze the facts to reach a conclusion. For that, you could take a Logic course at your local community college and achieve the same effect. Guy Ritchie brings to the series a fun and engaging aspect to Holmes that allows the viewers to be simultaneously entertained and intrigued by Holmes tendency towards the criminal (readers will remember things such as his opium addiction) and his genius as the detective. The film was ultimately an entertaining portrayal of a classic character intended to amuse, bedazzle and intrigue us. I believe Guy Ritchie accomplished just that. That isn't to say that the movie is without fault. Some moments seem a little far-fetched than others and the tension between Adler and Holmes could have been played up a bit. This, however, does not diminish the overall quality that I believe the movie to have. To those expecting a movie portraying a brooding mastermind in the dark solving the crime in a quiet and matter-of-fact brilliance then you clearly have come to the wrong place for entertaining cinema. If you expect a well-balanced mix of action, humor, and, of course, mystery, then I believe "Sherlock Holmes" is well worth the viewing. Expand
  58. Batjin
    Apr 18, 2010
    8
    First of all Downey and Jude were both very good. The story was not as good as the acting. As a whole it was a decent movie. To the crics who gave 50 or below: we are living in the 21st century, where the real stories that Conan Doyle wrote wouldn't satisfy as a blockbuster movie, it needs to be embellished with fast paced action scenes (or a bit of comedy). Although I am a big fan First of all Downey and Jude were both very good. The story was not as good as the acting. As a whole it was a decent movie. To the crics who gave 50 or below: we are living in the 21st century, where the real stories that Conan Doyle wrote wouldn't satisfy as a blockbuster movie, it needs to be embellished with fast paced action scenes (or a bit of comedy). Although I am a big fan of the books I found the slight change in the story entertaining. Expand
  59. AdamK
    Apr 5, 2010
    8
    With all these low scores and sad reviews claiming the film to be "one of the worst films ever" seriously? Heres a few worse films... Changing Lanes, Snakes on a Plane, and Spiderman 3 (oh how I hate Spiderman 3).
  60. JacobC
    Apr 8, 2010
    0
    This movie is so boring, I fell asleep in the theaters.
  61. 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
  62. KatieB
    Dec 30, 2009
    7
    I generally like Guy Ritchie movies. I generally love all the lead actors, especially RDJ. Chemistry between all the actors was palpable and believable. I agree with other reviewers who said the story line was just not good enough. The acting, bantering dialogue, well-created relationships, scenery, costuming, music - all merit high scores. Story and plot, not so much. Unfortunately. I I generally like Guy Ritchie movies. I generally love all the lead actors, especially RDJ. Chemistry between all the actors was palpable and believable. I agree with other reviewers who said the story line was just not good enough. The acting, bantering dialogue, well-created relationships, scenery, costuming, music - all merit high scores. Story and plot, not so much. Unfortunately. I would see it again, however. Just for RDJ boxing, sans shirt. Seriously, it was very enjoyable. Hope the sequel has a better story line! Expand
  63. NormanM.
    Dec 30, 2009
    2
    There is no cohesive storyline. Holmes and Watson are reduced to a couple of Ninja like thugs. Its a series of one confrontation after another that had nothing to do with the previous. Dont waste your money on this.
  64. RodneyW.
    Jan 1, 2010
    8
    Robert Downey Jr is amazing... one of his best.
  65. rayb.
    Jan 1, 2010
    8
    This is a solid tongue-in-cheek movie!
  66. 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
  67. IsabelleK.
    Jan 12, 2010
    9
    Brilliant film with good directing and an excellent, complicated storyline. It's obvious that Downey Jr and Law enjoyed making this film. The only problem was that it was a little bit long.
  68. 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.
  69. JDust
    Jan 15, 2010
    10
    the movie was overall quite intruguing and enjoyable. the cinematography was quite unique in some parts, such as at the beginning and in the chase scene leading up to the shipyard. the plot was believable and quite intriguing, and when not compared to the books was an exceptional movie. the psychology was thrilling.
  70. SusanS
    Jan 18, 2010
    7
    Really, like a 6.7; a silly, light-headed prologue to what could be a more intriguing sequel once Prof. Moriarty reveals himself. One thing the film has going for it, though--the much discussed chemistry between Holmes and Watson, which all involved, including Rachel McAdams, seem to be reveling in. McAdams plays a sporting beard, understanding that Irene Adler is to be witty, cunning, Really, like a 6.7; a silly, light-headed prologue to what could be a more intriguing sequel once Prof. Moriarty reveals himself. One thing the film has going for it, though--the much discussed chemistry between Holmes and Watson, which all involved, including Rachel McAdams, seem to be reveling in. McAdams plays a sporting beard, understanding that Irene Adler is to be witty, cunning, pretty (but not too pretty), and not to get in the way of her two pretty male costars, whose seem to be barely containing their laughter at their characters' suppressed Victorian passion for each other. There is a ambiguously evil plot; Mark Strong does well at an ambiguously evil Lord Blackwell, and Hans Matheson (from The Tudors) actually manages to put some enthusiasm into the whole scheme. Overall, a fun two-plus hours, with some great verbal banter and random action sequences. A fun diversion; let's see if Ritchie can come up with an actual mystery next time. Expand
  71. KatieY
    Jan 2, 2010
    10
    Sherlock Holmes was a great movie. Holmes was full of action and definitely kept me to the edge of my seat. Robert Downey Jr. was spectacular in Sherlock Holmes, gee its no surprise that he was nominated for a Golden Globe for this movie. I will most likely plan on seeing more of Guy Ritchie's films.
  72. 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
  73. JoeS
    Jan 25, 2010
    8
    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.
  74. 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.
  75. kgm
    Jan 30, 2010
    5
    This certainly isn
  76. 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
  77. ChrisK
    Jan 5, 2010
    9
    I thought it was fun, fast, and a blast to watch. Seems like critics wanted it to be boring, staunch, and unexciting. Too bad for them. See it. Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law killed it. A beautiful period piece with loads of laughs.
  78. Richb.
    Jan 5, 2010
    9
    Fun enough to be intelligent, and yet confident enough to wink while pulling you into the inside jokes. Near brilliant.
  79. marlac.
    Jan 8, 2010
    6
    I love Robert Downey but he never once said "elementary my dear Watson".
  80. 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.
  81. PD
    Feb 13, 2010
    10
    Excellent movie. i just simply loved the story narration and the thrill. awaiting the sequel.
  82. NerijusD.
    Feb 7, 2010
    4
    Not interesting at all. And I hate unrealistic films.
  83. HunterL
    Apr 11, 2010
    7
    An interesting mystery, yet surprisingly predictable due to Sherlock's logical world, worth a rent but not recommended to buy.
  84. HyperS
    Apr 17, 2010
    8
    The visuals (action sequences and scenery) were superb. The acting was great. And the story, while briefly making you think "oh great some unrealistic supernatural trash", comes together nicely in the end. Yes the "old" Holmes is no more in this movie.. but honestly... a more badass "I'm going to not only kick your ass with my mind, but with my fists as well" opens the door to far The visuals (action sequences and scenery) were superb. The acting was great. And the story, while briefly making you think "oh great some unrealistic supernatural trash", comes together nicely in the end. Yes the "old" Holmes is no more in this movie.. but honestly... a more badass "I'm going to not only kick your ass with my mind, but with my fists as well" opens the door to far more interesting encounters and simply...a far more entertaining movie. Expand
  85. LenV
    May 15, 2010
    9
    This picture currently has the same grade as Downey's other recent blockbuster, "Iron Man 2." Both average out to a 57. That's difficult to comprehend, since the Iron Man sequel is a piece of garbage, while this movie is full of all of the suspense that the Iron Man sequel failed to capture. Applying Sherlock Holmes-like deduction to this case, I can only guess that the critics This picture currently has the same grade as Downey's other recent blockbuster, "Iron Man 2." Both average out to a 57. That's difficult to comprehend, since the Iron Man sequel is a piece of garbage, while this movie is full of all of the suspense that the Iron Man sequel failed to capture. Applying Sherlock Holmes-like deduction to this case, I can only guess that the critics have used different standards in evaluating "Sherlock Holmes," treating it as a literary adaptation. Well, it's not Arthur Conan Doyle; it's based on a comic book version. And the result is actually better than yet another stuffy Doyle adaptation would have been: it's stylish, funny, exciting. I'm disappointed to see critics sniff at "Sherlock Holmes" just because there's a book somewhere behind it. The only misstep is Rachel McAdams, who plays her role seductively but makes it hard to imagine that she was ever a master criminal. Expand
  86. 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.
  87. LauraR.
    Dec 25, 2009
    9
    I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. Definitely more action oriented than the old movies but I still found it to be clever.
  88. WillF
    Dec 26, 2009
    1
    This was the most boring movie to ever be created. Half of the theater fell asleep over the course of this seemingly endless tragedy of classic literature. Not only was the character of Dr. Watson completely butchered, but the movie was just plain boring. There are two distinct moments when Sherlocke does the slow-motion deductive analysis of a situation which was the only interesting bit This was the most boring movie to ever be created. Half of the theater fell asleep over the course of this seemingly endless tragedy of classic literature. Not only was the character of Dr. Watson completely butchered, but the movie was just plain boring. There are two distinct moments when Sherlocke does the slow-motion deductive analysis of a situation which was the only interesting bit of this movie. Do not waste any money seeing this... ever. Just go read the books and don't let this movie tarnish your love of the originals. Expand
  89. LarryS
    Dec 26, 2009
    0
    The worst movie of the year. Nonsense from beginning to end without an ounce of anything. As usual, the special effects and the booming soundtrack predominate. The story is without a plot, only mindless action to overcome lthe void. The director should be made to look at the old Sherlock films, even the many bad ones, as punishment for this mess.
  90. SeanC.
    Dec 26, 2009
    7
    Typically I agree with the critics. For the most part, they seem to get it right, avoiding Hollywood cliche and giving plaudits to films who try to be above the fray. However, this December I am completely confused. No this was not the best film of the year, and at times reverted to traditional action film archetypes, but it was certainly worth watching. Terrific acting, clever writing, Typically I agree with the critics. For the most part, they seem to get it right, avoiding Hollywood cliche and giving plaudits to films who try to be above the fray. However, this December I am completely confused. No this was not the best film of the year, and at times reverted to traditional action film archetypes, but it was certainly worth watching. Terrific acting, clever writing, and a macabre take (and perhaps more accurate to the written stories) on what has otherwise become a cartoonish and comical Sherlock Holmes franchise. I would compare this to the "Batman Begins" of an otherwise irrelevant and outdated character. Two thumbs up, especially in light of movies like Avatar which are completely overproduced and over praised. Expand
  91. LarryJ
    Dec 26, 2009
    9
    Intense, breath-taking, and a overall great performan by Robert Downey, Jr...this movie will please all action goers. Cheers!
  92. RobertPt
    Dec 27, 2009
    2
    Very little to be positive about in this movie. Downey does a good job of giving life to a Sherlock character that is terribly written. Downey is funny in many places but that is a fault not a plus. Law is good as Watson and the character is decently written. McAdams as the female lead is terrible in a terrible role. The stars did not have much to work with. The story is lame (poor Harry Very little to be positive about in this movie. Downey does a good job of giving life to a Sherlock character that is terribly written. Downey is funny in many places but that is a fault not a plus. Law is good as Watson and the character is decently written. McAdams as the female lead is terrible in a terrible role. The stars did not have much to work with. The story is lame (poor Harry Potter ripoff - 2 males and female chasing a nether-world villain), the staging is uninspired and the costuming is weak. Save your money and avoid at all costs. Expand
  93. AndrewM.
    Dec 28, 2009
    9
    Great action movie balanced well with detective work. It seems like most people think they're Sherlock Holmes experts and complain that the wrote his character bad in this film. Look it up! the original Sherlock Holmes was a eccentric, dirty cock addict. They wrote him exactly as they should have.
  94. NicolaM.
    Dec 28, 2009
    10
    Awesome movie Brilliant acting (Rob and Jude are pretty damn good together) and finally something similar to the original Holmes, not to mention the beautiful Old London reconstruction
  95. IvanT.
    Dec 29, 2009
    7
    As anyone could tell from the previews, Doyle's Holmes is only a distant ancestor of this portrayal of the London detective. A fun film that is intended to mesmerize the audience with a steady stream of witty dialogue, clever mystery, and thrilling action. Small wonder the critics don't approve. As blockbusters go, this one's worth its weight. Best viewed in the cinema, once.
  96. CiaranH.
    Dec 29, 2009
    7
    Over the years there have been countless adaptations of Sir Arthut Conan Doyle's series of books revolving aroudn the man with the most brilliant mind in the world, Sherlock Holmes. In fact, there have been so many adaptations from so many different medias that it takes a very good film to stick out from the Sherlock Holmes crowd. Robert Downey Jr. (Holmes) brings his own unique Over the years there have been countless adaptations of Sir Arthut Conan Doyle's series of books revolving aroudn the man with the most brilliant mind in the world, Sherlock Holmes. In fact, there have been so many adaptations from so many different medias that it takes a very good film to stick out from the Sherlock Holmes crowd. Robert Downey Jr. (Holmes) brings his own unique style to the character. He shows previously unseen side of Holmes, he makes the character his own, much like Daniel Craig did in the recent James Bond films. Although the plot is developed very slowly throughout the course of the film (which is definitely overlong), Guy Ritchie manages to keep us hooked through dramatic fights and a clever, witty script. In conclusion, if you want to see another boring and repetitive adaption of Sherlock Holmes do not go and see this film, if however if you want to see a unique and brilliant take on the story do come and see this thrilling film. Expand
  97. FionaB.
    Dec 31, 2009
    7
    Great cast, intelligent and witty script. Guy Ritchie at his very best!
  98. PaulA
    Dec 31, 2009
    10
    I knew critics were useless at what they do... but seriously lol, don't quit your day job guys! Best movie of 2009 without a doubt.
  99. SK.
    Dec 30, 2009
    2
    The film was boring. The characters were badly rounded, inhuman and often unintelligent. Downey Jr. plays a part well but the part is not Sherlock Holmes. If the name was taken away from the film and it was just a stand alone adventure film with two original characters it would still be terrible. I wouldn't advise this film to Guy RItchie fans or fans of Sherlock Holmes. Just to the The film was boring. The characters were badly rounded, inhuman and often unintelligent. Downey Jr. plays a part well but the part is not Sherlock Holmes. If the name was taken away from the film and it was just a stand alone adventure film with two original characters it would still be terrible. I wouldn't advise this film to Guy RItchie fans or fans of Sherlock Holmes. Just to the masses of people who love the dumbed down action films that the film industry feel are all the public are capable of digesting. Expand
  100. AnnK.
    Jan 12, 2010
    8
    Refreshing. Great fun. Didn't come to this conclusion until about 24 hours after watching; this Sherlock and Watson and crew stays with you and ripens somehow. Excellent character development of all the major plays and also of many of the peripherals. All in all a rollicking, fun ride. Am going to see again.
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.