Customer Reviews

Sherlock Holmes [Blu-ray]

5 star:		(175)
4 star:		(111)
3 star:		(61)
2 star:		(40)
1 star:		(68)

 

 

First of all, as of this writing, Amazon still states that this item is a three disc set, but this is not the case. The DVD and digital copy are included on the same disc, while a second disc contains the Blu-Ray version. This isn't an issue, of course, just a small clarification. Speaking of which, I've seen a significant number of complaints regarding the inclusion of the DVD/digital copy in the Blu-Ray version, with many complaining that they want neither and it's needlessly driving the cost up.

A simple comparison of this item against other Blu-Rays on Amazon proves this title costs no more than any other new release, and the DVD/digital copy is actually a very nice bonus for those who buy the film early. I, for instance, plan to loan out the DVD to friends who don't own Blu-Ray players. The digital copy is nice, I suppose, but I've never been bored enough to want to watch a film on my iPod or laptop. Besides which, like all digital copies, it expires a year from now. I'm actually glad it's included on the same disc as the DVD, because all other digital copies included on a separate disc I've ended up tossing out.

Upon loading the Blu-Ray into the player three trailers will run. This is, of course, typical practice. The irritating part is that the disc will not allow the user to access the menu from the trailers, and the user is forced to manually fast-forward through each trailer. A minor complaint, to be sure, but irritating nonetheless. The film runs 02:08:24 and the Blu-Ray includes ten bonus features (the DVD doesn't contain a single special feature). The included audio tracks and subtitles are in English, French, and Spanish. The first eight features are all collected in the "Focus Points" section and consist of eight 3-5 minute featurettes exploring a specific facet of the film (there is a "Play All" function included). Most of the titles are rather self-explanatory, but here's a complete rundown of the featurettes:

1) "Drawbridges & Doilies: Designing a Late Victorian London" (5:00) - This feature highlights how the production designers suffused life into their vision of Victorian London with an acute attention to detail.

2) "Not a Deerstalker Cap in Sight" (4:15) - This feature explains how the filmmakers decided to take the Holmes character back to his roots in the original Arthur Conan Doyle tales and compare the Downey interpretation against past cinematic versions of Holmes.

3) "Ba-ritsu: A Tutorial" (3:58) - This feature explores how the filmmakers blended various real-life martial arts into the fictional version featured in the film, along with explaining how Holmes was a former fighter well-versed in martial arts in the original Doyle stories.

4) "Elementary English: Perfecting Sherlock's Accent" (4:04) - This feature explores how American Downey refined his English accent for the film. Director Guy Ritchie observes that he preferred an American because it gives the Holmes character an "international" flavor.

5) "The One That Got Away" (3:44) - This feature delves a bit into the psyche of Holmes, particularly his stance on love and his relationships with women.

6) "Powers of Observation & Deduction" (4:01) - This features Lionel Wigram (writer & producer of "Sherlock Holmes") explaining why he was attracted to the project, along with what makes Holmes such an enduringly fascinating character.

7) "The Sherlockians" (3:03) - The feature explores the diehard, borderline obsessive Holmes fans who organize annual meetings to discuss Doyle's life and works.

8) "Future Past" (3:08) - This feature highlights how, with the aid of both sets and modern technology, the filmmakers were able to recreate the glory and grime of Victorian London.

The ninth feature is included in the "Behind the Movie" section and is called "Sherlock Holmes Reinvented" (14:06) - This is a more involving feature which functions as an extension of the other featurettes. The filmmakers discuss why they felt attracted to the project and how they desired to stay true to the source material, as opposed to the cinematic versions of the past.

The most celebrated special feature here, prominently featured in the television ads, is the "Maximum Movie Mode". This is a sort of interactive film commentary with director Ritchie (running slightly longer than the film itself) that includes picture-in-picture still images, behind the scenes videos, cast and crew interviews, technical details of the film, and of course Ritchie's commentary. It's this sort of feature that truly makes a Blu-Ray special, aside from the enhanced high-definition image, of course. A typical film commentary simply has the director talking over the film, which can be informative but distracting. The "Maximum Movie Mode" is a much more entertaining commentary that even includes the option for user interactivity.

The content of the film itself is highly subjective, particularly with a character as famed and revered as Sherlock Holmes, and I don't feel particularly compelled to add my thoughts. As a Blu-Ray release, however, this title is every bit as impressive as it should be. I particularly appreciate how the special features didn't just shed light on the filmmaking process, but spent ample time discussing Doyle's stories, the various interpretations of the Holmes character, and the lasting legacy of it all. I'm proud to include this film in my collection. Five easy stars.

I've watched this version of Holmes a number of times now, and I must admit it surprises me in its subtlety and intelligence every time. As earlier reviews have noted, in the main this is actually a quite faithful representation of Holmes and Watson in light of the original stories (which I've read and, indeed, taught a number of times). At the same time, it's an excellent stylization of late Victorian England, and I think that's how it should be understood: at once a faithful interpretation that brings out all the pleasures of the original and a commentary on Victorian society as it transitioned into the twentieth century (which is, I'd hold, exactly what Doyle's stories were--a commentary on the modern). To quote from another well-known and frequently-adapted Victorian novel, it's "nineteenth century up-to-date with a vengeance."

The structure of the story itself could well be one of Doyle's original stories. It especially reminds me of "The Adventure of the Speckled Band," in which an apparently supernatural series of events turns out to have a logical explanation. This is what surprised me the most when I saw the movie for the first time: that it engaged Doyle's narrative strategies in film form. In fact, this engagement is incredibly detailed. For instance, the scenes early in the movie where Irene Adler visits Holmes at home exploit Doyle's typical doubleness: at first we get a strung-together series of events whose chain of cause and effect are unexplained. Then, later, we get a recap in which Holmes explains that chain in detail, supposedly to Watson but really to the viewing audience. This particular set of scenes is, I think, one of the most admirable in the movie. It works as an exploration of narrative (which was always Doyle's point anyway--see the numerous stories in which Holmes chides Watson for transcribing their "adventures" as, exactly, adventures, as opposed to scientific processes of reasoning), and it works so brilliantly because of the intelligence behind it. Even the soundtrack (by Hans Zimmer of Gladiator fame) underscores the narrative structure here: the first time the events are portrayed, they're given a particular musical theme, and when they're re-portrayed by Holmes they're given a theme that's the musical inverse of the original. It's an example of all the various elements of film-making coming together in a subtle and fascinating way to demonstrate a point.

This attention to detail, not to mention stylishness, is present in the entire movie. It has nary a narrative hole (with, I think, one slight exception, which I won't detail so as not to produce any plot spoilers) and its overall structure is admirable taut. In fact, the movie is littered with strikingly subtle details that remain unexplained (e.g. the recurrence of "V.R.", an abbreviation of "Victoria Regina," or "Queen Victoria") by Holmes's narrative explications--the sheer quantity of detail in the movie points to the fascination with, precisely, detail that fascinates Holmes. (To cite just one more example: when Watson hands a newspaper to Holmes early in the movie, it features an ad for "Fry's Chocolates," which was the family business that gave Roger Fry, one of the members of the Bloomsbury Group whose most famous member is Virgina Woolf, his fortune.)

The movie does take liberties with its source material, signally with the representation of Irene Adler. But it acknowledges that it's doing so in a number of clever, apparently offhand details. At one point, Watson notes that Adler has outsmarted Holmes "twice," which indicates that the movie is adding on to the canon of Holmes stories--in Doyle's corpus, Adler appears exactly once (in "A Scandal in Bohemia"), so Guy Ritchie openly acknowledges the extrapolations he's made in this movie. In short, the movie notes explicitly that it's an adaptation as part of its adaptation.

All of this works brilliantly because the actors are brilliant: Robert Downey Jr. displays his usual genius (shown in another recent action movie), Jude Law presents the kind of Watson that other adaptations have eschewed (an intelligent ladies' man quite in tune with Doyle's character), and Rachel McAdams represents Adler as a clever and daunting adversary, which is quite in keeping with Doyle's character. McAdams may be especially worth noting, as Adler is one of the most significant as well as mysterious characters in the Holmes universe--her character is probably the biggest departure from the original in the movie, and McAdams carries it well. The cinematography is stylish and the soundtrack is excellent and really catchy. There are a couple of faults--some obvious day-for-night shooting and some clear CG--but I'm willing to indulge these because of the movie's overall excellence.

Basically, this movie is exactly what Hollywood used to produce and what it wishes it could achieve now: an intelligent, entertaining, and subtle movie that invites some effort on the viewer's part but also entertains enormously.

I'm looking forward to the sequel!

Ok. For all those who are saying. "If you are looking for a faithful version, adaptation, etc look elsewhere..." I ask you: Have you actually read Sherlock Holmes or are you basing that statement on your image of Sherlock Holmes as has been portrayed in the past?
Where in all of the stories does it state that Holmes wears a deerstalker hat and walks around with a Calabash pipe? Sidney Paget, who illustrated the stories for The Strand magazine, interpreted the descriptions in the stories. That was his version of what Holmes might look like.
This new version is Guy Ritchie's interpretation and it is quite refreshing. In the stories, Holmes is a boxer, bare knuckle fighter, marksman, swordsman and an accomplished martial artist in addition to being brilliant at deduction and a master of disguise. There was only one woman whom Holmes was impressed by in his life -most of these qualities are portrayed in the new film so how is this "not faithful"? If anything, it is one of the most faithful movies to deal with Holmes that I have ever seen.
I will admit that for "classic" Holmes there is no better than Jeremy Brett in my humble opinion. His performance will never be matched. However, that is an entirely different interpretation of the character. I approached this new film with an open mind and was very pleasantly surprised.
Robert Downey Jr. is, in my opinion, a perfect fit for this role. His ability to reflect the intelligence, physical prowess and sardonic wit of Holmes was dead on. Jude law was exceptional as Dr. Watson. Not some bumbling, moronic sidekick of the past but a true companion possessing formidable skills of his own. Just as in the stories.
Downey and Law's performance was a pleasure to watch and they have great chemistry on screen. I was also very impressed by 19th century London. CGI has come a long way.
The main reason that I do not give this movie 5 stars is due to the plot itself which I will not go into here. (I don't like SPOILERS) I will just say that though we are most likely being set up for a sequel I felt the story could have had a little more meat on it's bones. Overall though, I thought it was extremely entertaining.
I still do not understand why there are so many saying that this new film is not faithful. Is it a word for word adaptation of the stories? No. The worst that could be said is that like Peter Jackson did with Lord of the Rings, Guy Ritchie has maintained the true "spirit" of the Holmes character -though I would say he has done much, much more.

I expected a bit more from Downey and Law, but the movie was a fun experience for a one-time ride. I think Downey does for Sherlock Holmes what Johnny Depp did for Pirates of the Caribbean...just not as well. You tend to notice his little mannerisms and quirks in this movie so he resembles Depp. Interestingly enough though, Jude Law's Watson keeps him in check when he goes too far. There's a bit of whimsical idiocy here, which keeps you laughing just when you think there's a dull moment to be had. The plot is pretty simple and I won't give anything away, but I feel that this is one of those movies that you either watch in the theater once, or you buy the dvd and watch it on occasion. Not great but not bad.

Both Robert Downey, Jr. and Jude Law bring an energy to the personas of Holmes and Watson that has been rarely seen. A mix of mystery, adventure, action, sci-fi and comedy, SHERLOCK HOLMES has a splash of everything and it works extremely well.

What Downey was able to do was exaggerate the known Holmes' skills (from deductive and inductive intelligence, through the arts of combat to his eccentric quirkiness), but avoid exaggerating them so much as to make them unbelievable.

The rapport between Holmes and Watson is much more human and equal than the superior/inferior, genius/buffoon that is often portrayed.

Those without imagination and particularly purists who only treasure the Conan Doyle canon and avoid pastiches of all kinds will not take to this film, but for anyone who enjoys lively adventure with a personable cast, SHERLOCK HOLMES is a must see.

There aren't many movies around that dare to reinvent something both literary and cinematic that is beloved by readers and movie-goers alike, but action director Guy Ritchie has dared in a big way ...and succeeded beyond my expectations.

When Sir Arthur Conan Doyle created Sherlock Holmes (A Study in Scarlet, 1887), he made Holmes a roughshod, drug-addled genius with keen deductive powers. This made him a person that lay-readers could identify with. A man with problems, but with unique abilities that were much in demand. Coming off the heels of the Victorian era, too, Holmes was - in a very real way - a person coming out of that stuffy time period and into the more loose and modern one. Again, something readers of the time could identify with.

Although the books live on in perpetuity, most of the population over the age of 40 are probably more familiar with director Roy Neill's television series starring the estimable Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes and Nigel Bruce as Dr. Watson (if you're under 40 you're probably hooked on the hit TV series House M.D. which has more than just a passing familiarity with Doyle's character). Basil recreated the character of Holmes and also cleaned him up quite a bit. No drugs. Clean shaven. A real gentleman. In Doyle's literary works, however, this is far from the case ... which brings us to this new manifestation: the 2009 cinematic work starring Robert Downey Jr. (Tropic Thunder) as Holmes and Jude Law (REPO MEN) as Watson.

Downey Jr. is one of our great new actors. He is a chameleon in every sense of the word. Which is why I found his Holmes to be extremely well played. From his migraines to drugging Watson's beloved dog, Downey Jr. truly encompassed everything that Doyle wrote about. He's both brilliant and prone to folly; seeks a new case that's semi-interesting but is just as likely to seek out a new drug to make him feel more interested; and only has eyes for one woman, the lovely Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams, The Family Stone) who is just as much trouble as any drug or migraine.

This film is, hopefully, a reawakening of the Sherlock Holmes mystique; but a reawakening with Doyle's truly flawed character and not some scrubbed clean version. The ending of this movie certainly leaves open the possibility of a sequel. Let's hope that happens.

One final word of warning in case you didn't get what I was saying: this isn't your grandmas Sherlock Holmes. If you want Rathbone, go watch him. If you want Doyle's Holmes, check out Guy Ritchie's newest (and more accurate) interpretation.

With pure curiosity I read the reviews with one star. I wondered how this movie would get just one star. My parents have been long fans of Sherlock Holmes so it is a character I grew up with. My Father was big in to the original Literary novels and my Mother loved the Jeremy Brett television version. I have seen that and the Basil Rathbone version and I loved this. The literary Character was troubled with a drug addiction and still was able to use such an amazing mind to figure out the most minute details. I feel that this movie gave a fair representation of the character even though there are several who will disagree. Robert Downey Jr's Sherlock is more into the drugs than Sir Conan Doyle's but it still leaves you in awe that a Character so blitzed out of his mind has the most impressive deductive reasoning.

The movie was in my opinion very well written and the Plot was one that pulls you in form the beginning and doesn't let go till the very end. The ending even left it open for a sequel that I can't wait for and I have heard nothing to the sort that they are even going to do a sequel. Some may disagree with this statement and to each his own, but I was happy to see a more literary Sherlock Holmes when I was expecting a more modern action hero from what the previews led on. That being said the fight scenes are a bit comical at times but a bit of light hearted humor is always welcome in such a serious setting. What interested me in these scenes was that you get to watch it play out in Holmes' head and he will voice over the reason for his choice of attacks. He even explains the duration of recovery time the attack will take.

To anyone who has enjoyed Sherlock Holmes I recommend this movie and to those who have not heard of the character or know little about him, this is a great opportunity to be introduced to some of the best Literature ever. If seeing this movie gets some one to pick up a book it has more that done its job.

If your idea of Sherlock Holmes comes from the Jeremy Brett, British TV series of the 1980s and 1990s or perhaps from the series of films starring Basil Rathbone, Director Guy Ritchie gives us a Holmes reinvented for the 21st century. Now ordinarily hearing how a character has been reinvented or re-imagined might send you screaming out of the theater but such is not the case with "Sherlock Holmes" starring Robert Downey Jr. in the title role. While modernizing the feel of the character, Ritchie also embraces the original vision of author Arthur Conan Doyle perhaps more than any other adaptation.

As described by Dr. John Watson in Doyle's original texts, Holmes was an expert boxer, swordsman, and master of the "singlestick" a martial arts form utilizing a wooden stick, such as a walking stick, as a weapon. Holmes was also versed in a form of Japanese wrestling he referred to as "Baritsu". Ritchie embraces these aspects of the character to full effect, with Holmes relying on his fists almost as much as his mind. And while not actually stated, Holmes' addiction to cocaine, legal at the time in England, is hinted at strongly.

The film opens with a bang with Holmes and Watson (Jude Law) are on the trail of the man responsible for the ritual murders of several women in 1891 London. The killer is revealed as the prominent Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) who is captured and hanged, but not before he gives Holmes an ominous warning. Three days later, Blackwood's tomb is destroyed from the inside and the groundskeeper tells the local constables that he saw Blackwood returned to life. Holmes and Watson, along with sometimes Holmes love interest Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) work to uncover the secret behind Blackwood's dark arts before he can make good on his threat to kill the members of the House of Lords and plunge England into chaos.

As mentioned this is a different Holmes than were used to seeing but in many ways the most faithful to Conan Doyle's stories. He is arrogant and enjoys figuring out things that befuddle the police but he is basically a loner outside of friendship with Watson. His demeanor is cold as his penchant for observation and deduction is off-putting to most other people. And yet you can see his reliance and affection for Watson as the grounding figure in his life. When Watson announces his impending marriage to Mary Morstan, Holmes is clearly jealous. Downey and Law have a wonderful chemistry...their scenes together are filled with witty and often humorous repartee.

Ritchie has created a remarkable vision of Victorian London in all its glory and seediness. You can almost smell the stale water along the banks of the Thames and feel the chill of the air along Baker Street. The remarkable set pieces and visual effects bring this period of London to life and it is as big a star as Downey Jr. or Law.

While purists may be turned off by the extensive action sequences and CGI, this is a film meant to thrill rather than intrigue. Holmes still goes about solving mysteries but he's more a man of action than we've seen in previous depictions. One note of concern is that a rather large sub-plot is left open, obviously hinting sequel. The film certainly did well enough to warrant a follow-up but with Downey's involvement with the Iron Man and Avengers films, who knows when Holmes might be revisited.

Blu-Ray Extras

Maximum Movie Mode. After you've watched the movie, watch it again in Maximum Movie Mode. Instead of audio commentary, this is video commentary hosted by Director Guy Ritchie in which he takes viewers through the entire production, walking on to the film and utilizing split screens with Picture in Picture, still galleries, and storyboard comparisons.

Focus Points is a series of eight short featurettes:

Drawbridges and Doilies: Designing Late Victorian London (4:48) Production designer Sarah Greenwood shows how they went about creating a realistic looking 1891 London.

Not a Deerstalker Cap In Sight (4:15) A look at the Holmes character in the film and how the filmmakers tried to remain truer to Arthur Conan Doyle's original vision.

Ba-Ritsu (3:57) Looks at the martial arts skills of Holmes in the film. Downey himself practices Wing Chun Kung-Fu

Elementary English: Perfecting Holmes' Accent (4:03) Dialect Coach Andrew Jack and Robert Downey Jr. discuss how his English accent was perfected.

Powers of Observation and Deduction (4:01) Looks at Holmes' legendary powers of deduction and how they were utilized in the film.

The Sherlockians (3:02) This featurette provides a glimpse at Holmes fans and various fan groups including the famous Baker Street Irregulars, founded in 1934.

Future Past (4:00) Looks at how actual locations in London were filmed and then transformed with visual effects to be reverted back to how it looked nearly 120 years ago.

Behind the Story: Sherlock Holmes Reinvented (14:05) This documentary features interviews with cast and crew covering how the film made Homes a 19th Century James Bond type of character but still embracing the source material.

Whether or not this accurately portrays the Sherlock Holmes from the famous stories is unimportant, at least for me. I wanted to see a good, entertaining film, and that is exactly what I experienced. It is by no means a classic masterpiece, but it was certainly a fun ride. The plot is a tad on the choppy side, but it doesn't deter from whole experience.

The film works beautifully first and foremost because of the wonderful chemistry between Holmes and Watson. It felt pure and believable and watching them argue and bicker for almost the entire film was refreshing and amusing. Jude Law's Watson is the voice of reason and under all the sarcasm and berating, truly cares for his long-time friend. In my opinion, a perfectly cast role. Though I also loved Robert Downey Jr as Holmes, I felt that he muttered alot in the film and was at times hard to understand. But his physical presence saved the role and you can tell he put 100% into this part.

The scenery was gloomy and strangely beautiful, as were the period details, costumes, etc. Guy Ritchie did a fantastic job in reimagining the era and creating a sense of mystery tinged with a clever, comedic flair.

Sherlock Holmes contains enough action, mystery and comedy to keep just about anybody from being bored and would do well with multiple viewings.

Sherlock Holmes' legacy got killed by this movie. It could've been much better, but it wasn't. For those old readers who love and know Sherlock Holmes, the movie was terrible. Even though it had Robert Downey Junior as Sherlock Holmes (which was wonderful, he really fits the character), some great scenes and other good deductions that Sherlock Holmes made during the movie, it wasn't good enough to be a Sherlock Holmes film. The soundtrack was horrible (too much country music, which doesn't fit Sherlock Holmes in anyway). If you see the trailer, it may convices you to buy it, but it's foolish.

It was a nice idea to make a Sherlock Holmes with more action, but it didn't workout. Once the movie starts, you want to keep watching (after all, the beginning was nice), but after an hour, it gets boring and you lose the point of the film. Sherlock Holmes (not only the character, but everything in the movie) was too modern; of course it's during the XIX century, but the music, the fighting scenes, and the characters were too modern. I think that, once again, Hollywood tried to make something good of what already was and screwed up. For those who already read all other Sherlock Holmes' stories, the script was nice because it used old talks, like "Because I was looking for it" ("Silver Blaze"); "You have the grand gift of silence, Watson. It makes you quite invaluable as a companion" ("The Man with the Twisted Lip"); "Crime is common, logic is rare" ("The Adventure of the Copper Beeches"); "My mind rebels at stagnation. Give me problems. Give me work" (The Sign of the Four); "It makes a considerable difference to me, having someone with me on whom I can thoroughly rely" ("The Boscombe Valley Mystery"); "Data, data, data--I cannot make bricks without clay" ("The Adventure of the Copper Beeches"), and "...one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts" ("A Scandal in Bohemia").

The director wastes time to talk about Watson's marriage. What does that got to do with the story, it's so childish. I hope that in the next movie (which has already been confirmed) the director, Guy Ritchie, changes. Instead of wasting time on action and comedy, the director and his crew should concentrate on more interesting subject to make the spectator interested and mystery.

I'm sorry to say the truth, but don't except much from the movie because you're going to let yourself down.