MOVIES: Sherlock Holmes

I saw it today.

Any comments from others who have seen it? I'm especially interested in hearing from those who are devoted fans of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's creation.

Sorry, Robert Downey Jr just doesn’t cut it for me as Holmes. Not that I’m a die-hard fan of the traditional Holmes portrayed by Peter Cushing or Christopher Lee of Basil Rathbone. I’m very much a fan of Jeremy Brett’s portrayal of a depressive, obsessive Holmes.


Speaking of Sherlock Holmes.

Watson stops by 221B to wish Holmes a merry Christmas and sees that he has a tree decorated with ornaments that look like model atoms, each lettered in glitter C, Fe, H, O, N, &c.

“Why, Holmes! What on earth is that?”

“It’s an element-tree, my dear Watson,” Holmes replies. :smiley:

no applause, just throw money

[quote="GrahamAPhone, post:3, topic:180970"]


[SIGN]What......?? Wow, so can I[/SIGN]

[quote="Yellow_Belle, post:5, topic:180970"]
[SIGN]What......?? Wow, so can I[/SIGN]



I want to see this so bad, it’s not funny. (Totally not because I might have a teensy fangirl crush on Robert Downey Jr. – nope, not in the least >.>)

Okay, so I’ve read all of the Holmes stories and novels and, from looking at the trailors, I have good feelings about it. I’m also well aware that this is Hollywood and they’re not going to be completely canon. That doesn’t bother me, however. For the most part, I do think RDJ would make a good Holmes. So far, I’m looking forward to the fighting sequences. :smiley:

I’ll let you know once I drag my husband to see it.

Saw it yesterday. Acting was superb. Loved the movie. Not boring. Fast paced. As a Catholic, you will notice a few things. The symbols of the 4 Gospels were used. There were Mason like symbols used. In one scene it looked like there was a Monstrance like thing with a cross on it on a wall behind the bad guy. I suppose the Hollywood types have to throw some religious stuff into the bad guy mix. Doesn’t bother me because I know how beautiful Catholicism is and the goodness of our religion. I highly recommend the film.

I am slightly interested in seeing this. Has anyone seen the BBC versions of Sherlock Holmes that came out a couple years back? Very well done and portrayed Holmes as very dark and with a drug habit. They were a bit grim, but tastefully done I thought.

I saw Sherlock Holmes the other night (Sunday night). I really enjoyed it. I didn’t notice anything overtly anti-religion. The main bad guy was a Satanist or practioner or black magic. But he was the bad guy :slight_smile:

I thought Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law did a great job!

He was “dark” and he DID have a drug habit!

A question for those of you who HAVE seen this film, how faithful is it to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's creation?

[quote="Tenebrae, post:12, topic:180970"]
A question for those of you who HAVE seen this film, how faithful is it to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's creation?


Any similarity is completely coincidental.

[quote="Tenebrae, post:12, topic:180970"]
A question for those of you who HAVE seen this film, how faithful is it to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's creation?


Umm...this was my biggest problem with the film.

There were many aspects that they nailed. E.g., the bull pup. I have NEVER seen any Sherlock Holmes film or television show that had the bull pup, even though it's clearly part of the Canon. It was awesome!

OTOH, more actors have portrayed Sherlock Holmes than any other fictional character (cool, isn't it?!), so obviously I haven't seen most of these portrayals, so it's very likely that other films, television shows, and stage productions HAVE used the bull pup. I have never seen the Ellie Norwood portrayal, and from what I have read, this is the best along with Jeremy Brett. Perhaps this series used the bull pup.

Another Canon aspect that was portrayed was Watson's gambling problem. Bravo. The Granada television series with Jeremy Brett hinted at the gambling problem. The new movie really emphasized it.

Interestingly, Jude Law made his debut in one of those Granada episodes. He was the stableboy in Shoscombe Olde Place. I think ??? that several other actors in the movie were involved with those Granada episodes, although I haven't taken the time to look them all up and check.

What really bothered me about this movie was the portrayal of Holmes as a slob in his personal hygiene. Yes, he is definitely a clutterbug, as evidenced by many statements in the Canon about the piles of papers in his rooms, and "the state of his rooms."

But when it comes to personal hygiene and appearance, Watson describes him as having a "cat-like love of personal cleanliness."

I really had a difficult time with Holmes portrayed as a slob. Really difficult time.

Also, I think the movie portrayed Holmes and Watson as too "modern." The characterizations struck me as 2010 men (especially all the wisecracks and sarcasm) lifted into the Victorian Age. That's just not right, IMO.

One of the things the movie failed to do, IMO, was demonstrate Holmes' deductive abilities. Yes, he certainly figured out the case (ANY detective, including the people on all the CSI shows on television, would have figured out the case!), but one of the things that makes the Doyle stories so wondrous is that Holmes will not only solve a crime, but in the course of the story, will deduce that a woman in the train station is a professional typist, or a man sitting in a restaurant has recently left his wife. I personally think that more of this "everyday deduction" and less of the spectacular case-related deductions would have made this movie more likeable.

Finally--and I'm not sure if I can explain this--I did not like the portrayal of Holmes as "hyper" in his mind. In the stories, he is described as a "reasoning machine." He describes to Watson how he carefully and deliberately organizes his brain, ignoring anything (e.g., the Copernican theory of the Solar system) that has nothing to do with his work. The comment about the bridge that Holmes makes early in the film struck me as ridiculous--this doesn't seem like the type of fact that Holmes would ever bother to remember.

In the film, Holmes appears to be constantly hyper, almost like a child with ADHD. Or perhaps a better word would be "autistic"--he appears unconnected with what's going on. This is so far from the portrayal in the canon and on the Granada series, in which Holmes is so focused on a case that he doesn't eat or sleep, and appears positively inhuman, according to Watson.

I also think, along with many critics, that the case in the film is just plain SILLY. Villains taking over the world--utter nonsense. In the stories, Prof. Moriarty, Holmes' greatest foe, wants MONEY. He never expresses any desire to "rule the world." That's the kind of thing that you see on the Saturday morning cartoon shows like Transformers and He-Man, Masters of the Universe. OR in James Bond movies.

I would have liked the film better if they had made it clear that the villain and his group were actually a re-presentation of Aleister Crowley and his occult organization, The Silver Star. Crowley did his evil stuff during the time that Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson were at work in London.

Anyway, I am grateful that the film has once again raised interest in Doyle's Canon, and I'm sure that many people, especially teenagers, will read the original stories and although many will be bored, there will be some who will become the future Sherlockians and continue the legacy.

[quote="didymus, post:4, topic:180970"]
Speaking of Sherlock Holmes.

Watson stops by 221B to wish Holmes a merry Christmas and sees that he has a tree decorated with ornaments that look like model atoms, each lettered in glitter C, Fe, H, O, N, &c.

"Why, Holmes! What on earth is that?"

"It's an element-tree, my dear Watson," Holmes replies. :D

no applause, just throw money




I gave the movie 8 out of 10 stars. I kind of knew going in that it didn't hold too tightly to the novels. So I let it go and took it for what it is.

Saw it yesterday.
The story line was kind of weak
lbut I loved the shots of London.
I’m not sure if Tower Bridge was built in the 19th century
Thought they set it up for a sequel


Saw it on Sunday. Loved it…Big production, nicely filmed. Like Downey, Law, and Rachel McAdams. Great accent work by Downey by the way.

I am a big Sherlock fan. Of course, many liberties were taken by casting Robert Downey Jr. His Sherlock is a lot physically different. Also mannerisms and even style of dress are different. But I think it really works for this film. I love his character. He did keep his powers of deduction and logic throughout.

Nice set ups to how the crime was played out and solved.

Many of my FB Friends thought too many errors in how London was filmed, some modern things show up in the film, but who cares?

I liked it very much…:thumbsup:

I just took it for what it was fun…I think Downey and Law might become the new Robert Redford Paul Newman type duo

I suspect die hard Conan Doyle fans won’t like it, but I am not one, so I just went along for the ride

Lots of action ,and lots of verbal sparring, just a fun couple of hrs of escapism for us

Can I say that the soundtrack is absolutely amazing? 'Cuz it is! :D

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit