I decided to wait a few days after seeing Sherlock Holmes before opening this - in hopes that my dislike of the film would fade. Unfortunately, it seems more that I keep finding new and entertaining ways to dislike it, so....

Much of my disdain for the movie is entailed to Downey's portrayal of Holmes. Law was actually better as Watson than I expected, keeping a military bearing, though Watson's limp never seemed to come up, aside from him carrying a sword stick (something that is decidedly not canon).

Some good things - Sets were well done (I could set the era circa 1890 - 1892, most likely late 1890 to mid 1891, by the progress of the Tower Bridge). Buildings were fairly period, and costumes were much closer than those of say Bram Stoker's Dracula, though in the case of the female lead much simplified. (Possibly acceptable, as Irene Adler was an adventuress - though neither Law nor Downey pronounced Irene in the British fashion.) Music was nice, though sometimes not having any real bearing on the story. (I love Rocky Road to Dublin, but what does it have to with Sherlock Holmes?)

I will leave out much of my annoyances, some are those of a purist (the bull dog belonged to Holmes, not Watson, and was only mentioned once, in A Study in Scarlet, as one example ). Some are on a lack of period sense (anyone who expects Parliament to act in a rational, let alone united, fashion has not done their homework), others are chemical [Spoiler]prussic acid or cyanide has such an easily recognizable tell tale that there would be no way that it could be passed off as sorcery, and is caustic enough that it would mark the pipes used to channel the poison into Parliament. And why didn't they come out and say that a shellfish poison was used to simulate death? Fugu would work as well, or in a pinch deadly nightshade. [/Spoiler] Etc., etc. etc.....

What were other people's opinion of the film?

One thing, the sets made me very much desire some suitable World Works terrain.

The Auld Grump, the film pretty much lived down to my expectations.

I am off to see it this Saturday with the Edmonton Steampunk society. Looks like too much of a buddy comedy/action movie for my tastes but we will see...

Gump,

Is this really an action movie?
The previews made it look like it was, and that just destroyed any desire I had to watch it.

As I remember it:
Homes was not an action star (Except for in the final solution) and as a matter of fact I think I remember a few stories where he never even left his chair.
So how can this be an action movie and still be Sherlock Holmes????

Yes, the plot was dumbed down. Despite what your beliefs and intelligence may be, the sad truth is that Hollywood MUST cater to the majority, or have a serious flop on their hands. All of the spoiler data Auld posted was valid. Holmes would have had things figured out much sooner than shown [spoiler]After invading the laboratory, Holmes knew all of the pieces. He may have been confused for a brief time as to what the intended purpose was for each, but with his legendary skills of deductive reasoning the pieces would have fallen into place well in time to prevent the warehouse explosion at least./spoiler

The plot is just subtle enough that a modern teenager might just miss out on a few vital clues and be surprised at the ending. Maybe - you never know. They could have meant to go see Harry Potter and stumbled into the wrong theatre?

In spite of all of that I enjoyed the movie as good cinema. As an adaptation of the classic works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, it fails to live up. As a modern movie you could certainly do worse - The Time Machine, for example.

I fear the days of intellectually stimulating cinema are long gone.

Fair enough. I don't detect whether you have seen it, but if not do try to track down a 'licit or illicit episode of the original WWW and you'll see where some of the charm comes from. The gadgetry is dialed back a bit and may be more up your alley. The movie was a disaster and I consider it karmic rebuke to Kenneth Branagh for divorcing Emma Thompson (you just don't DO that).

Does anyone out there remember "Without a Clue"? Its a comedy take on Sherlock Holmes, where Holmes is an absolute bumbling bafoon and Watson does all the work.

I've got nothing but good to say about the new Sherlock Holmes. Yeah, it's a buddy/action-adventure flick, but a very well done one. The treatment of Holmes' legendary observational powers as unambiguously OCD was compelling and entertaining.

The ass-kickingness was over the top, and has little to do with Conan Doyle, but it works. The Irene Adler character suffers from less than the usual amount of TheGirl Syndrome--she's obviously shoehorned in as a love interest and source of intrigue, but she's well acted.

I didn't mind when Lord of the Rings was turned into action-adventure, so I'm cool with this very-alternate take on Holmes & Co.

Besides, it's gorgeous. My wife insists on getting the Blu-ray.

I like SH, but wasn't expecting much from it, and so wasn't let down. It had some interesting moments, and a few WTF moments. I loved Jude Law as Watson. I really didn't like Rachel McWhatsHerName as Irene. To me she was easily the least compelling actor in the movie. I liked the woman who played Mary much more, actually.