MovieChat Forums > Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011) Discussion > How has this movie got a 7+ rating? It's...

How has this movie got a 7+ rating? It's utter trollop.

posted 13 years ago by worxpace
130 replies | jump to latest

I rented this on the fact that 85,000 people had given it a rating of 7.6. After watching Guy Ritchie and Robert Downey Jr mangle their way through one of literature's greatest characters in what has to be the worst adaptation of Sherlock ever put to film, I thought I had to be off my rocker.

I wish I had read the NY Times review of this first, because the writer there nailed it. This was over-stylised, inane and really un-engaging. I want my 2 hours back.

[–] Spifflock_Holmes 13 years ago

I want my 2 hours back.

Well, you can't have them.

----

Lazy + smart = efficient.

[–] mmq1 13 years ago

didnt give it 2 hours.

getting smart in my old age.

[–] Lunam 13 years ago

Because the fact that most people liked it, doesn't mean you have to like it too...? I liked it, by the way. But I get why some people don't.

[–] boxerrebellion 11 years ago

So did I, but I also LOVE the older, more true to the canon ones, especially Basil Rathbone's interpretations. I also am really enjoying the current CBS version. I think that if you accept the interpretation for what it offers, there are many that are satisfying.

[–] Adkit 13 years ago

Then don't go to a modern day action-comedy movie expecting it to be identical to a detective story book from the 1800s. What are you, some kind of idiot?

[–] worxpace 13 years ago

Did I say I expected it to be exactly like a Holmes book? Work on your reading comprehension there Adkit. I said it was a bad film. It is objectively a bad film.

[–] Spifflock_Holmes 13 years ago

Did I say I expected it to be exactly like a Holmes book? Work on your reading comprehension there Adkit. I said it was a bad film.

Actually you said that you had watched "Guy Ritchie and Robert Downey Jr mangle their way through one of literature's greatest characters in what has to be the worst adaptation of Sherlock ever put to film."

Adkit isn't evincing any reading comprehension problems. If you weren't concerned about the film's quality and/or faithfulness specifically as an adaptation, then you chose an odd and misleading way of expressing yourself.

----

Lazy + smart = efficient.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Spifflock_Holmes 13 years ago

*highfive*

----

Lazy + smart = efficient.

[–] murad23 13 years ago

Your high fiving yourself makes you come off as no more than a troll*. The film is is exceptionally poor. the OP, Worxpace sense of the film is valid and mainstream, and reflects most of the seriuos critics. The film takes some of the best characters ever created, Holmes, some very good talent (Downey) and comes up with garbage.

*I notice one of you only post on this film board. Pretty obvious and sad to have to create a second account just to back yourself up

[–] Spifflock_Holmes 13 years ago

Your high fiving yourself makes you come off as no more than a troll*. . . .

*I notice one of you only post on this film board. Pretty obvious and sad to have to create a second account just to back yourself up

Your brilliant deduction is incorrect. I'm not high-fiving myself, and my posting history will easily confirm that I've had no previous interactions with springheeljack84.

And since I've been on these boards since 2005 and springheeljack84 has been here for even longer, both of us with active posting histories (all of which is easily verified by anyone who wants to bother, as apparently you didn't), your suggestion that I created his account to "back [my]self up" is ludicrous. You might as well claim that I created yours in order to have someone to argue with.

No, I'm afraid it's your resorting (at step one, no less) to accusations of sock-puppetry to support your low opinion of the film that smacks of obviousness and sadness.

the OP, Worxpace sense of the film is valid . . .

Perhaps. His denial that he was comparing it to the original stories and evaluating it as an adaptation, however, is not, and therefore neither was his attack on Adkit's "reading comprehension." That, not his "sense of the film," is what I was addressing when I quoted his post.

Unfortunately it's not what you're addressing, so once again it's you who are off the mark -- at least if you intended your post to be in any way relevant to mine.

----

Lazy + smart = efficient.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] adamcarlton 13 years ago

*thumbs up*

[–] AndromedaRoach 12 years ago

*thumbs up*

and also *high five*

The Cockroach Honor Award
2008: WALL-E
2009: G-Force
The cockroach is a noble beast

[–] Mick1994 13 years ago

Make that 3 *thumbs up*.

[–] hphan714 12 years ago

"You might as well claim that I created yours in order to have someone to argue with."

Hahaha. Make that four thumbs-up.

[–] new_world81 12 years ago

thumbs up, 5 months later

[–] CinAtlanta 11 years ago

Even more belated thumbs up

[–] NHLiptak 11 years ago

I like that retort very much.

[–] P-Badurek 13 years ago

There is no such thing as an objectively bad film.
It can be a bad film in your opinion.
As you might have realized there is quite a big group of people liking it.

I also assume you have never seen the first part of Guy Ritchies Sherlock Holmes adaptations otherwise you would have never rented this one.

And I surely agree with you that the second one you have seen cannot match up to the first one.
The style of the movie and characters is yet the same in both.

[–] vesperknight 13 years ago

I really wish IMDB let you apply some permanent and serious filters to the rating system.

IE, I would like to be able to ignore votes coming from certain people based on specific criteria.

The rating system has otherwise lost too much credibility, it was already bad before but now it's ridiculous.

Already if you could ignore votes from people under 25 that'd be a damn good start.. even if that's heavily generalizing.. today's youth has proven that they can't be trusted when you look at how they vote on too many hollywood blockbusters

[–] Adkit 13 years ago

I'm not saying I don't think that young people have a seemingly bad taste in movies but you're only coming off as a pompous know-it-all if you seriously say "these people obviously aren't as sophisticated as me and don't deserve an opinion". It's a public rating system. Public being everyone. It's not meant to be elitist.

[–] liams-2 13 years ago

I agree with the other guy. It was a good idea until you started generalising and being prejudicial against young people. I have had what is considered an 'arty' taste in films (I hate that term because it's so arrogant) since I was 16. I know plenty of 40+ people who watch Hollywood Blockbusters and love them (my dad among them).

[–] king_of_bob 13 years ago

Nonsense. I know plenty of people under 25 whose opinion of film I would trust well above others who are over 25.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

[–] NotAnUndercoverCop 12 years ago

When you have groups of trolls bragging about how they managed to get a horrible movie a good rating you know there's something wrong with the system.

I recall a thread where a bunch of trolls were patting each other on the back for managing to make the rating of a movie climb up a few points and one of them said, "Let's keep going, maybe we can get it into the top 250."

Yeah, I trust IMDB's ratings about as far as I can throw Andre the Giant.

[–] Symarip 12 years ago

Ah, yes. One of those ''youth these days'' rants. Ignorant stuff.

I'm the grim reaper, lardass, and you're my next customer.

[–] larsaarflot 12 years ago

IMDB does provide a demographic breakdown of user ratings. In the lower section of the screen, click on "user ratings" for details.

[–] finelines-712-451725 11 years ago

Oh children please. This is not a forum for denigrating each other, it's one for rating a film (at least that was my impression).

I have never posted here before but I'm one of those who did NOT find the film "utter trollop".

Yes, I would have preferred to see more than a cameo from Irene and yes, I would have preferred the film to have more depth. The depth came through in the first one (released 2009).

There is an attraction/untrustworthiness motif between Holmes and Adler that I would have liked to have seen developed a bit but obviously, that was not to be.

I watch very few movies - most are recommendations or those I find purely by accident. I'm very glad I found these two by accident and fervently hope there will be more.

Oh, and by the way:

trollop

— n
1. a promiscuous woman, esp a prostitute
2. an untidy woman; slattern

I am totally at a loss how a movie can be a promiscuous woman.

[–] Simon-140 11 years ago

I am totally at a loss how a movie can be a promiscuous woman.

Damned Grammar Nazi!

How dare you point out this trifling error by the OP, who is doubtless an impoverished Bangladeshi prawn farmer – a Bangladeshi prawn farmer, who has been working twenty five hour days in the sticky clays of the delta during the monsoonal downpours, since before he was a foetus, and whose sole joy in life is his semi-annual visit to a film followed by some spirited English practice and film discussion at IMDB!

And then you, yes you, you snooty B***d come along on his first day off in sixth months, and ridicule his hard-won linguistic skills by pointing out that a film can’t be a trollop! (Why can’t a film be a metaphorical trollop, eh?)

God, you and everything you represent just make me sick to the core, you elitist, fascist, racist rotter.

Haven’t you heard that PoMo studies have demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt that the phallologocentric concept of Truth (and arguably - but certainly not “hence” – also Falsehood) are nothing more than a last-gasp power play by the vestiges of the patriarchy? In the absence of truth (and lies) nothing can be wrong!

Especially not the meaning of an intertextual construct like a word!

Now that I’ve wiped the floor with you, I have to go back to my back-breaking job in the maquiladora, assembling pot plant holders for WalMart for seventeen hours a day. (You probably find my poverty and hard living conditions a joke, but there are people on this Earth who were not born with silver spoons and “Five Years Free at Yale” coupons in their mouths.)

I hate you.

—

Sorry about that. Having received a lot of flack for once correcting someone’s grammar, I thought I’d try writing a parody of an anti-Grammar-Nazi post before writing:

Thank goodness that someone, finally, got around to pointing out the impossibility of a film being “trollop.” Codswallop is a possibility.

[–] RickShaw2010 12 years ago

Doesn't the rating system break the votes down by age and/or gender already?

[–] mrstephenpike 12 years ago

what an idiotic, asinine, and intellectually retarded comment. You are the one who Should not be allowed to rate movies.
How about this: Watch a movie yourself and see if you like it. If you base what you see on the word of reviewers then you are out of your mind.
Unless, of course, you enjoy having your "choices" dictated to you. I suppose it cuts out any of that pesky "critical thinking".

[–] boxerrebellion 11 years ago

Well, whether you think it good or bad, there are also a large number of fan-girls and fan-boys in their 40s and 50s, so your generalization doesn't hold.

[–] wrlord2001 13 years ago

"There is no such thing as an objectively bad film. "
That's nonsense. There's art and there's crap.

[–] Symarip 12 years ago

Art can either be good or bad. It doesn't have anything to do with quality.

I'm the grim reaper, lardass, and you're my next customer.

[–] king_of_bob 13 years ago

There is no such thing as an objectively bad film.

This is simply not true. Blood Sucking Freaks is objectively bad. There are plenty of movies that are strait up bad and should never have been made. This is different from subjectively liking something.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

[–] liams-2 13 years ago

Firstly I will support the previous poster in saying I definitely interpreted part of your initial criticism as being that the adaptation was not true enough to the original story. The poster then exaggerates your point for the sake of argument - they weren't implying that you said the film should have been exactly as the book but rather that you should accept that a writer or director may take license with old stories and (imo) that we should judge them as self standing entities and not worry too much about their faithfulness to the original. (Think of how many films are based on existing stories [almost all] and then imagine no one was ever allowed to diverge from those existing stories - it would be terrible).

Next: How can you possibly describe the film, the enjoyment of which (or lack-there-of) is entirely based on subjective interpretation, as 'objectively bad'?

I have to admit that I didn't enjoy the movie at all. I fell asleep the first time and wish I didn't pick up where I left a week later! However, this is my subjective opinion and I would not dare tell someone who liked the movie that their opinion is any less valid than mine.

People have different tastes in films; plain and simple. This movie, in my mind, was pretty much exactly as expected from the previous one and the previews (i.e. not good) and if this is not your cup of tea you could have observed that and not watched. I only watched it because I've been home sick for over two months now and am really running out of films!

Also anyone who relies on the IMDB rating to decide whether a movie is good or not is going to be disappointed a lot of the time - it all depends on how many of the voters had the same taste as you.

I suggest you find a critic (or a few) with similar taste to you and go off their opinions.

[–] Aryia 12 years ago

"It is objectively a bad film"

It's difficult to take seriously people making such allegations. So you're saying you objectively know this is a bad film, and if anyone was to say this is not a bad film (and a lot of people and critics definitely say it is a good film), they would be wrong/subjective. Don't you see the problem in this reasoning?!

I'm really not a fan of Guy Ritchie's adaptations of SH. To begin with, it doesn't look like SH at all to me. I would say that as an adaptation it is highly debatable.
But the film has good actors and good technique - and of course this doesn't mean is has to be liked by each viewer. But the slow motion action scenes are well executed, there is nothing bad that can be objectively said about the cinematography or direction. There is also humour, a steady rhythm and a coherent story.

So no, this is not a bad film. I know this even though I don't like the film much!! It doesn't mean it's flawless and it doesn't mean you have to like it. But this is not what "bad" is... -_-

And the very simple fact that you pretend at complete objectivity is ridiculous.

P.S: I'm not posting this for your sake as much as for the sake of the few sane people on these IMDb boards, to show them they're not alone.

[–] zeuanimals 12 years ago

It's Guy Ritchie's adaptation of Sherlock Holmes, don't go in expecting subtlety. And in no way is it an objectively bad film, it's no House of the Dead.

[–] pointdexter22 11 years ago

please share a film you've made so I can compair?

[–] politicon2003 11 years ago

I agree entirely. A non-cerebral version of Sherlock Holmes is a non starter. If the writers really think they can emulate Conan Doyle by producing a dumber than dumb 'action; movie they must be suffering from acute hubris. Worse the acting is very amateur. Also the sound track music is really horrible. No atmosphere of the foggy and dirty London of the 1890s.

[–] Soodinum 10 years ago

"It is objectively a bad film."

No. It is subjectively a bad film for you.

'Then' and 'than' are completely different words and have completely different meanings.

[–] MovieKnut 13 years ago

Then don't go to a modern day action-comedy movie expecting it to be identical to a detective story book from the 1800s. What are you, some kind of idiot?

In worxpace's defence, this is a late 19th century based character and story. If they felt cheated by the tone/style of the production, it doesn't make them an idiot.

You can't palm off a second-rater on me. You gotta remember I was in the pink![cooldance

[–] king_of_bob 13 years ago

You're clearly confused. The 19th century and the 1800s are the same thing. And really, this movie isn't as different from the source material as people like to claim.

Prof. Farnsworth: Oh. A lesson in not changing history from Mr. I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!

[–] hardcorelogo 13 years ago

I think he was expecting a film about Sherlock Holmes. This movie has almost nothing to do with Sherlock Holmes. It was more of a an action/in your face comedy movie. It really had none of the elements of the short stories except that there is a doctor who is friends with an excentric detective in the late 1800s.
The modern addaption of Sherlock Holmes on TV right now by BBC is very good and shows how Sherlock Holmes can be made for a modern audience. This movie should not have been called Sherlock Holmes. Perhapes Sherlock Triple X would have been a more appropriate title.

[–] Floh-Ruehle 13 years ago

First of all: Calm down, guys! Opinions are all about each having their own. ;o)

And then for the original poster: I think the 7+ rating stems from two things:

1. The rating is still pretty fresh. The movie just came out on DVD and will show on TV some time soon. People who rated it mostly saw it in theatres. Movies tend to be way better rated at that time, not only because the theatrical experience might be more impressive, but also because they probably really wanted to see it. As soon as possible. Me for example. :o)
Like most movies, this one's rating will go down further.

2. This is probably less of a Sherlock Holmes movie and more of a Guy Ritchie movie. While Guy Ritchie does sometimes tell very clever and thought-through stories, I really mainly watch his movies for the visuals. And boy, did this movie have lots of visuals. If you liked the first of the series and some other Guy Ritchie stuff, this made you go to the cinema and you will probably have liked this one, too.

Over all: I agree with you that the characters were sketched very vaguely (which I can forgive for a sequel) and the plot was partly ridiculous, both due to packing a vast amount of action sequences in there. I still liked the movie and will probably be giving it around a 7/10, just for the great entertainment value, the very believable action, the great costumes and backgrounds and the awesome visual style. In my mind, that does also count for something, not just having a provoking and thoughtful premise to tell.

[–] gurvinder62 13 years ago

ditto

Why couldn't you put the bunny back in the box?

[–] nightmare111 13 years ago

the first was better, this felt more action driven than actually a mystery puzzle solver, the ending wasnt that great they jump 100 meters into a waterfall and he only needs a oxygen pump do survive humm okay, ahahah.

[–] gurvinder62 13 years ago

"this felt more action driven than actually a mystery puzzle solver"

that's exactly what i was thinking the whole time...i mean i wanted to watch sherlock holmes solving some mystery puzzle instead of getting in 007 suit !!!

Why couldn't you put the bunny back in the box?

[–] Spifflock_Holmes 13 years ago

this felt more action driven than actually a mystery puzzle solver

And so it is. It's based (mostly) on "The Final Problem," which involves even less mystery than this movie does. It's essentially a "chase story" in which Holmes says Watson, I'm being pursued by a chap named Professor Moriarty of whom you've never heard before but trust me, he's very evil, and I wonder if you might accompany me to the Continent for no apparent reason. Ah, this Swiss air is refreshing, is it not? Yes, why don't you return to the hotel in response to a transparent ruse while the Professor, in his sole direct appearance in these stories, follows me in the distance as I make my way toward Reichenbach Falls? Oops, I died off-screen. Sorry about that, old friend.

Holmes at least gets to engage in some observation and inference in this film; it may be less than in the first film, but it's quite a lot more than in the original story.

----

Lazy + smart = efficient.

[–] TheHiawatha 12 years ago

Good points there.

I liked both films, though I do think the first movie was better (but just by a little bit). This film was a very worthy sequel to a great film.

[–] wjm6292 13 years ago

to call this sherlock holmes is a marketing abortion. this is gayer than iron man, downey is the worst

[–] JurorNr13 13 years ago

The series reminded and made me instantly want to rewatch Shanghai Knights, which I think is the better movie considering action and comedy.

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Ginnn 13 years ago

yeah, too much going on and too dull.

[–] atlasredux 13 years ago

If you actually read the books, you'd know that the first and this are the closest you get to Sherlock Holmes of ANY movies and series ever made.

[–] atlasredux 13 years ago

If you actually read the original material, you'd know that the first and this are the closest you get to Sherlock Holmes of ANY movies and series ever made.

[–] Yolas 13 years ago

I think the tv series is better, the one which stars Benedict Cumberbatch.

[–] gamwouters 13 years ago

i agree with Yolas.i loved the scene in the restaurant,with miss adler,when moriarty tapped his glass and everybody left.briljant.but from there it went downhill for me and i gave up after 52 minutes.i love a film that takes me back to my childhood when a movie was full of suspence,like alfred hitchcock,or edgar wallace(german tv,ha ha).the tv series with Benedict Cumberwatch felt exciting.so i agree.