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.

[–] henkebe 13 years ago

Not even large amounts of alcohol made this film enjoyable. Utter rubbish deserving of no more than 1 star.

[–] thethisguy 13 years ago

I scoff at all these pretentious wannabe film critics in this thread. The fact that you endeavored to rent this based on the RATING of the film on IMDB of all websites, really just proves you to be either 1. a facetious troll, or 2. a person who is too easily swayed by the opinions of others. If you went into this film having seen the first, expecting a masterpiece comparable to the work of say, Kurosawa, I have no sympathy for you. The fact that you also referred to the film as objectively bad further confirms my suspicion that you know very little about film or the external environment you are surrounded by.

Any knowledgeable person knows there is no such thing as objective reality; there only exists our perceptions of reality. I may not have particularly enjoyed the film myself, but I, like many others, know better than to judge a film based on some silly ratings based on arbitrarily determined factors. Move on folks, there's nothing to see here but a hipster trying to impose his "superior" viewpoints in a fruitless attempt at condescension and poorly conveyed intellectualism.

[–] Sodominion 13 years ago

@ the OP:
No offense but you must be living under a rock if you went in to watch something intellectual or profound. The series is nothing more than a page right out of Pirates of the Caribbean or Indiana Jones. Nothing more than polishing shyt up and calling it gold so that the dumb downed masses can go "wow"....fvcking pathetic how easily the general public can be entertained and fulfilled. Ah no wonder why the elites and all control the society. Anyhow I usually watch movies like these either
a. with friends so that it doesn't bore the hell out of me..which is more of a social get together than actually properly watching the movie
or
b. in fast forward mode...and just watch the good bits.

Anyways the joke's on you for falling into such an obvious trap. Plus it was a sequel and if you had seen the first part you must have known what you were getting into. Your complain would have hold some ground if it was the first part because than you might have had an excuse.

[–] petra-59 13 years ago

Perhaps it's aiming for an award for the biggest load of tripe imaginable.
Are they allowed to do this to Conan Doyle?
No story. Stupid fighting. I have never seen anything so bad. I forced myself to watch about 20 minutes. After that I decided that cleaning the dustbins with my tongue would be preferable.

[–] dlynch-7 13 years ago

You are right brother! I lasted about 25 minutes before I turned it off!

[–] farnazkh2001 13 years ago

3.6. at most.

[–] backlash 13 years ago

Why are you watching movies based on the general public's ratings? Why are you wasting your time posting to the general public that you do not value their opinion? Were you booted from the book of the month club for being even too boring to them?

Did you really think that they spent $125,000,000 to make an artistic version of the fictional character known as Sherlock Holmes? The sign of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results. Has their been a high budget movie that you enjoyed and challenged you intellectually?

There has been over 200 films that have been made that includes this character which is public domain. Why would anyone with any kind of imagination want to repeat what has been done many times before?

Coming to an internet forum to tell people that they have the wrong opinion about what is entertaining is hilarious. The movie was made to "entertain" the "general public" and to make money doing so. There is a reason why art galleries rely on government tax dollars to stay afloat. The ones that truly enjoy the galleries are too cheap to support the gallery itself. Seeing as the movie eventually became profitable, the producers did what they were paid to do.

I'm sorry if you don't think that the movie version doesn't portray a personality with quotes like: "I think, Watson, that I shall resume that course of tobacco-poisoning which you have so often and so justly condemned" As for me, I find that Robert Downey Jr.'s inane ability to come of a condescending smart ass, has worked well to capture what would be a slightly younger version of Holmes that is written in the original texts.

[–] I_know_what_you_did87 13 years ago

Can't help but agree with people who are saying that this is the most faithful adaption of Sherlock Holmes. Don't believe me-look it up on Wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes#Weapons_and_martial_arts

All the fights that Guy Richie incorporates are more realistic to the original Holmes, then any of the pipe smoking know it alls. The only thing that aren't quite on the money, is that Downey isn't quite 'clean' enough to be Sherlock

[–] DeclanCochran 13 years ago

It's because this kind of movie appeals to brain-dead idiots who don't want to apply their brain to anything and just want to watch things blow up, but don't want to admit that, so they watch this "intelligent" film to get away with it. What bugs me is when people say that this is their favourite film (there are many). That I don't get. Because this is a film plotted on a graph, with a certain quota for action and dialogue, and it has the identikit formula that all modern blockbusters seem to follow. I don't class these things as entertainment, they are merely folly, they have no ideas, and they all blend into one. It seems as though if there can be a predictable twist at the end then the film becomes "clever". It annoys me, because these films, not just Sherlock Holmes (although this is a particularly odious example) couldn't have less of an identity or soul. Lazy and pointless.

[–] HowardWong 13 years ago

this is my favorite movie of 2011, and i love it because i dont like a pure gunfire-explosion movie such as <The expendables>.

[–] king_of_bob 13 years ago

How is the movie an immoral or easy woman?

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

[–] TrumpIsAHump 12 years ago

Thank you! I was going to say the same thing! How can a movie be a slutty woman? lol

[–] Spifflock_Holmes 12 years ago

Thank you! I was going to say the same thing! How can a movie be a slutty woman? lol

Well, you could scroll down a bit and read the part of the thread where the expression is actually explained (by *modest cough* me). Or, if you prefer, you could continue ignorantly bashing British English.

----

Lazy + smart = efficient.

[–] TrumpIsAHump 12 years ago

Well thank you for enlightening me, oh master of all things British *sarcasm alert*

But you fail to recognize that "trollop" is still no way to describe a movie, and your explanation does nothing to refute this, despite your oh so thorough attempts. Perhaps you should be more careful about throwing out insults, when you have a "weenie arm" (a VERY American phrase).