What?
You mean making the first ever Sherlock Holmes movie that protrays Sherlock Holmes the way Sir Arthur Conan Doyle intended him to be? What a scum bag.
(Vlad the Inhaler forgot his password, Tue 4 May 2010, 7:59, 1 reply)

It's nothing like the original.
I've read all of the original stories. So far the Jeremy Brett version is the only one to really capture the essence of Doyle's writings. Ritchie took existing characters and changed them drastically.

Had he made all new characters for Holmes and Watson to interact with it would have been a far better movie than this steaming pile.
( Wanderer, Tue 4 May 2010, 12:25, closed)

I agree
that they should have left the original characters (Mary Morstan, Irene Adler etc) alone, but apart from that, and the fact there was too much action I really rather liked Jude Law as Watson (and I really dislike Jude Law) and I reckon that if they make a sequel and manage to cut down on the pointless romance, it could be rather good
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Tue 4 May 2010, 12:33, closed)

^ THIS.
Brett was wonderful. There are some books and films/telly adaptions that really are enjoyable and true as each other, even if in different ways, and the adaption with and portrayal of Holmes by Brett was fantastic.

This movie was NOT the adaption truest to Doyle's stories! Not by any means! It was an alright film, but by god it seemed pointless! Shooting for the stars and falling short by miles behind a telly adaption.
( vix0r was not Matthew on, Tue 4 May 2010, 16:17, closed)