What does /tv/ think of it? When the 1st one came out, I abhorred it -- as a kid I used to devour Holmes stories and I considered this a soulless American corposlop bastardisation. But having rewatched both recently I think they're great works of entertainment and rank together with Man from UNCLE as Ritchie's best (apologies to the LockStock/Snatch fans). Also Hans Zimmer's best work, along with POTC and Gladiator.
>>218606535It's better than the gay Cumberbatch one with the brain filesystem thing
>>218606535>Man from UNCLE as Ritchie's bestThis is the most retarded take to have ever been taken.The first Sherlock was good. The second lost its way.
>>218606535Sherlock Holmes is one of those things that's been done so much I can't bring my self to care about accuracy, it like getting upset a king Authur thing isn't accurate.Ritchie's Sherlock was a really solid action movie with a sequal that exist.
>>218606535I didn't even bother, when it originally came out. It looked like the usual slapped-together, comedic bullshit. I was REALLY surprised, when I saw it later. The second one wasn't too bad.
>>218607744They just expanded on the study in scarlet explanation, it isn't out of nowhere. The whole 'sociopath' thing is cringe though and turned me off.>>218606535I like that they included Sherlock being a boxer, which is in the books.
>>218606535all sherlock holmes is terrible but this one is at least entertaining
>>218606535The first one is great but the second one was a letdown.
I got discombobulated
>>218606535both films are up there with the national treasure movies as pure unadulterated fun and the mental chess climax of part 2 is fantastic
>>218606535Good fun, Downey was an odd choice but he and Law have solid chemistry which elevates it. Ritchie is easier to tolerate when he isn’t doing cockney geezer rubbish. Fridging McAdams in the second one was a mistake
