>dailymail

I just appreciate the old Europe aesthetic.

It's pretty juvenile. You could have a rimshot every thrity seconds and it would fit. Hurr durr is there something different about you Holmes, yes Watson I'm wearing a beard isn't that eccentric.

They wasted too much time on farting about in London and Paris, and spent too little time on Moriarty and Holmes interacting.

Best thing about those films (I assume, I've only seen the first) is the casting.

Whenever I read Conan Doyle nowadays, I can only picture RDJ and Law as Holmes as Watson.

BBC series is better, of course, but it's hard to imagine Cumberbatch and Freeman in the 19th century.

>>20461220

I say Stephen Fry would have made a better Sherlock.

LIE DOWN WITH ME, WATSON.

>>20461230

>that naked stephen fry scene

>>20461220

As far I'm concerned, the second one didn't happen.

>>20461220

Oh, except with Mycroft, who I imagine to be Mark Gatiss.

But that may just be because Gatiss IS from the 19th century. And I haven't seen Fry as Mycroft.

>>20461240

ripped off Austin Powers. and Austin did it better. sorry, no cigar.

Any good version worth pirating of the movie yet?

Anyway OP, try Sherlock the modern british adaptation. It's pretty decent

>>20461230

He would have made both a great Sherlock or a great Moriarty. He would not have had to alter his performance one bit to play either one.

>>20461257
How is it a rip-off of Austin Powers? There is plenty of hidden nudity in movies to reach PG-13.

Stephen Fry was the only exceptional thing about this movie. The rest was spectacularly mediocre.

It also felt like nothing was ventured or gained. Yeah, World War I nearly happened decades earlier, but we all know it still happened, so the whole thing felt like a waste. They were already rewriting history, they may as well have gone balls out.

I really liked the ending. You just know Sherlock attended his own funeral.

>liking either of these films
sorry, you aren't Sherlock Holmes fans then, in the same way that people who loved Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace aren't James Bond fans.

These weren't Sherlock Holmes movies at all, they could have called it anything else and it would have made more sense, it's typical Hollywood. The same way the new James bond films aren't James bond films, they're like Mission Impossible 5 and 6

>>20461289

I get the feeling you think Holmes should have a deerstalker and Bond should turn invisible.

>>20461289
It's funny because both are big franchises known for being milked and adapted on and on.
Also, Casino Royale counts as one of the best Bond movies as far as I'm concerned (and I saw all of them)

>>20461289

your Britishness is showing. the only reason why you people hate on RDJ is because he was actually good.

>>20461289
FUCK. YOU.

10/10 GODDAMMIT.

I'm a hardcore Bond fan, and the Craig movies are incredible Bond interpretations. Anyone who can't see that is just too busy nostalgia-bombing to realize that Bond had grown stale and cliched by the time Craig arrived. Craig rejuvenated the series.

Same goes for Holmes.

Old Coke was fine; New Coke is better. People like you are why we have Coke Classic.

>>20461301
What?
>>20461313
Hardly. Adaptations follow to the characters quite closely, unless the only adaptations you have watched are very recent. I dissagree entirely, Visually it was better obviously because of it's recent release, but bond was a grimdark badass instead of the suave ladykiller he's supposed to be, it could be called anything else and you wouldn't even notice it was meant to be James Bond

>>20461334
Bond has become juvenile shit. They want to keep the wacky action heroics and womanising, but try to wrap it up in a serious storyline. The old Bonds had wacky action and wacky story.

As for Sherlock Holmes:
- Moriarty was excellent
- Why did they kill Adler
- Definately drawn out and too much slo-mo

>>20461334
>grimdark boohoo generic action hero
>suave ladykilling secret agent
i know which i'd rather watch, but that's not even the point, it could have just been called "Quantum of Solace" with no Bond attacthments and noone would have even realised it was a bond movie

>>20461350
> but bond was a grimdark badass instead of the suave ladykiller he's supposed to be
Watch Casino Royale please, and stop talking out of your ass.

>>20461350

>but bond was a grimdark badass instead of the suave ladykiller he's supposed to be

All I'm reading is

>I've never read the books

He's a nasty, dry, witty, perveted killer.

>>20461392

What relevance do the books have?

>>20461400
He's like sherlock holmes, an original book character

>>20461392
We're talking about movies you moron, i'm comparing it to previous movies
>>20461391
What a pointless thing to say

>>20461400

The hell do you mean? The relevance is that the Bond series were books first, and Craig's (and Dalton's) Bond were easily the most faithful to the books.

>>20461406
> BAWW WHY ISN'T THE NEW BOND STICKING TO HIS ORIGINAL PERSONA
> I DON'T THE ACTUAL ORIGINAL BOOK VERSION, I MEAN THE SHITTY MOVIE ONE

>>20461406

HERP DERP THIS BOND ISN'T FAITHFUL TO THE ORIGINAL BOND

YOU KNOW

THE ORIGINAL MOVIES BOND

NOT THE BOOKS BOND

LET'S JUST FORGET THAT

COS IT'S CONVENIENT

God, you're stupid.

>>20461410

So? The early Bond movies were not faithful to the book, and they were fun. Why should we make them boring and stupid by being faithful to the books? We won't get a medal for it.

>>20461421
>>20461417
>CAPS LOCK SHOUTING HERP DERP HAHA YOU SAID HERP AND DERP
Ah, good to know i'm arguing with teenagers.

>>20461334
I actually agree with him, in the sense that the new movies are so drastically different from the old that they might as well be a separate franchise.

I've never been a big Bond fan, but I love Casino Royale. I always thought the comparisons I see on /tv/ between Casino Royale and the Bourne franchise were grasping at straws, but I just watched Mission Impossible III yesterday, and it's very similar to Casino Royale.

He's right about the new Sherlock movies, too. They're fun movies, but they don't feel like Sherlock Holmes. Some argue that it's the most faithful adaptation so far, given how many of the details they got correct. And that's true, but these movies fail to capture the tone of Sherlock Holmes. They feel more like Pirates of the Caribbean than Sherlock Holmes. But if you can look past that, and I can, they're very entertaining movies.

>>20461435

That's a different issue though - >>20461289 said that people who liked CR weren't Bond fans, even though it was way more faithful to the ORIGINAL Bond.

>>20461435
> Why should we make them boring and stupid by being faithful to the books?
shitty opinions general. Casino Royale still remains a top 10 bond movie

>>20461449
Again, i was talking about the Bond films.

>>20461447
If anything, people should enjoy that new Sherlock Holmes adaptations (like the RDJ movies and that new british show) actually change things more or less. We already have definitve experiences of classy and ol' Sherlock, everything else is just getting annoying for the regular fan.

>>20461464

So? How does that make it fair to call people who enjoyed the fact that Casino Royale was faithful to the books "not Bond fans"?

You could have said that it would be possible that fans of CR and the books weren't fans of the more ridiculous films. But not that they're not true Bond fans. If anything, they're truer Bond fans than you.

>>20461442

We're only acting like that to counter your awful, awful argumental technique. Try arguing like this guy instead. v

>>20461464

>>20461447

I think people enjoy the movies for the bromance and the action scenes rather than to see a Sherlock movie. But like you said they're awfully enjoyable anyway. I also like the soundtrack.

>>20461481
If TV Sherlock was set in the late 1800s, I would agree. But it's a modern interpretation, and I think that offers an even more unique experience than the RDJ movies.

>>20461567
The bromance is a big part of why it's successful. I was actually thinking recently how much these movies remind me of Psych.

No, it was written for an American audience.
They think it's clever.

I HATE IT HERE

>>20461567
You are wrong. My least favorite parts of the first movie (didn't saw the sequel yet) were the explosions and my favorite was Sherlock being a magnificent bastard and his analysis.
Surpringsly, the movie is not as blockbuster-y as everyone makes it seem.

Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself, but
talent instantly recognizes genius.

I think that either this movie was somewhat worse than the previous one or watching the TV Sherlock (and hell, even House) has spoiled my taste for this particular adaptation. The ending was brilliant though, but it was the constant running gags and endless action scenes that ruined the general tone of the movie for me. A little more thinking a little less fighting would've been nice.

>>20461834
Oh, and also, the casting was perfect. Even though they didn't go with Pitt for Moriarty as was rumored, Jared Harris did well.

worst movie this year