I don't know what you're talking about. The last movie was Empire Strikes Back...

Anyway, fanboi denying aside, I tried to like The Clone Wars. I really did. But no matter how hard I tried, it just rubbed me the wrong way. Everything about it, from the premise, to the characters all just fell flat. Jabba the Hut is one of the classic archetypal slimy villains in Star Wars. We cheered for his death in Empire. Now he's a concerned parent that we should feel sorry for? And don't get me started on Ahsoka Tano.

Ah I see... I didn't get your joke the first time, now I do :-)

I enjoyed the movie.

I had to suspend my disbelief, because they ascended Sherlock from genius intellect detective to a near-prescient being of god-like intellect, but given the recent string of super-hero movies, it's almost understandable.

Sherlock was probably the closest thing to a super-hero that they had in that era so it's not that far fetched a concept that they'd try to "enhance" him to start matching the super-heroes that we are seeing now.

I enjoyed the humor and while clearly silly at times, I think it went well with both Guy Richie's and Robert Downey's style (I am a fan of both).

For me, the 2 recent movies of Sherlock are a mix of old-style Sherlock homes, Guy Richie/Dawney and the modern notion of what a super-hero should be like.

Old Sherlock pundits will probably sneer at it, but if you go see it with an open-mind (and the notion that those movies are not intending to replace the old-style Sherlock, but simply explore a new direction with the old concept), you'll probably find something to like in there.

Pretty good actually.

Obviously it's an action movie, not a detective story. Sign of the times, with all the slo-mo and explosions. Very different from all other SH stories (except the previous fim).

But it's not inconcievable to me this is how Holmes was in his younger more adventuroous days. When we see him in the "real" stories, he is an older guy who obviously has lived a life of adventure. An annoying superhuman he always was.

The mannerisms and portrayal of holmes by Robert Downey is very similar to Jeremy Brett's in the tv-serie, obviously done some research there.

I actually enjoyed the CSI-like slo-mo visuals.

I guess it depends if you are more of a visual or auditive type, but for my part I'm more visual.

I am definitely not a huge fan of the oral tradition for relaying complex ideas that are inherently more visual to begin with (ex: describing a complex contraption with words) and I think they employed visuals in the right parts where describing what was happening with speech would have been laborious and overly wordy.

They portrayed Holmes as an adept "fighter" in the old movies, but definitely not as a being of such intellectual caliber that he could process the entire fight in his mind seconds before it happens.

That is definitely out of the realm of even remote plausibility.

The way I see it, the visualisation bit was just the easier way to show what was going through his mind. e.g. "I'll open with a kick taking "a" out of the picture, "b" will no doubt strike with that baton so I'll dodge and split his jaw with a straight punch, "c" has a gun in his pocket so I'll have to be ready for that as well.. GO!"

That's remotely plausible to me. I don't see it as he'd be actually visualizing every fold of clothes or anything, despite what the movie shows. Obviously it's done very flashy, showy kind of way to go with the visual style.

The whole concept actually comes from samurai legends tradition, where two opponents just face each other down, and know how the fight's going to play out.

...

The way I see it, some predictions are more "micro" in style and others are more "macro".

Without making a precise prediction about the specifics, you can make a broad prediction about an outcome by knowing that a set of smaller less predictable "micro" outcomes will converge torwards that more generic macro outcome.

An individual fighting move, in all it's precision is not one of those macro outcomes, because there are just too many permutations (in fact, a near infinite number).

If you're really clever (Sherlock Holmes clever), you'll make a near totally accurate prediction of the next move and a fairly accurate prediction of the next 2-3 moves maybe, but here, he was making a near totally accurate prediction of an entire fight sequence totalling over 10 moves (sometimes closer to 20 in group fights).

They say that battle is a chaotic, unpredictable thing, for a reason.

He's super-human in his ability to fight and while I was a lot younger (try older kid to young teenager) when I watched the old movies, I remember enough to know that old movies Sherlock didn't fight like that. He was a lot more "good, but human" in his fighting prowess.

EDIT: Ignore the poster above. I'm on my father's computer atm and it should have clicked that he was the one who was logged on.

You know what, you're right.

I'm probably forgiving/accepting too much as a style issue. I'm pretty sure the director doesn't intend SH to come out as superhuman, and in context of other recent films he's not. Not when compared to likes of Jason Bourne or whoever Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible.

But in another context, like "is what we're seeing in the film humanly possible", I have to agree it's not. No matter what the original intention.