Sherlock Holmes

Somehow, i've always avoided the cinematic (or TV) presentations of Sherlock Holmes. I find the character fascinating, but i always felt it was more invested in literature, not cinema. His deductions, the way he surrounds the worlds he investigates are a feast for thinking minds. Even when the deductions are over the top (which happens often!) one can't stop smiling at the cleverness. More than that, the character is a perfect piece invested in a clever, irresistible and fascinating world. London. That part is visual, and a good ground to invest a cinematic world. But, unlike for example anything by Agatha Christie, Doyle's cleverness is rooted in pure deductive logic, not on the mechanics of the world. Notice that Christie's crimes are many times a matter of understanding how things happened, spatially (murder on the orient express is the zenith of that). I suppose Doyle formed his mind before cinema had any significant impact on how our minds work.

So the challenge for any modern filmmaker, and actor, who wants to update Holmes, is to make the character more cinematic, more appealing. Several tricks are used here, most of them successful, even if straightforward. One is the most obvious, making Holmes an action character (which actually is in its original dna, even though TV productions usually ignore that). This might be a flop, and make the version laughable, but by now there is a sense of irony and self awareness in Ritchie's films (sincer Lock Stock) that allows him to support a xxi century action figure in Holmes clothing that actually is watchable. A minor trick here is the association of the deduction with the very process of physical fighting, which creates some Matrix moments. Well, their watchable, though not particularly interesting. In the greater arc, there are good action sequences, because, as any competent action these days, considers the elements of the surrounding space, and uses them.

But there are two big things in this film, which take it to new levels of interest.

One is the acting. Jude Law is a clever guy, an interesting actor whose greatest quality is how he merges anonymously with the context he is intended to integrate. He willingly becomes a piece of a larger tapestry, and that really is something to look upon. There are not many actors who can claim they can do this competently. But the king of the game is Downey Jr. He is the gold piece in the puzzle of updating Holmes. There certainly will be a before-after Holmes character, with this film. The man is capable to work his performances on several directions, and each of them is a perfect link to its surroundings. So he gives in to Ritchie's demands, and introduces humour, irony, and self-awareness in the character, to make it usable for the director's winks at ironic action. He invests totally on the creation of a character who merges with the textures of the context, while being distinct from it. And while doing it, he folds us into his game, so we do everything with him, side by side. We deduce, we smile, we run, all with him. So, if the film hadn't other qualities, Downey Jr would still make it worthy, because he, alone, solves one the most basic problems with any film: to find a channel audiences can safely cross into the game someone (director) proposes. He is one of the best ever.

But there is another great thing here, which i suspect has a lot to do with several guys involved in the process of making the film. The result is an incredible sense of placement. London, XIXth century. All those dirty muddy streets, all the dirt. The fascination of the inner locations, namely the midget's laboratory. How those sets are usable, in the action scenes. That's all competent, more than competent. It's perfectly rendered, carefully photographed, it sounds overly artificial, but it's a matter of taste, i suppose. But what was really striking was the use of the London bridge. Notice how it is announced, early in the film, with a similar perspective to the one we'll get in the end. Than, the great sequence, when Irene Adler goes through the sewage, goes up, and we end up with a close up of her, in an unidentified location. The angle opens, we move away, and we are set up in the location for the final fight scene, which in its own merits is interesting enough. So, this was a unique way to actually use an establishing location, instead of merely showing it. I mean, how many films have shown the Eiffel towers? countless. How many actually use it? not so many. This is one of the best London cities we've seen lately.

My opinion: 4/5

http://www.7eyes.wordpress.com

How many of us that adore the world of Sherlock Holmes, don't romanticise about the stunning Jeremy Brett series, or the modern dizzying cleverness of the Benedict Cumberbatch series.

This film would have come as a massive surprise to both sets of fans. First off the visuals, it's a breathtaking affair, it's atmospheric and gothic, the blockbuster feel works incredibly well. Secondly, the humour, it's packed full of laughs, lots of witty lines and plenty of sarcasm. Thirdly, the acting, is tremendous, Downey and Law are sublime, it's a great cast.

Overall, it's taken me some time to get used to it, initially I loathed it, as time has developed I've grown to enjoy it, and now cannot wait for the third film.

The core essence of Holmes is actually captured here, plenty of what's in the books is brought to life, the darkness of the character, we're not given a member of the social elite, but a troubled, charismatic, fantastic slob.

My only real issue is the plot itself, which is perhaps the most over the top element here, and that's saying something, enjoyable, but a little hard to follow.

Crazy, complicated and fun, not my idea of Holmes, but a fun watch nonetheless. 7/10.

As you can tell from the first review, you probably have to be a big reader or fanboy/girl of Sherlock Holmes in order to be displeased. I was pleased almost the whole way through this movie without caring much about character. Still, even though Sherlock Holmes sometimes was a bit too 'ambiguously gay' and had an annoying modern-like personality, he continued to be funny, strange, and as intelligent as I thought Sherlock should be. Jude Law did a good job as well as others on the cast.

I loved the plot. It was obvious to me at times how the story would unravel, but then it hits you again in the end. It was a subtle hit, however. Anyways, my favorite part of the story was mainly the broad scheme of things and the people involved. Sherlock goes deep enough into the world of conspiracy to keep me interested.

My only gripe with this movie is sometimes the humor. A lot of the 'humor' came out during conversations. People would laugh at the wittiness spewed by the main characters, and it just felt too much like a modern sitcom. Today, American society and culture is infected with internet memes, battles of quick wit, and straight-faced jokes that provoke a lame laughter from me (one not deeply felt.) You could compare what I am saying to the dialogue in 'The Big Bang Theory.' Hollywood could maybe tone down a bit on dry and clever jokes, especially when they poke out during unnecessary times.

In conclusion, I enjoyed this movie enough to rate it an 8 out of 10, and although I did complain more than I gave praise, I just didn't want to give away all of the good parts. Go see this movie. It's fresh, isn't based in America, and doesn't trail off there either. There are twists, excellent action scenes, lots of fun moments, sweet investigation, and some analogous material better discussed in a forum of theorists.

First of all, I wasn't sure whether I wanted to see this movie initially. It looked entertaining enough, but I was wondering is it going to be an entertaining and stylish movie or another generic block buster? My answer is this, and you can probably tell by my summary, I thoroughly enjoyed it, it is not the best movie I have ever seen and it has its faults, but the thing is I thought it was fun, witty and somewhat original too.

Those who didn't like it as much as I did will probably question whether I have any knowledge at all of Sherlock Holmes, whether it is the books or the countless interpretations of the character and his stories. The answer is yes, I really like Conan Doyle's stories, they are clever and insightful and Holmes himself is a very intriguing character with a distinct personality, and I am a fan of both Basil Rathbone and Jeremy Brett. If I had a preference I would say the latter but only marginally, Rathbone was excellent, he was sophisticated and gritty but Brett had that towering presence and generosity about him that made me like him a little more.

Back to this film, I liked how it was filmed. I for one found it stylish, innovative and clever. The camera work is really good, even in the fight scenes which were suitably gritty and invigorating, and the sets, costumes and locations look as though they took their time with it and to make it true to the period. I also enjoyed the score, it was jaunty and somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Guy Ritchie's direction is solid as well, it is tight, assured and Ritchie does seem to know what he is doing, so we were treated to some fun set pieces.

The pacing was fine for me, in fact although people may disagree I for one was surprised at how quickly in general the film went, even if it did slow down towards the end. The script was very witty and smart, there were a number of times when my whole family and I laughed, and a lot of it was Holmes's dialogue, plus I liked the idea of the plot, it was an original (if a little convoluted at times) and it moved along briskly. I will talk later about what didn't quite work, but in particular the final solution is interesting. It may be one you need to rewind a few times in order to completely understand though. I also think it was a good idea to put Moriaty as a background character, the ending is highly suggestive of a sequel, and if there is one that would be a perfect opportunity for Moriaty to flourish with the right actor, some good dialogue and some good character development.

Finally the acting. In general, I was really impressed. Robert Downey Jnr, an actor who I like a lot, gives a very strong performance as Holmes. He plays Holmes as an avid boxer, as a keen martial artist, as intelligent being a master of logic and deduction and as a master of disguise, while tormenting his housekeeper in a playful manner and sometimes acting as selfish and self-destructive. Downey Jnr. delivers his lines pretty much brilliantly, sometimes saying them quite quickly, especially when Holmes is deducting but I loved his deadpan delivery. Jude Law is perfect as Watson, he plays him as young, intelligent, authoritative and there are some great moments when he tells Holmes off. The two do share a unique and effortless chemistry together and that really showed on screen and one of the reasons why the film was so enjoyable for me. Another strong performance is Mark Strong as Blackwood, a real villain he is, mysterious, cold, dark, suave yet charismatic yet deserving of one or two more scenes, and I liked Eddie Marsan's Inspector Lestrade.

Despite all these strengths there were two primary weaknesses. While the plot was great and moved along briskly, there were some scenes that came across as rushed and unexplained, especially when Holmes and Watson save Irene Adler from being killed in the factory, that just felt like an action set piece and little else. Rachel McAdams I didn't like so much as Irene. She looks really pretty, with the lovely authentic hair style and her dresses were eye popping, especially the pinkish-red one which suited her perfectly, but acting-wise she looks stiff and unconvincing in her part.

Overall, just plain fun. Whether you see it or not is up to you, if you don't like it that's fine, this film's not for everyone. But I am going to conclude to say I loved it, it was entertaining and smart. 9/10 Bethany Cox

A+

If there is one genre I began to detest over the years, it was the 'buddy-action' flicks. You know the movies where two guys who aren't exactly friends are forced to form an uneasy alliance which leads to hilarious escapades. It's only been done a thousand and one times, note the long line of duos: Bruce Willis & Samuel L. Jackson ("Die Hard 3"), Will Smith & ("Wild Wild West"), Chris Tucker & Jackie Chan ("Rush Hour"), and let's not forget Jackie Chan and Owen Wilson ("Shanghai Knights"). Though many (but certainly not all) of the aforementioned films are indeed funny, few have any real lasting qualities and even fewer a challenging storyline. The best they can often do is throw an alluring female co-star between the two leads, but I digress.

This film however, stands a monumental achievement. Firstly, the cast is really something else. Robert Downey Jr. as our titular character, and he does a bang up job playing a man who's a mystery in himself. Jude Law is entertaining and I'm glad Eddie Marsan was aboard. Mark Strong makes for a very impressive antagonist, and Rachel McAdams is a seductive femme fatale of sorts. The gloomy setting, 1800s London, couldn't be better realized and it definitely gives the film a darker tone.

Most importantly though, the story is truly a one-of-a-kind detective tale. It really is a pitting of rationality vs. superstition, and to my heart-thumping exhilaration for the majority of the film you would think good old logic had been defeated. Moving on before I spoil anything. The plot twists and turns menacingly, and leaves one astounded by the effort put into the writing.

Lastly, kudos to composer Hans Zimmer who did a very catchy leitmotif that fit the film perfectly. The gray-blue cinematography is great, and I've got to congratulate Guy Ritchie on his feat.