Sherlock Holmes

... not the movie, but the number of self-professed Holmes aficionados who apparently have no knowledge of Holmes. For the record, Holmes was a miserable, irresponsible drug addict who did indeed sleep on the floor, insult his best friend, experiment on his dog, and never ever wore a deerstalker's cap (at least, not until television was invented). He was a brawler who practiced martial arts and was as likely to slum around in the filthiest of rags as he was a suit.

It wasn't until after Doctor Watson took him in hand that he truly refined himself and became a "respectable" member of society. And yes, we can tell that this movie takes place THAT early in their relationship because Watson has not yet married his wife (the retconning did annoy me, too, by the way, but you just can't avoid a little re-imagining here and there).

Speaking of unavoidable, Irene Adler, Holmes' one uncapturable (is that a word?), simply had to be cast as a potential love interest. The flirting, the romance, and the near-make-out session were irresistible to the director (and to all of the audience who're honest with themselves).

That being said, I felt Robert Downey, Jr. played Sherlock Holmes to perfection. His characteristic caustic attitude towards Lestrade and even Watson at times was exactly how I'd imagine him. He gives several summations of his observations and deductions that brought Holmes to life in an almost unparalleled way. His fight scenes (preceded the first few times by superhuman calculations) show both the mental and physical sides of Holmes in ways that Watson's notes can't quite convey, but at which they constantly hint.

As for Watson himself, Jude Law delivered a wonderful performance. I was a little skeptical of how well he fought, given Watson's wartime injury, but his character and demeanor were entirely on the nose. His loyalty to Holmes despite his frustrations with him could not have been captured more expertly, I feel. No one, no matter how patient or forgiving, could endure Holmes forever without the occasional confrontation. The original Holmes, after all, was not above insulting his best friend or even deriding his deductive capabilities at times. Nevertheless, Watson never could abandon his friend in his time of need.

This version (or vision, if you will) of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's greatest creation may be more swashbuckling, more thrilling, and more edgy than any other incarnation, but that doesn't make it any less faithful to the original. Aside from a little revisionist history in the cases of the female leads, nothing is that far out of the ordinary; and no amount of references to Madonna will change that.

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.

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.

Greetings again from the darkness. Great literature seldom makes for great cinema. The mediums are vastly different. However great literature, in the right hands, can make for very entertaining cinema. Such is the case with Guy Ritchie's interpretation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's greatest character.

Mr. Ritchie provides us with quite a departure from the Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce "Holmes and Watson". Here we get dazzling special effects and near super-human feats and stunts. Another twist is that this Holmes here is no meticulous, fastidious bore in real life. In fact, he lives more like a frat boy or rock star - replete with trashed room and bouts of isolation.

What is not missing is Holmes' world class attention to detail. The story here is multi-layered and actually very interesting, if not a bit high-minded and high-concept. The still-under-construction Tower Bridge plays a role in the film and the bleakness and gray of London is captured perfectly.

Of course, I won't reveal any details of the story other than to say the "good" guys are out to get a real bad guy here ... wonderfully played by the always solid Mark Strong, who may or may not be dead. That always makes for an interesting case! Support from Rachel McAdams and Eddie Marsan are fine, but Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law are the real stars as Holmes and Watson. As odd as it seems, they really do have a buddy factor that works well on screen. Downey's physicality has always set him apart from many contemporary actors ... he moves like a dancer and fights like a champion. Jude Law is often too pretty-boy for me, but he really does a nice job of capturing the reluctant sidekick with complimentary skills.

This is a BIG movie! It is made to be a rollicking good time with tons of popcorn munched. Smaller kids will not be able to follow the story, but anyone who has read a Holmes story (and isn't against a little artistic license) should see the film. It is extremely entertaining and fun to watch.

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