Sherlock Holmes Review
Directed by Guy Ritchie
Released in 2009
A modern reboot of a series of novels made in the late 19th century does not sound like a recipe for success. With Sherlock Holmes, the result is mixed but, for the most part, it succeeds. A likable cast and some neat action give this film momentum, even when it slows down to some problems with acting, editing and screenplay.
Everyone knows the general premise of Sherlock Holmes, though few know much else. Seriously, who between the age of 14 and 25 knows more than there is a guy named Sherlock and Watson? I sure did not and, fortunately, this film is meant for this crowd, introducing all the main characters and their brief histories. The plot centers around a mysterious figure named Lord Blackwood, played by Mark Strong, who murders five women in bizarre rituals. He is apprehended by Holmes and Watson, performed with much talent by Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law, respectively, within the first 15 minutes. However, his disappearance proves to be the conflict and the duo uses all of their "not inconsiderable knowledge" to find out who this man really is. Along the way, Holmes encounters an old flame, Irene Adler, given a seductive allure by Rachel McAdams. She is the one criminal who outsmarted Holmes or, perhaps, merely tempted him to the point of disorientation. Nonetheless, her shifting alliances frustrate the duo but end up being useful. The story is okay, nothing too special, but the action is where the film really gets its edge.
Guy Ritchie, the director, is known for intriguing title credits and overly bombastic action scenes rife with explosions. Thankfully, Sherlock Holmes is subdued, if ever so slightly. There is an emphasis on Holmes' attentive approach to problem-solving, shown by how fast he speaks and how he is always, unsurprisingly, right. Perhaps the best part of this movie is its combat scenes which take both Holmes' intellect and strength and mash them together. In super slow-motion, Holmes narrates and explains each step in a fight he will take and its result (3 broken ribs, for example). Then, it is played in real time, with plenty of short cuts, and a broken man is on the floor while the crowd watches, mouths agape. It is a very neat feature and is met with a lot of exaggerated facial expressions, crushing audio and ripples on skin once the fist hits it. It only happens twice and I would have welcomed it again. Other action scenes are well choreographed, with the stereotypical "heavy, foreign beast of a man" as a recurring adversary. All of this takes place in an unflattering, gritty version of Victorian England that resembles its influence but lacks any real connection to the time period. Perhaps this was intentional (Sherlock Holmes is not aiming to be a period piece), but it feels like all of the characters could be in modern times if they only dressed differently and drove cars. It is not a real annoyance as much of a peculiar observation. That withstanding, the action is where this film shines and I would have actually welcomed more of the overblown action that Ritchie is known for here.
The acting is surprisingly strong for the leading roles but weak where there's Strong. Bad puns aside, Mark Strong is a fine actor on his own accord but noticeably bad here. He moves his face in strange ways and cloaks himself under a black hood to look menacing. He his hanging from a bridge at one point and I thought back to Christopher Walken in A View To A Kill. That can be seen as a compliment for both of these roles as they are so cheesy that they are good in a strange way. Still, Robert Downey Jr. is excellent, sporting an English accent that can sit comfortably next to Jude Law. Downey has gone from a druggie mess to reformed actor in the last few years, starting with Iron Man, and this new film is another franchise to add to his prestigious belt. It is great hearing about his success and his talent really deserves it. McAdams is also fine in her role; not spectacular but decent, as is Kelly Reilly who plays Watson's fiance. Jude Law himself brings his suave demeanor to Holmes' better half. He is not a pushover, however, as he resorts to brute force usually before Holmes does. All in all, the cast is mixed but the two leads certainly make for a strong ensemble.
There is an occult theme at the center of the storyline and that is where I really have my problems with the movie. You see it in The Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons, but the whole "secret society with mysterious powers" cliche has been done so many times that it is tiring to see it be done here. I will not spoil how the plot turns out but, Holmes' reasoning withstanding, this could have been done without. In addition, the pacing of the film is fine as it moves along but 10 minutes could have been shaved off from the 2 hour, 8 minute runtime to make a tighter, more cohesive package. Writing wobbles from time to time as well. There is a good amount of humor present here but it counters the weak dialogue for the villains and predictable female encounters. The script does a very good job at wrapping up most of the loose ends, however, and Sherlock Holmes really lives up to his namesake by piecing everything together in the end. The other issues are not huge but they certainly deserve to be brought up.
Overall, Sherlock Holmes is an energetic, fun ride that does not require much thought. There is action that is both adrenaline-pumping and genuinely funny, and the stellar leading males have great chemistry with one another, also proving hilarious. I could harp on some of the flaws but I still heartily recommend this movie. It is a fun, fresh take on the famous detective and now I know that "Elementary, my dear Watson" is not the only thing Sherlock Holmes ever said.
Final Verdict:
3.5 Stars Out of 5
Directed by Guy Ritchie
Released in 2009
A modern reboot of a series of novels made in the late 19th century does not sound like a recipe for success. With Sherlock Holmes, the result is mixed but, for the most part, it succeeds. A likable cast and some neat action give this film momentum, even when it slows down to some problems with acting, editing and screenplay.
Everyone knows the general premise of Sherlock Holmes, though few know much else. Seriously, who between the age of 14 and 25 knows more than there is a guy named Sherlock and Watson? I sure did not and, fortunately, this film is meant for this crowd, introducing all the main characters and their brief histories. The plot centers around a mysterious figure named Lord Blackwood, played by Mark Strong, who murders five women in bizarre rituals. He is apprehended by Holmes and Watson, performed with much talent by Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law, respectively, within the first 15 minutes. However, his disappearance proves to be the conflict and the duo uses all of their "not inconsiderable knowledge" to find out who this man really is. Along the way, Holmes encounters an old flame, Irene Adler, given a seductive allure by Rachel McAdams. She is the one criminal who outsmarted Holmes or, perhaps, merely tempted him to the point of disorientation. Nonetheless, her shifting alliances frustrate the duo but end up being useful. The story is okay, nothing too special, but the action is where the film really gets its edge.
Guy Ritchie, the director, is known for intriguing title credits and overly bombastic action scenes rife with explosions. Thankfully, Sherlock Holmes is subdued, if ever so slightly. There is an emphasis on Holmes' attentive approach to problem-solving, shown by how fast he speaks and how he is always, unsurprisingly, right. Perhaps the best part of this movie is its combat scenes which take both Holmes' intellect and strength and mash them together. In super slow-motion, Holmes narrates and explains each step in a fight he will take and its result (3 broken ribs, for example). Then, it is played in real time, with plenty of short cuts, and a broken man is on the floor while the crowd watches, mouths agape. It is a very neat feature and is met with a lot of exaggerated facial expressions, crushing audio and ripples on skin once the fist hits it. It only happens twice and I would have welcomed it again. Other action scenes are well choreographed, with the stereotypical "heavy, foreign beast of a man" as a recurring adversary. All of this takes place in an unflattering, gritty version of Victorian England that resembles its influence but lacks any real connection to the time period. Perhaps this was intentional (Sherlock Holmes is not aiming to be a period piece), but it feels like all of the characters could be in modern times if they only dressed differently and drove cars. It is not a real annoyance as much of a peculiar observation. That withstanding, the action is where this film shines and I would have actually welcomed more of the overblown action that Ritchie is known for here.
The acting is surprisingly strong for the leading roles but weak where there's Strong. Bad puns aside, Mark Strong is a fine actor on his own accord but noticeably bad here. He moves his face in strange ways and cloaks himself under a black hood to look menacing. He his hanging from a bridge at one point and I thought back to Christopher Walken in A View To A Kill. That can be seen as a compliment for both of these roles as they are so cheesy that they are good in a strange way. Still, Robert Downey Jr. is excellent, sporting an English accent that can sit comfortably next to Jude Law. Downey has gone from a druggie mess to reformed actor in the last few years, starting with Iron Man, and this new film is another franchise to add to his prestigious belt. It is great hearing about his success and his talent really deserves it. McAdams is also fine in her role; not spectacular but decent, as is Kelly Reilly who plays Watson's fiance. Jude Law himself brings his suave demeanor to Holmes' better half. He is not a pushover, however, as he resorts to brute force usually before Holmes does. All in all, the cast is mixed but the two leads certainly make for a strong ensemble.
There is an occult theme at the center of the storyline and that is where I really have my problems with the movie. You see it in The Da Vinci Code and Angels & Demons, but the whole "secret society with mysterious powers" cliche has been done so many times that it is tiring to see it be done here. I will not spoil how the plot turns out but, Holmes' reasoning withstanding, this could have been done without. In addition, the pacing of the film is fine as it moves along but 10 minutes could have been shaved off from the 2 hour, 8 minute runtime to make a tighter, more cohesive package. Writing wobbles from time to time as well. There is a good amount of humor present here but it counters the weak dialogue for the villains and predictable female encounters. The script does a very good job at wrapping up most of the loose ends, however, and Sherlock Holmes really lives up to his namesake by piecing everything together in the end. The other issues are not huge but they certainly deserve to be brought up.
Overall, Sherlock Holmes is an energetic, fun ride that does not require much thought. There is action that is both adrenaline-pumping and genuinely funny, and the stellar leading males have great chemistry with one another, also proving hilarious. I could harp on some of the flaws but I still heartily recommend this movie. It is a fun, fresh take on the famous detective and now I know that "Elementary, my dear Watson" is not the only thing Sherlock Holmes ever said.
Final Verdict:
3.5 Stars Out of 5
Great review, but I'd like to point out that in all of the Sherlock Holmes stories, Holmes has never once said "Elementary, my dear Watson." :)
I do agree that the film was a bit too long. The style of the film was also a bit of a disappointment; I expected the breakneck pacing of Snatch but was instead treated to a muzzled Guy Ritchie. The film just didn't strike me as the type of film Ritchie would/could do, and I fear I was right.
Also, there was not nearly enough Rachel McAdams in the film. I could stare at her all day.
I preferred it to Avatar.
I thought that the acting of Downy was similar to that of his in Iron Man; witty and humorous, and the time was great.
I think my tastes are different in the sense that I enjoy a somewhat formed story over a complete balls to the walls special effects film.
Though I think I may be hating on Avatar a little too much now.
I'm between 14 and 25 and have read all the Holmes stories. :) (Not a big reader, just that I read those back in the day). That actually is why I haven't seen this yet, because it looks like it strays too far from the Holmes "feel". Not that I don't like crazy action, just that I don't like it so much with Sherlock Holmes. Same reason I wouldn't want to see James Bond as a sneaking sleuth. Ah well, maybe I'll see it anyway, it looks somewhat fun.
Overall, Sherlock Holmes is an energetic, fun ride that does not require much thought.And therein lies the problem with the movie. Not requiring much thought should be a no-no for a Sherlock Holmes story.
" @RHCPfan24 said:My sentiments exactly. I was confused by this movie's attempt at a mystery 2/3's of the way through, until I realized... oh, right.. they're gonna hold my hand and tell me everything I'm supposed to know. The movie was pretty entertaining regardless and I disagree with RedHotChiliGuy's opinion that Mark Strong's acting was bad in this movie, he was one of the better actors I thought and really brought a creepy atmosphere to his character. Cool action scenes, a fun little mystery-esque story, and solid acting on all fronts - but a largely forgettable experience.Overall, Sherlock Holmes is an energetic, fun ride that does not require much thought.And therein lies the problem with the movie. Not requiring much thought should be a no-no for a Sherlock Holmes story. "
For the most part, I liked this review - but I also thought your complaints about the occult related story are misplaced, as these are real world concerns, RIGHT NOW - not just some fantasy created to make stories sound cool.
Nice review, 3.5-4 is what I gave the movie in my mind, as well.
I have an encyclopedic knowledge of Sherlock Holmes canon, having read every Doyle story no less than 3 times, and I found the movie to be pretty entertaining. I knew going in that I would have to leave my knowledge of Holmes/Watson at the door, and let Ritchie give me his own adaptation. The movie does NOT faithfully recreate what Doyle created in his books, but it was still fun to watch. Plus, I thought the music was great.
I liked it a lot more than I thought I was going to, but being a Guy Ritchie movie, I had very low expectations. Rachel McAdams was awful. I found myself embarrassed to be watching the movie when she was on screen. I really hated the ending, too.
" Great review, but I'd like to point out that in all of the Sherlock Holmes stories, Holmes has never once said "Elementary, my dear Watson." :) "Haha, that was the show then, wasn't it? I am writing this review from a misinformed perspective of the show and the stories so that is why some of my complaints may seem ill-fitted for some. However, if a movie wants to succeed as an introduction piece it should stand by itself.
@Siris:
I am not entirely sure I understand your point about the occult theme...I find it a cop-out even if it is a tradition in the series. But like I said above, a movie must adapt if it wants to stay interesting. But the film really was largely forgettable, I do agree.
" Great review, but I'd like to point out that in all of the Sherlock Holmes stories, Holmes has never once said "Elementary, my dear Watson." :) "Really? I'm sure he did, though I can't specify where.
Anyway, surprising review as I never thought this movie would be half decent after reading the books-perhaps a television series like Poirot, but never a movie. I want to watch it now.
" @RHCPfan24 said:Kinda agree. I enjoyed the movie but it was not much of a Sherlock Holmes movie.Overall, Sherlock Holmes is an energetic, fun ride that does not require much thought.And therein lies the problem with the movie. Not requiring much thought should be a no-no for a Sherlock Holmes story. "
I didn't mind it. But for me it didn't quite live up to the source material having read all the Sherlock Holmes stories. But putting aside the fact that it was Sherlock Holmes there was still an entertaining film there. I didn't have as much of a problem with Mark Strong as Rachael McAdams, I thought she was a terrible fit in this movie.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment