Saving...on March 15, 2010 by admin in London 2012, Comments (5)
Sherlock Holmes
Amazon.com
Guy Ritchie (Snatch, RocknRolla) attempts to reinvent one of the world’s most iconic literary figures as an action hero in this brawny, visually arresting period adventure. Robert Downey Jr. is an intriguing choice for the Great Detective, and if he occasionally murmurs his lines a pitch or two out of hearing range, his trademark bristling energy and off-kilter humor do much to sell Ritchie’s notion of Holmes. Jude Law is equally well-equipped as a more active Dr. Watson–he’s closer to Robert Duvall’s vigorous portrayal in The Seven Per-Cent Solution than to Nigel Bruce–and together, they make for an engaging team. Too bad the plot they’re thrust into is such a mess–a bustling and disorganized flurry of martial arts, black magic, and overwhelming set pieces centered around Mark Strong’s Crowley-esque cult leader (no Professor Moriarty, he), who returns from the grave to exact revenge. Downey and Law’s amped-up Holmes and Watson are built for the challenge of riding this roller coaster with the audience; however, Rachel McAdams as Holmes’s love interest, Irene Adler (here a markedly different character than the one in Arthur Conan Doyle’s “A Scandal in Bohemia”), and Kelly Reilly as Mary Morstan, the future Mrs. Watson, are cast to the wind in the wake of Ritchie’s hurricane pace. One can imagine this not sitting well with ardent Sherlockians; all others may find this Sherlock Holmes marvelous if calorie-free popcorn entertainment, with the CGI rendering of Victorian-era London particularly appealing eye candy. –Paul Gaita
Tags: Arthur Conan Doyle, Dr. Watson--he, Holmes, Irene Adler, LAW, London, Mark Strong, Mary Morstan, Mrs. Watson, Nigel Bruce--and, Paul Gaita, Per-Cent, Professor Moriarty, Rachel McAdams, Ritchie, Robert Downey Jr., Robert Duvall, Sherlock, Watson
Mark D. Norton
March 15, 2010 @ 1:35 am
This movie was terrible. There were times when I couldn’t even understand the words they were saying because they were talking so fast. The plot absolutely stunk. I never knew that Sherlock Holmes fought in Bare-Knuckle Cage Matches like he did in this movie. There was ABSOLUTELY ZERO MYSTERY IN THIS MOVIE. I read Sherlock Holmes books as a child, and loved them. The books I read as a child were full of mystery. However, this move decided not to have any mystery to it at all, instead they just had a bunch of really weak action scenes where Sherlock Holmes would go in an kick everyones butt. The main Character, Holmes, was meant to be a genius, but he is portrayed as a mumbling idiot for most of the movie. I would not recommend this to anyone, and I almost walked out of the theatre, but I didn’t – But I wish I had walked out, since the ending is as boring as the rest of the movie, and no mystery is ever solved.
Rating: 1 / 5
Amsterdam20
March 15, 2010 @ 4:19 am
This movie stunk. I knew it was going to be a modernized version of the Sherlock Holmes legacy, but the only thing this movie had in common with the original story were a few names and the deductive reasoning of Holmes. Everything else about it felt wrong and out of place, especially the fight scenes. The original Holmes was highly intelligent, but he never used this talent to be some kind of MMA fighter. The vibe of this movie was also far too slapstick for my liking and it was really hard to understand what the characters were saying because of the English accents. I usually don’t have a problem with this kind of thing, but this movie needed subtitles. The story itself was terrible and I nearly walked out, but it was one of those things where I figured I sat here this long and might as well stay to the ending. That was a mistake because the ending sucked too. I can’t believe these guys think they are going to make another movie. It is rare that sequels top the first movie and anything worse than this movie would be a disaster.
Rating: 1 / 5
The-Big-Bad
March 15, 2010 @ 6:06 am
I wanted to like “Sherlock Holmes.” I really did. But this movie was so bad that I nearly fell asleep five different times during the film, which is a rarity for me. I’m 35 and have a film degree, so I’m not some senior citizen who can’t let go of earlier Holmes versions or the text of the written works (or who can’t stay awake past 8:30). I found the writing to be trite, dull and often just plain silly. The actors did the best they could with the muddle of a script and the bad directing from Guy–if the story gets boring, throw in a fight and some property damage–Ritchie (whose films I used to enjoy). And the dialogue was unintelligible at several points in the film. If I can understand Monty Python, I can understand any British accent. It wasn’t the accents, it was the mumbling of the actors and the pacing of the story. Maybe Ritchie figured he could make the story more exciting (good luck) by speeding up the dialogue. If you like brainless and badly directed movies, you could do worse than “Sherlock Holmes”…but, seriously, why would you want to?
Rating: 1 / 5
H. Schneider
March 15, 2010 @ 8:52 am
Some men have problems with their women. Guy Ritchie had a divorce, and now Sherlock Holmes is somewhat unfortunate with Rachel McAdams.
But surprisingly, these problems turn out to be small fry! The real problem is another one:
Ritchie either never read Conan Doyle’s Holmes stories, or he thought he can get away with inventing a new man with the same name. (Like: did you know that Shakespeare’s plays were not written by him but by somebody else with the same name?)
Sorry to say: no, he can’t, or if he thinks he can, he needs to try again, as this one failed.
My often reliable daily paper South China Morning Post rated this movie 2 of 5 stars. I did not want to watch it. Then Downey got a Golden Globe for best drama acting. (Or was it comedy? Even worse!) I thought, mistakenly, that must mean something and went into a Singapore movie theatre, despite my misgivings about the film and despite my inability to enjoy the arctic frost in Singapore public indoor places.
No, folks, it means nothing. The Downey character in this film is nothing, not even a caricature. Talking about caricatures: I just read a few comments on Inglorious Basterds, and how bad Pitt’s acting is supposed to have been, and how much he is a caricature. Let me say this: Downey here is not even that, he is just a bad copy of himself. Jude Law as Watson might have worked with a convincing Holmes.
The story or plot is an awful mess about a conspiracy to rule the world and about black magic and witchcraft and mysterious assassinations, with an evil guy who looks as if Andy Garcia tries to impersonate Hitler. Holmes & Watson spend a surprising portion of their screen time doing action stunts, or trying to get along with their respective women. Downey mumbles, which I will not forgive.
I have rarely been so uncomfortable and bored in a cinema.
Rating: 1 / 5
Harry Eagar
March 15, 2010 @ 11:16 am
Seldom have I seen a movie whose grasp was so much less than its reach.
This was shown at the Maui Film Festival’s First Light on Dec. 23, and MFF’s Barry Rivers said it was the first showing in North America. Be warned. It’s coming to a theater near you.
First, at least a third of the dialogue is incomprehensible, and not only because of the London accents. Sherlock, especially, mumbles.
Whoever wrote this script either failed to get Sherlock Holmes or was deliberately standing Doyle on his head. Although in the Strand stories, Holmes occasionally displays a surprising strength, he uses his head, not his fists, to get results. Likewise, Watson is occasionally advised to “bring your pistol,” but as far as I can recollect, he never shoots it.
The authors show a considerable knowledge of the Holmes canon but no understanding of it (unless they are being intentionally perverse for mysterious reasons). “Across the Universe” two years ago showed what creative people could do by reworking the complete canon of other creative people. “Sherlock Holmes” shows how people without any creative imagination can take a high canon and rework it as a Saturday morning cartoon,
Third, director Guy Ritchie cut this like a music video, and not a good one, either. It was akin to watching a waterbug on crack.
The only good thing I can find to say about this flick is that Rachel McAdams has very nice lips.
Rating: 1 / 5