Movie Review: ‘Sherlock Holmes’ good, but it could have been great
Movie Review: ‘Sherlock Holmes’ good, but it could have been great
It is delicate business, picking on “Sherlock Holmes.” this sleek and sexy update of detective Holmes is fun, easy to digest and very aesthetically pleasing; not to mention, Robert Downey Jr. takes the role, calls his shot and knocks it over the fence.
The movie had no guts. No metal. No teeth.
This observation could be mistaken for being picky (or even snobby), but consider this:
“Sherlock Holmes” is not just a big-budget holiday popcorn movie or the next starring vehicle for A-lister Downey Jr. it is also the reputed comeback of British director Guy Ritchie (yes, he’s the guy who was married to Madonna).
Before he was Madonna’s husband, Ritchie made two incredible films that had taken the post-Tarantino film world (for the most part) by storm. “Lock, Stock, and two Smoking Barrels” and “Snatch” were both incredibly fascinating films about crooks and gangsters from the London underground.
Both films featured a snappy beat, thick cockney accents and wonderful characters with names such as Brick Top, Franky Four-Fingers and Hatchet Harry. for young American audiences, it was a peek into a never-before-seen world of big-wig Brit gangsters and hapless petty thieves. Ritchie was a hot up-and-coming genre director, and no one could show you London like he could.
However, Ritchie went on to direct “Revolver,” widely considered one of the worst films ever made. he then became wrapped up in Madonna and slowly but surely fell from grace, flop by flop. he has since redeemed himself (somewhat) with indie hit “Rocknrolla.” Now he can add “Holmes” to his output.
Having seen Ritchie’s rich and romantic vision of the London underbelly in “Lock, Stock” and “Snatch,” I was expecting “Sherlock Holmes” to have an edge to it that simply wasn’t there. taking place in the raucous arena of 19th-century London, the setting of “Sherlock Holmes” should really have been brought to life by Ritchie, but it wasn’t.
Few of the side characters were at all interesting, and Victorian England has never looked so tame. Granted, Ritchie was working within the parameters of a PG-13 rating, but I wish he could have thought up a way to bring its overall grit and grime to the surface.
Aside from this gripe, “Sherlock Holmes” was, as I stated, very fun.
The film is not an origin story, nor does it make any attempt to familiarize the audience with who Holmes is and what it is he does. this is a good thing, since the alternative would be to use weak expositional dialogue as a means to spoon-feed the audience the story. Instead, the film dives right in with Holmes on the hunt.
The plot involves a sinister secret society, a megalomaniac named Lord Blackwood and what would appear to be black magic. all in all, it was a great story, rife with opportunity to employ the deductive reasoning and logic of Holmes as he debunks the supernatural and cracks the case wide open.
Also, this version of “Holmes” gives a more accurate portrayal of Holmes and Watson, as well as the nature of their relationship. Here, they are colleagues and even equals, as opposed to Watson being a sniveling little pudgy sidekick who follows Holmes around in awe and does his bidding on command.
Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law, as Watson, turn in a terrific job as the crime-fighting duo. Downey Jr. is perfect as this version of Holmes, who is a crude, irreverent drug user (though, of course, absolutely brilliant). Law’s “fine British gentleman” persona is a perfect match for this version of Watson as well. Performances were great all around.
“Sherlock Holmes,” while not everything I would have loved it to be, is still a good movie. The depth and creativity of Ritchie’s first two films would have made this flick a GREAT movie. but instead, it was just good. You can’t miss with this film, though. Go check it out.
Lane Blevins in an aspiring filmmaker. E-mail him at the-hour@hotmail.com.
Click here to watch the trailer.
To comment, you must register.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the registered user participating in online discussions. You agree not to post comments off topic, abusive, obscene, defamatory, vulgar, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned.
Click here to review our complete user agreement.
Movie Review: ‘Sherlock Holmes’ good, but it could have been great
Related posts:
- Film review: ‘Sherlock Holmes’
- Movie Review: Sherlock Holmes | California Literary Review
- Movie Review: Sherlock Holmes
- Sherlock Holmes: See the movie, then follow in the detective's footsteps on a …
- Sherlock Holmes, the action star