Sherlock Holmes Reviews
Mostly entertaining
Posted : 9 years, 6 months ago on 26 October 2014 05:56'Sherlock Holmes' is mostly entertaining but has a strange ending and other too weird mystery scenes. Still it features great cinematography and visual style and some good acting from the cast! A good mystery movie!
0 comments, Reply to this entry
A good movie
Posted : 11 years, 10 months ago on 22 June 2012 09:19Following his come-back thanks to 'Iron Man', Robert Downey Jr followed up with another high-profile gig, a modern version of one of the oldest characters, Sherlock Holmes. I always had a weak spot for Guy Ritchie's work, even though he hasn't done anything amazing since 'Snatch'. Anyway, coming back to our main feature, I thought it was pretty good. Indeed, this movie looked really good and the action scenes worked pretty well without overshadowing the rest of the movie. Of course, the best was the casting. Indeed, Downey Jr was awesome and totally rocked this performance and Jude Law was a good choice for Watson. However, to be honest, the whole thing it was still nothing mind-blowing though. I mean, it was fairly entertaining and I enjoyed how they rationally explained everything at the end like a good old Holmes tale but, honestly, it was not a really strong story. Basically, they were way too busy making sure the whole thing looked badass, that Robert Downey Jr sounded cool when they should have spent more time on a strong and spellbinding story. It was the same issue with the dialogues, some of them were entertaining, but some other were way too convoluted and I understand that they wanted to make it sound clever but it didn’t always work. Anyway, to conclude, it was still a well made and entertaining blockbuster and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Review of Sherlock Holmes
Posted : 12 years, 1 month ago on 15 March 2012 08:35My feelings about this unique film are a little mixed. The film wants to be clever, but very little smarts at all are needed to view this film. Naturally, this film is geared towards teenage boys, who for the most part, are not interested in an intellectually stimulating film. They just want to see Downey deliver witty lines, and watch him beat up thugs. So, if that's what you came to see, you will not be disappointed.
However those wanting a more intelligent film, should not look here. Even when the Sherlock Holmes is explaining how he figured out the case at the end, it's through many clues that the viewer didn't have a chance of deciphering themselves, which is quite contradictory to what Sherlock Holmes is all about. I know the target audience, so I expected as much, but my mother who viewed the film with me, was quite irritated at the obscure clues.
A good mystery should be tailored so that the audience can try to solve the mystery too (and make it hard enough, so that they can't figure it out). This film does nothing of the sort, instead, we merely learn at the end, that Sherlock had seen things that the camera never shows us, making it impossible to solve the mystery ourselves. But like I said, the target audience doesn't care about such things, so therefore, the film is oddly "smartless." But I digress.
On the other hand, the cast does a fantastic job at portraying each of their characters, even if some lines were delivered a little hammy.
Also, the musical score, composed by Hanz Zimmer, is very good, and absolutely hilarious. Music doesn't commonly make me smile (out of humor anyway), but this score did.
Though many of the action sequences were rather ordinary, there were definitely a handful that kept me on the edge of my seat, and I'm sure the target audience will eat it up.
The film is quite amusing, as one can expect with from the leading actor, but for some reason, the film wasn't quite as humorous as I was expecting. It was funny enough, anyway.
Lastly, and this may be a major problem for some, but this film just doesn't feel like Sherlock Holmes. It feels like Robert Downey Jr. makes another million dollars. I suppose this is to be expected, but somehow, I was hoping that there might be some sort of Sherlock spirit to this, but alas, there was not.
I was not wowed, but I most definitely enjoyed myself. I do wish, though, that the film was a bit more intelligent, and this film doesn't feel like Sherlock Holmes at all. Regardless, this is an enjoyable romp, and I'll probably catch the sequel on DVD.
Consider me entertained, but not impressed.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Sherlock Holmes review
Posted : 13 years ago on 14 April 2011 12:38BTW Downey's portrayal of Holmes reminded me a little of Captain Jack Sparrow! ;P
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Sherlock Holmes review
Posted : 13 years, 8 months ago on 1 August 2010 05:100 comments, Reply to this entry
Sherlock Holmes
Posted : 13 years, 10 months ago on 23 June 2010 10:02Robert Downey Jr., on paper, might sound like the oddest choice for Holmes, but it invests the character with the same eccentric braininess and darkness beneath the surface. Holmes was a drug addicted sleuth after all. That he got a Golden Globe nomination for this speaks to the level of his work. Even in big budget popcorn entertainment RDJ delivers performances that are quirky and engaging. And Mark Strong seems to have become the latest in the long line of British character actors who seem to portray every evil character in an established franchise or a reboot (Alan Rickman, Jason Isaacs and Gary Oldman all spring to mind). I’m waiting for him to appear in one of the final installments of Harry Potter, but that could just be me being silly. The main cast is rounded out by Jude Law – charming as ever and proving himself adept at action – and Rachel McAdams – beautiful, tough, pitch-perfect and terribly underutilized. She’s great at what she is asked to do and delivers the goods, but isn’t asked to deliver or do that much. Law, on the other hand, helps RDJ find that almost-but-not-quite gay streak within the characters that’s just too hilariously embellished in this outing.
And while it is a grand ol’ time to be had, it also ever-so-slightly ridiculous and could have benefited from a few more scenes of comedic interplay between Holmes and Watson or barely contained sensuality between Holmes and Irene Adler (the way McAdams can part her lips or arch an eyebrow can make any man melt). If not so the audience could breathe, then so all of the slow-motion set pieces and bare-knuckle boxing didn’t mesh into one supremely long fight scene.
I would also like to have seen a more quiet scenes to fully envelope and experience the richly textured and detailed world that Guy Ritchie has created for this version of the world’s most famous sleuth. It plays like something between a Victorian horror film, a Victorian film noir and graphic novelized version of the real thing. It’s quite lovely to behold and to just watch, but so much of it is given way to a manic energy that’s more eager to give a roller-coaster ride feeling than room to breath between screams as it twists, turns and drops you this way and that.
Sherlock Holmes plays like a summer movie, but it came out in time for awards season. It sounds like a contradiction in terms, but it somehow worked. It just goes to prove that summer popcorn entertainment need not be brainless and FX heavy to be a hit or enjoyable. It’s a fun little ride, and an interesting revisionist take on a century old character.
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Sherlock Holmes review
Posted : 13 years, 11 months ago on 21 May 2010 06:25Second viewing and a much, much, much more enjoyable one. Downey Jr is very believeable (I didn't pay attention to his accent this time round which is a good thing) and has a great chemistry with Law, Rachel McAdams is lovely and I love the Irish theme running throughout the film. Action felt much more engaging this time this time and I actually followed the plot, a clever one at that. Enjoyed the score too. A fun, fresh and entertaining update of the Holmes stories.
4/5
First Viewing
Before, I start, the 3 stars I am giving this film come from my head not my heart, as the cinema was very uncomfortable, not making me enjoy the film as much as I would have liked to.
I saw the film advertised and had no interest in seeing it. Sherlock Holmes bare-knuckle fighting? Robert Downey Jr? I admit I thought it was going to be quite poor. How wrong I was.
Downey Jr was fantastic capturing the eccentricity (and the accent) of Holmes to near perfection. The script is brilliantly intelligent and witty. The action is exciting and doesn't feel unnecessary as I thought it would. Rachel McAdams was decent too, other than looking gorgeous. Plus there was an extra that looked like Billy Connolly.
3/5
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Sherlock Holmes review
Posted : 14 years ago on 30 March 2010 06:23i like it
thanks :)
0 comments, Reply to this entry
Mr. Holmes is in da house
Posted : 14 years, 3 months ago on 11 January 2010 02:350 comments, Reply to this entry
Fun, but too average, disposable and blah
Posted : 14 years, 3 months ago on 9 January 2010 06:39
Born from the mind of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes has been imbedded in the public consciousness for in excess of a century now through countless short stories, books, films, and pop culture interpretations. It's an indubitably impressive run, and has caused the character to become one of the most recognisable literary figures in history. Considering the amount of famous film franchises which have been rebooted over recent years (Star Trek, James Bond, etc), it comes as no surprise to learn of the birth of a new Sherlock Holmes film series specifically tailored for a new generation. British filmmaker Guy Ritchie combines his kinetic directorial methods with the limitless charms of Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law to produce 2009's Sherlock Holmes. This newest version of the character won't likely please purists, but it isn't made for them - similar to Batman Begins and Star Trek, the timeless fictional characters are fashioned to produce a breakneck thriller intended to electrify modern audiences and widen the appeal. That's not to say Ritchie's version depicts Holmes as a straight-up action hero - in spite of the action being played up to satisfy contemporary viewers who'd find a more subdued portrayal too dull, the film is more intelligent than expected, and this is by no means hackwork.
As Sherlock Holmes begins, the titular character (Downey Jr.) and his faithful sidekick Dr. Watson (Law) apprehend serial killer Lord Blackwood (Strong) before he can claim his sixth victim via a dark arts ceremony. Prior to Blackwood's hanging, he warns Holmes that the mayhem and murder won't cease with his execution. Inevitably, this statement rings true. When Blackwood appears to have risen from the grave, the case takes a macabre turn. Complicating the situation is Irene Adler (McAdams), Holmes' slippery former flame, who has returned to London but whose motivations are vague and highly suspicious.
Guy Ritchie mixes the grittiness and brawling of Snatch with buddy cop elements (think Lethal Weapon) and the cheekiness of an Indiana Jones movie to form his Sherlock Holmes. The team of screenwriters (Michael Robert Johnson, Anthony Peckman and Simon Kinberg) keep their tale within the Victorian-era setting in London, and liberally draw from the Holmes canon as familiar characters are plucked from various tales and mixed into this unique stew which relies as much on the detective's physical abilities as it does his deductive capabilities. Fortunately, a couple of combat sequences are skilfully transformed into an intellectual exercise by decelerating the action and allowing Holmes to work out a carefully calculated series of actions to disarm his opponent. Thus, while the execution is purely physical, the violence works in conjunction with (rather than in opposition to) his intellect, not to mention it demonstrates that Holmes is always 100 steps ahead of his enemies.
Dipping into chemistry, pentagrams and early forms of electricity, the plot of Sherlock Holmes is all over the place, and it's so convoluted that one will likely have difficult wrapping their head around it all. This is, of course, due to Ritchie's hyperactive style - the director has crafted an action-adventure all about whooshing and head-banging; leaving little space between each jackhammer sequence to savour the meaning of Holmes' words. Sherlock Holmes literally plays out as if the entire film is on fast-forward. Even during the expositional scenes, there's a distinct lack of substance. On top of this, the plot is not exactly interesting - it feels like the work of Dan Brown (it's almost a doppelganger of Angels & Demons). Granted, the film remains pleasant fun, but it's too disappointingly average, disposable, and simply blah.
In portraying the legendary Sherlock Holmes, Robert Downey Jr. adds his name to an extensive list of actors, including such luminaries as Peter O'Toole, John Barrymore, Peter Cushing and the beloved Basil Rathbone. It may be tempting to perceive Downey's portrayal and Ritchie's amped-up aesthetic approach to the material as mere revisionism for the ADD generation, but it's closer in spirit and tone to Doyle's original character, who is more of a self-imposed social outcast than the distinguished, academic figure to which audiences have grown accustomed. Robert Downey Jr. could not be better casting - it's an articulation of genius that makes Sherlock Holmes such an interesting film despite the myriad flaws. His British accent is utterly convincing. Better, Downey shares pointed chemistry with Jude Law. The role of Dr. Watson was a very smart choice for Law; providing viewers with the opportunity to truly appreciate the actor's screen skills. Law exudes charm and verve as Dr. Watson; offering a more muscular portrait of the character and providing a welcome straight-man for whenever Holmes' eccentricities cross the line.
Sherlock Holmes is further marred by the inclusion of one of the dullest villains in the Holmes canon: Lord Blackwood (played by Mark Strong) who sneers a lot and aspires to take over the world in typical Blofield fashion. Strong is an excellent actor, but the character is neither broad nor menacing enough for him to sink his teeth into, and he's therefore relegated to scowling for the majority of the movie. Rachel McAdams, meanwhile, looks visibly out of her league alongside the impeccable Downey Jr. and Law.
Guy Ritchie, who hasn't had a true hit since Snatch and has been unable to bring anything new to the table since the early days of the Blair government, had long seemed a spent force. But Sherlock Holmes is a good career move. His fingerprints are all over the movie in terms of visual whiplash, but Ritchie was not among those who wrote the script, and therefore the film has not been created as Snatch in a Victorian-era setting (Tarantino should pay attention, since his Inglourious Basterds was virtually Pulp Fiction in a World War II setting). Here, Ritchie acquits himself particularly well for several exhilarating set-pieces; particularly a breathless foot-chase which ends with the destruction of an unfinished ocean liner. On a technical level, 19th Century London as it enters the modern age has been vividly and dynamically recreated, and composer Hans Zimmer delivers an enthralling score.
Ultimately, as films like X-Men achieved with the reintroduction of long-established characters to a new generation, Sherlock Holmes is more successful as a set-up to its sequels rather than a satisfying standalone story. When freed of the origin-story constraints, Brian Singer truly took off with X-Men 2, and so too should Ritchie when it comes time to create a sequel. The reason Sherlock Holmes fails as often as it succeeds is because it merely offers interesting characters in search of a worthwhile story.
6.1/10
0 comments, Reply to this entry