Short Review: If you can stomach seeing Sherlock Holmes beating up a guy with nunchuck-looking things, hear his British accent fail him at the end of long sentences and seem more like Tony Stark than the classic character, you'll be just fine.


It takes about three seconds for the movie to reveal that this has as much to do with Sherlock Holmes as Austin Powers has to do with James Bond. The new and improved, space-age Sherlock (now with extra zing!) shares a name and some traits with his literary twin, but other than that, leave your knowledge of the old guy at home. He will only serve to get in the way of his newly minted cinematic doppelganger.

Taking the film for what it is, a plump, squishy, nonsense-laden hunk of crap from Hollywood, it is very effective. It offers attractive characters with bouncy dialog and some amusing moments of peril. The film entertains, which is better than I can say for most Hollywood deposits over the past twelve months.

Robert Downey Jr.'s Holmes is a British version of Tony Stark who is less sexed and has baggier facial expressions. Downey is fantastic at balancing himself on the edge of over-acting without ever crossing over. To me, this is his draw. He is charismatic and often overtakes the other actors around him. But he at least does us the favor of being worth watching while he distracts from everything else.

Downey is a solid actor and is finally delivering on the promise he showed way back when he made Chaplin. He spent a lot of years wandering the back alleys of Hollywood doing very stupid movies and simpleton roles (One Night Stand, Natural Born Killers, Two Girls and a Guy, Only You), but clean and sober, he has finally found his niche - regular stupid movies and relatively stupid roles. Yes, he's still slopping burgers at McDonalds, but the fact is that he is the best kid working the fry machine.

Opposite Downey is Jude Law as Dr. Watson. Other than offering to step in and dispatch of some toothless, dingy minions, we're not clear as to his purpose. He offers Holmes some banter and plays Felix to Holmes Oscar, but otherwise he follows the detective around like some intern assistant.

Law's performance does manage to keep up with Downey's work. The two mix well together and give the production a comfortable and friendly vibe. Law also looks the part of a Englishman. His presence, and steady accent, help to remind audiences this is supposed to be taking place in London, not Lot 13 in Burbank.

The film isn't without its downsides. The casting of Rachel McAdams is a notable fault. She has a pretty smile and near perfect skin. That wraps up the depth of her character Irene. McAdams wilts in comparison to both Downey and Law. She never finds her footing and fades into the background, even when she's the only one on screen. It is as if she was given her lines moments before stepping in front of the cameras, whereas Downey and Law had plenty of rehersal time with ample opportunity to explore their dialog, non-verbals and reactions. The two will have a scene with complex dialog, filled with lively exchange. Downey will then spend time with McAdams and their whole conversation could be reduced to grunts and eyebrow wiggling and little would be lost. In McAdams' defence, Irene is thinly written. Her dialog is far less dramatic and her motivations are clunky.

The other troubling part of the story is the mystery at the heart of the film is no mystery at all. Instead it is a plot that gets quickly unraveled on our behalf by Holmes. The audience has nothing to do with it. The fun of mysteries is for the viewer to attempt to uncover the truth before the hero. We are either outsmarted by the villain, or are as bright as the hero. Here, Holmes deciphers a complex plot and explains his logic in the final moments - a string of logic that would be impossible for any audience member to come to on their own. This drains what could have been, should have been, a great payoff for us. Then again, they had to concentrate on making sure Holmes as like all awesome and stuff.

I recommend the movie but I warn you it is a frosted, high-fructose, McMovie served in a dome-cup.




Related Reviews:
Robert Downey Jr. movies
Iron Man (2008)
Tropic Thunder (2008)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Austin Chronicle
Eric D. Snyder

Labels: Eddie Marsan, film, Guy Ritchie, Jude Law, Mark Strong, movie review, Rachel McAdams, Robert Downey Jr

I haven't read all of Sherlock Holmes, but I fail to remember the one where he's fighting like a ninja and being handcuffed naked to a bed.

So, we're making Sherlock Holmes into Tony Stark with an accent?

Jude Law is Watson.

What part of this isn't freaking idiotic?




Screenwriters: Michael Robert Johnson, Anthony Peckham and Simon Kinberg (Jumper)
Director: Guy Ritchie (Snatch)
Actors: Robert Downey Jr. (Iron Man), Rachel McAdams (Red Eye), Mark Strong (Body of Lies) and Jude Law (Sleuth)

Labels: film, Guy Ritchie, Jude Law, Mark Strong, movie trailer, Rachel McAdams, Robert Downey Jr

My one year old daughter will make a face or say something that gets a laugh from her mother and me. Flushed with the attention she receives, she will do the shtick again in hopes of getting the same reaction. Sometimes it works out for her. If so, she will then do a third, fourth and sometimes a fifth time. The longer the trick goes on the less effective it is. Unlike Guy Ritchie, my one year old daughter has the sense to stop her routine when it fails to get results.

This is the same old same old hyper-stylized, popping paced, snap edited "ain't we too cool for the room" dribble we've seen before. When writer/director hit the scene with Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels his style was exciting and new. He make a statement and his fresh voice was heard. When he broke and took the next step with his follow up Snatch he seemed like he was a notable rising power in cinema. A film maker with a talent for crime flicks. Like a British Tarantino but without the massive cranium and he didn't come across as someone desperately making up for his missing dad. Then Richie stagnated and hasn't grown one bit. If you have seen his first two films you've seen this one.

The thing that strikes me about this film is how immensely controlled it feels. Every shot is obviously carefully planned, the design work is obvious and the characterizations are calculated. I never felt as if I were doing anything but watching a very elaborate movie. This is not a good quality since it means I was never able to "get lost" in the movie. Ritchie's governing hand is seen the whole time, he may as well be heard yelling out direction in the background of all of his scenes.

The performances by the likes of Tom Wilkinson, Gerald Butler, Mark Strong, Idris Elba and Thandie Newton are passable. They all strut across the screen with appropriate confidence and toughness but it is all hollow. Their lines are contrived and sound like dialog not actual people talking. They may have done admirable jobs delivering their roles but the combined end product is completely soulless. This drains their efforts of any value.

Ritchie opens his film with a fat knot of facts, motivations and plot all delivered in a kinetic package. The opening five minutes is more flashy and distracting that most children's cereal commercials. One would expect the film to settle a bit as it moves forward so the audience can register the ideas presented in the flurry but Ritchie chooses to keep the flashiness up. We're given more characters, all are oh, so cool and posed, more conniving and more deliberate camera work. This continues throughout the film until Ritchie has devised a Rube Goldberg contraption for a plot that all fires off at once only to provide the uninspiring result of a lighter being snapped on. The problem with creating multi-layered, complicated narratives is that you had better make it worth people's time. This film doesn't meet that criterion.


Related Reviews:
Crime movies
Rififi (1955)
Layer Cake (2003)


Other Critic’s Reviews:
Hollywood Jesus
Den of Geek

Labels: British Cinema, film, Gerald Butler, Guy Ritchie, Idris Elba, Mark Strong, movie review, Thandie Newton, Tom Wilkinson

Guy Ritchie’s international debut production about a gaggle of low life Londoners who are forced into a life of crime after losing a high stakes poker game is a celebration of all that is bad in the human condition. However, this film does a good job of selling its story. With its clever camera angles, editing and story Ritchie weaves a story that satisfies...while it also debases its audience. This film introduced Ritchie's fresh voice to the world. Too bad said voice seems to be cursed by Tourettes.

Related Reviews:
Jason Statham movies
The Transporter (2002)
The Bank Job (2008)


Other Critic's Reviews:
Film Threat
Roger Ebert

Labels: film, Guy Ritchie, Jason Statham, movie review

Screenwriter: Guy Ritchie (Snatch)
Director: Guy Ritchie (Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels)
Actors: Gerald Butler (300), Gemma Arterton (Quantum of Solace), Jeremy Piven (The Kingdom), Tom Wilkinson (Michael Clayton), and Thandie Newton (Crash)

Labels: film, Gemma Arterton, Gerald Butler, Guy Ritchie, movie trailer, Thandie Newton, Tom Wilkinson