Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Sherlock Holmes

  1. #1
    Senior Member slickstu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    The SmartArse State
    Posts
    747
    Thanks
    30
    Thanked 301 Times in 164 Posts
    Rep Power
    276
    Reputation
    2739

    Default Sherlock Holmes

    And this is Sherlock Holmes through the Guy Ritchie prism. An action buddy caper flick to bring Arthur Conan Doyle's celebrated hobbyist detective into the sphere of Lock Stock And Two Smoking Barrels. Being largely ignorant of Doyle's stories myself, a cursory glance at the appropriate Wiki page suggests Ritchie's interpretation may not be far from the mark but it does feel off kilter to 20th century generations raised on Basil Rathbone pop culture. It does, however, confirm (yet again) that Ritchie is capable of making only one kind of movie. Whether this is a burden or a boon depends on one's regards for Ritchie's prior body of work.

    Sherlock Holmes vis-à-vis Ritchie favours action movie over suspense mystery and the film is generally poorer for it. Part of the appeal of a whodunit is allowing the audience a stab at solving the mystery and the inherent intrigue this affords. Here Ritchie shows us the outcome and then points out the cleverness of Holmes' deductions in flashback. This results in a decidedly vanilla film whose flat pacing continues right up to it's predictable conclusion whereby Holmes dispels all paranormal possibilities with an inevitable proclamation of rational thought. This is not so much a climactic revelation as a wholly expected outcome.

    There are positives, however, in the excellent witty banter between Holmes and Watson which is a joy to behold and the delivery by Robert Downey, Jr. and Jude Law, respectively, is just great. This is far and away the highlight of the film, saving it from mediocrity and singly justifying the price of admission. Sadly, the thoroughly affable Rachel McAdams is largely inconsequential; a small edit would have removed her from the script entirely.

    Following on from the trend of the latest James Bond flicks, Ritchie fails to end the film definitively, instead suggesting a sequel which, given the elementary treatment here, seems more than a little superfluous.

    7 out of 10.



Look Here ->
  • #2
    Senior Member
    myf360f1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    2,488
    Thanks
    530
    Thanked 584 Times in 267 Posts
    Rep Power
    353
    Reputation
    3652

    Default

    Yes I agree Slickstu, you can't half tell its a Guy ritchie movie. Thankfully its available on disc so zero costs

  • #3
    Senior Member alphredo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Age
    46
    Posts
    999
    Thanks
    15
    Thanked 26 Times in 16 Posts
    Rep Power
    0
    Reputation
    -44

    Default

    i dont think he was trying too do anything but make it a `guy richie` style film , after all why would he.

  • #4
    Senior Member Woodstock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Mt Gambier
    Age
    51
    Posts
    1,728
    Thanks
    74
    Thanked 82 Times in 57 Posts
    Rep Power
    261
    Reputation
    336

    Default

    8 out of 10
    Trust thyself only, and another shall not betray thee.

    http://s18.postimage.org/h9xu3rrhx/fb_sevapers.jpg

  • Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •