starring Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law
In a nutshell: An all-around enjoyable movie. Enough Guy Ritchie flair so that you know its his work, but not so much that it overshadows the iconic detective and his sidekick.
Quick synopsis: Sherlock Holmes and John Watson try to solve the mystery of a man whom Watson himself declared dead after his execution, but has seemingly risen from the dead.
Content: Guy Ritchie has finally made another good movie. It has been a long time since his career peaked with the excellent Snatch in 2000. He had gone a little off the reservation with his last few movies and needed an established foundation for a movie to get back on track. What better foundation for this purpose than one of the most prolific franchises in media history? Ritchie stays true to the spirit of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's most famous creation, even while applying his trademark flair. Robert Downey Jr's version of Holmes is certainly more eccentric than some other versions of the character, but he conveys the necessary brilliance, even if the depth of it only becomes apparent as Holmes explains everything towards the end.
Jude Law does just fine as Watson. I was worried about his ability not to overact as he has been known to do from time to time (see: The Holiday), but shockingly, he did an excellent job disappearing into the character. I have heard complaints that Law's characterization doesn't match the Watson that we know and love, but this is only partially true. The portrayals of Watson as a bumbling Englishman are from a few select movies that just happen to stand out in our memories. The Watson in this movie seems to be far closer to the original version from the books: a strapping and able former military man who has the commons sense to compliment Holmes' analytical genius. Well done, Jude. You surprised me.
Rachel McAdams was fine but probably not necessary, other than to make the movie appeal to women a bit more by supplying a strong female character. And I don't know anything about this Mark Strong guy, but he was very good as the evil Lord Blackwood. Very creepy. Love the crooked tooth.
I think that Guy Ritchie did a much better job of maintaining the "style" of Sherlock Holmes than I ever expected. Sure, he included a little more action than was necessary, but it didn't take away from the necessary elements much. Although my memories of reading some of the Holmes short stories in my freshman writing seminar are admittedly sketchy, I pretty sure traditional Holmes story structure made it through largely intact. The books are told from Watson's perspective. Although the movie gives us an impartial 3rd person perspective instead, it still has the same effect of not letting us into Holmes' head until he lets us in.
Like the books, the movie gives us the essential clues to solving the mystery along the way - items in the background for which no explanation is given. I hoped that these would be important (and not just scenery), and I was not let down. Every clue that Holmes cites at the end when he explains everything was shown to us at one time or another...exactly the way it should have been done. However it would have been nearly impossible for an audience to completely solve the mystery for two reasons. First, the breadth of knowledge and odd facts required is greater than almost anyone has. And second, a few liberties are taken with science, but exactly the same type of liberties are taken in the books. The bottom line is that if some of the "science" in a movie like The Prestige ruined it for you then 1) Holmes maye same effect on you and 2) lighten up...
Rolling rankings:
1. Where The Wild Things Are (#169)
2. Jackie Brown (#173)
In a nutshell: An all-around enjoyable movie. Enough Guy Ritchie flair so that you know its his work, but not so much that it overshadows the iconic detective and his sidekick.
Quick synopsis: Sherlock Holmes and John Watson try to solve the mystery of a man whom Watson himself declared dead after his execution, but has seemingly risen from the dead.
Content: Guy Ritchie has finally made another good movie. It has been a long time since his career peaked with the excellent Snatch in 2000. He had gone a little off the reservation with his last few movies and needed an established foundation for a movie to get back on track. What better foundation for this purpose than one of the most prolific franchises in media history? Ritchie stays true to the spirit of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's most famous creation, even while applying his trademark flair. Robert Downey Jr's version of Holmes is certainly more eccentric than some other versions of the character, but he conveys the necessary brilliance, even if the depth of it only becomes apparent as Holmes explains everything towards the end.
Jude Law does just fine as Watson. I was worried about his ability not to overact as he has been known to do from time to time (see: The Holiday), but shockingly, he did an excellent job disappearing into the character. I have heard complaints that Law's characterization doesn't match the Watson that we know and love, but this is only partially true. The portrayals of Watson as a bumbling Englishman are from a few select movies that just happen to stand out in our memories. The Watson in this movie seems to be far closer to the original version from the books: a strapping and able former military man who has the commons sense to compliment Holmes' analytical genius. Well done, Jude. You surprised me.
Rachel McAdams was fine but probably not necessary, other than to make the movie appeal to women a bit more by supplying a strong female character. And I don't know anything about this Mark Strong guy, but he was very good as the evil Lord Blackwood. Very creepy. Love the crooked tooth.
I think that Guy Ritchie did a much better job of maintaining the "style" of Sherlock Holmes than I ever expected. Sure, he included a little more action than was necessary, but it didn't take away from the necessary elements much. Although my memories of reading some of the Holmes short stories in my freshman writing seminar are admittedly sketchy, I pretty sure traditional Holmes story structure made it through largely intact. The books are told from Watson's perspective. Although the movie gives us an impartial 3rd person perspective instead, it still has the same effect of not letting us into Holmes' head until he lets us in.
Like the books, the movie gives us the essential clues to solving the mystery along the way - items in the background for which no explanation is given. I hoped that these would be important (and not just scenery), and I was not let down. Every clue that Holmes cites at the end when he explains everything was shown to us at one time or another...exactly the way it should have been done. However it would have been nearly impossible for an audience to completely solve the mystery for two reasons. First, the breadth of knowledge and odd facts required is greater than almost anyone has. And second, a few liberties are taken with science, but exactly the same type of liberties are taken in the books. The bottom line is that if some of the "science" in a movie like The Prestige ruined it for you then 1) Holmes maye same effect on you and 2) lighten up...
Rolling rankings:
1. Where The Wild Things Are (#169)
2. Jackie Brown (#173)
3. Avatar (#176)
4. Sherlock Holmes (#178)
4. Sherlock Holmes (#178)
5. Adventureland (#170)
6. Anvil! The Story of Anvil (#172)
7. The Cove (#177)
8. Julie and Julia (#175)
9. Angels & Demons (#174)
10. The American Nightmare (#171)
6. Anvil! The Story of Anvil (#172)
7. The Cove (#177)
8. Julie and Julia (#175)
9. Angels & Demons (#174)
10. The American Nightmare (#171)
No comments:
Post a Comment