Wherever you may fault Guy Ritchie's take on "Sherlock Holmes," Robert Downey Jr.'s charismatic portrayal of the title character, and Jude Law's sharp and funny portrayal of Holmes' partner Watson, this is, to be sure, a fine bit of movie-making.
Capturing, rather well I thought, 19th Century England, with all its dark corners and muddy streets and saucy personas and the bland, monochromatic nature of its buildings and spaces, Ritchie has, at the very least, shown he has a sure hand as a director. The action, the slow-motion replays (before they play, if that makes sense) of Holmes' lightning-quick thought process, and what I thought was a subtle take on Holmes' genius, ultimately makes "Sherlock Holmes" a highly entertaining movie.
Those looking for the high-brow sophistication, the dry wit, the tweed coats, the deerstalker hats, the aquiline noses of the Basil Rathbones of yore best look elsewhere. Downey, out of necessity, is by no means an "English" Holmes, though he hacks an accent away as best he can and what he lacks for in pure Anglo splendor makes up for, as he often does, in raw charisma. Even Holmes' famous pipe is almost an afterthought here. Downey and Ritchie are clearly staking out new territory quite apart from the traditional portrayals of Sherlock Holmes, probably much to the chagrin of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's purists.
It's hard to talk much about the plot without giving too much away, but there is certainly some guessing up to the end. It's an involving story line, pretty fun, and Holmes and Watson (and Rachel McAdams' Irene Adler) get into their share of scraps, scrapes, and near-death experiences.
I am accustomed to seeing Jude Law as the leading man, but here he is at least a match to Downey as Dr. John Watson, a man quite unable to tear himself from his partner's adventures. He is funny, a little reckless, but trying to reign himself in for marriage's sake.
McAdams is substantially out of her depth - it would have been better had they chosen a spry English actress to take on the role of Irene Adler here - but perhaps she got the role because Adler is supposed to be an American (? - sorry I don't know the Holmes' canon that well) - or perhaps they didn't want Downey to get lonely on the set. In any case, her looks carry her certainly but her acting feels mostly one dimensional. She feels lost in the costume and setting and cannot come close to matching Downey's and Law's on-screen presence.
There are a host of great English actors taking to various roles, but Mark Strong's portrayal of the evil Lord Blackwood is probably the best. He has a highly tuned and carefully contrived persona, conditioned by his invention of himself as a character within a character. I found it almost entrancing at times.
"Sherlock Holmes" is true fun, an enjoyable movie treat, and more than likely to become yet another movie franchise for Downey to lead. Go see it.
Capturing, rather well I thought, 19th Century England, with all its dark corners and muddy streets and saucy personas and the bland, monochromatic nature of its buildings and spaces, Ritchie has, at the very least, shown he has a sure hand as a director. The action, the slow-motion replays (before they play, if that makes sense) of Holmes' lightning-quick thought process, and what I thought was a subtle take on Holmes' genius, ultimately makes "Sherlock Holmes" a highly entertaining movie.
Those looking for the high-brow sophistication, the dry wit, the tweed coats, the deerstalker hats, the aquiline noses of the Basil Rathbones of yore best look elsewhere. Downey, out of necessity, is by no means an "English" Holmes, though he hacks an accent away as best he can and what he lacks for in pure Anglo splendor makes up for, as he often does, in raw charisma. Even Holmes' famous pipe is almost an afterthought here. Downey and Ritchie are clearly staking out new territory quite apart from the traditional portrayals of Sherlock Holmes, probably much to the chagrin of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's purists.
It's hard to talk much about the plot without giving too much away, but there is certainly some guessing up to the end. It's an involving story line, pretty fun, and Holmes and Watson (and Rachel McAdams' Irene Adler) get into their share of scraps, scrapes, and near-death experiences.
I am accustomed to seeing Jude Law as the leading man, but here he is at least a match to Downey as Dr. John Watson, a man quite unable to tear himself from his partner's adventures. He is funny, a little reckless, but trying to reign himself in for marriage's sake.
McAdams is substantially out of her depth - it would have been better had they chosen a spry English actress to take on the role of Irene Adler here - but perhaps she got the role because Adler is supposed to be an American (? - sorry I don't know the Holmes' canon that well) - or perhaps they didn't want Downey to get lonely on the set. In any case, her looks carry her certainly but her acting feels mostly one dimensional. She feels lost in the costume and setting and cannot come close to matching Downey's and Law's on-screen presence.
There are a host of great English actors taking to various roles, but Mark Strong's portrayal of the evil Lord Blackwood is probably the best. He has a highly tuned and carefully contrived persona, conditioned by his invention of himself as a character within a character. I found it almost entrancing at times.
"Sherlock Holmes" is true fun, an enjoyable movie treat, and more than likely to become yet another movie franchise for Downey to lead. Go see it.