Written December 22, 2009
Sir Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle's world-famous sleuth was given a modern face-lift resulting in Sherlock Holmes taking on the mantle of a action-hero in this 128-min movie that was directed by Guy Ritchie.
I enjoyed the skillful cinematography by Philippe Rousselot and the gorgeously designed costumes by Jenny Beaman. Strong compelling performances by Mark Strong and Rachel McAdams' trumped both Robert Downey Jr.'s and Jude Law's performances.
The special effects, CGI, set design, and production quality are all excellent.
However, this movie incarnation of Sherlock Holmes was screen-written by the team of Michael Robert Johnson, Simon Kinberg and Anthony Peckham - and was based on a story by Lionel Wigram and Michael Robert Johnson - resulting in a bloated plot and a perversion of the classic Sherlock Holmes character. If I did not know better, I would have thought that Sherlock Holmes was possessed.
The sprinkling of humor felt forced.
Good, but not great.
Written December 24, 2009
Guy Ritchie, being a stylish, if self-indulgent, director has managed to make a great film that manages to maintain the essence of the original Arthur Conan Doyle character, created more than 120 years ago. The cast is fantastic from the continually great Robert Downey, Jr., to Jude Law giving us a virile and scrappy Dr. Watson. Rachel McAdams - who is probably given the least to do, but looks good doing it - is a great foil, and if this manages to become a series, it'll be great to see her again. Mark Strong, who has quickly become one of my favorite actors is menacing and dark, while maintaining the mystery of his character, Lord Blackwood.
The stylish moments that are sort of Ritchie's trademark, are put to excellent several times in the movie; as slo-motion is used to elborate to us what Holmes is thinking and how he then acts on these ideas. The story manages to give us mystery, mysticism, and an ending that, well to put it no other way - is elementary.
Written April 11, 2010
Essentially a soft steampunk "reboot" of the classic Arthur Conan Doyle stories, "Sherlock Holmes" depicts the title character as a restless, obsessive mind in need of constant stimulation, Watson isn't as much the fool as he's been in previous cinematic incarnations, and the two know how to dish out combat and thrills 90's-style.
The movie is packed with juicy production design and writing - it might be worth a second viewing if you can get past squirming through unabashed depictions of demonic worship (despite whatever rationality you possess). Is Guy Ritchie throwing out rebellion against his former lover's embrace of Kaballah?
Written January 24, 2010
robert downey jr is HOTTT
Written December 29, 2009
It's true that a few lines of the dialog were quotes from the original Holmes stories... but these were actually somewhat jarring, as the rest of the movie was pretty much made up out of thin air. It's obvious that there was no real attempt to capture the essence of Sherlock Holmes, much less capture the flavor of Conan Doyle's writings.
This movie could've featured some other fictional protagonist, and aside from those few quotes I mentioned, nothing would've needed to change except for the names. Of course, then they couldn't draw upon the name Sherlock Holmes to rake in more money, could they?
Go see this movie if you're interested, just don't expect it to be a Sherlock Holmes movie. It isn't. You'll probably enjoy it just fine; the problem, however, is that this generation of moviegoers is likely to come away with a really distorted view of Sherlock Holmes-- and given how great a literary character he is, that's a real shame.