Director: Guy Ritchie (Snatch., Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels)
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Rachel McAdams, Mark Strong
Rating: 2.5 out of 5 Corn-Dog Kudos
The game's afoot! It's called: how many classic stories can be reworked into big budget Blockbuster action flicks, and Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes has stepped up to take its turn under the stylized direction of Guy Ritchie. Is the predictable detective story that we all know, and may have seen several versions of already worth seeing in 2010? Yes. How successful is it? That question requires a little deducing.
The latest take on our Victorian detective remains in gritty, percussive 1821, London England (complete with a 221b. Baker Street). Hans Zimmer is a behind the scenes genius who places us wholly in the midst of the grime, punctuating exaggerated action with comic book folk (think zippy accordion and punchy, jig-inducing fiddles) and epic swells that are enough on their own to bring one to the edge of their seat.
For the most part, updates are in the form of graphic, testosterone-centric violence for the sake of violence that is par for the course with Guy Richie's cool ass gangster repertoire (think “Snatch” or “RocknRolla” where no moral abounding, decisive protagonist to root for).
There is no question about who to root for here, Robert Downey Jr. as Holmes and Jude Law as Watson are the definitive, albeit attractively flawed dream-team. Downey Jr. brings his audience into the mind of Holmes, to the point of talking us through his fight strategy in slow motion and making us feel his stifling social discomfort; Law is the perfect counter playing Watson as suave, but rigid with a gambling problem. They navigate fantastic mysteries, and the quirks of living together with nimble banter which is at least seventy-five percent of what makes the movie a joy to sit through.
Besides tantric explosions and violence, the newest Sherlock story features a delightful screenplay by Michael Robert Johnson, Anthony Peckham and Simon Kinberg that is brimming with hilarious wit-swapping. The writing team includes a twist that renders this particular version especially relevant and engaging beyond its clever-isms. This time, the “bad guys” aren't just our for normal “bad guy” booty; they are all about using Fear (capital “F”), deceit, and conformity as a means of control over England's Parliament and citizens—a solid, yet subtle nod to our present global politics.
This “Sherlock Holmes” features a giant ax wielding henchman with manners played by a very convincing menace, Robert Maillet. The new number one bad man is a black magic murderer named Lord Blackwood; the character is power-mongering and reminiscent of certain political figures, and Mark Strong's performance truly encompasses his character's grandiose expectation.
By far, the worst element of “Sherlock Holmes” is Watson's fiance Mary Morstan played as well as could be expected by Kelly Reilly. Mary never develops beyond two scenes worth of simpering, typical “I love you and am a loyal woman” dialogue even though Reilly is convincing as she rushes off screen, offended. Rachel McAdams is a seductive, smooth Irene Adler who sweeps onto the smoky London scene as a silky femme fatale in a stunning red gown. In the end, though her character is predictable and flat, falling for Holmes, but still succumbing to the will of the man who pays her. The female roles in Ritchie's 2009 adaption are unfortunate as they reflect a 1891 point of view despite his state of the art cinematography.
“Sherlock Holmes” as seen in 2009 is no intricate mystery, but the game afoot is one worth playing out.
I like that you get straight to the point--yes it's worth seeing! You just put your opinion out there from the start, which is going to affect the way it's read. You provide context in your second paragraph with Hans Zimmer and the "comic book folk."
ReplyDeleteI like your description of the relationship between Holmes and Watson--I think it's one of the more captivating aspects of the film and I enjoyed reading your analysis of the two characters.
You go into describe Lord Blackwood, but I had a hard time finding a plot description. You call Blackwood "black magic murderer", but don't really explain why--this is where a plot summary could fit in nicely.
One thing about your review that stood out is your directness and firmness of opinion, especially when you say the worst element of the film is Mary Morstan (a little harsh, but I'm sure she could handle it).
I couldn't identify your thesis, however I definitely left knowing your opinion of the film and you provided a lot of useful context and background information. Great job!
-Emily
I liked how you developed your plot summary through the evaluation of different aspects of the film. The piece as a whole flowed well and the broken up paragraphs were easy to follow. Although your review was very entertaining to read, it was almost too informal and unprofessional (even though we really aren't professionals), and it distracted from the article.
ReplyDeleteYour clear and concise conclusion was a nice way to end and made a clear connection with your first sentence. Nice job!
I thoroughly enjoyed your lede here. You get right to the point with a strong opinion, and your creativity in the first paragraph draws me in right from the start.
ReplyDeleteThe thesis could be a bit more solidified than merely the opinions you eloquently wrote, but you do enforce the idea that Sherlock is worth seeing.
I agree that your criticism of Mary Morstan is a little harsh, and I would have been slightly less blunt, but it doesn't detract from your point in any way.
The conclusion is great- it repeats the intro and adequately restates the thesis. Good work!