![]() John Watson (played by Jude Law).Īs opposed to the bumbler of previous film versions, Watson’s been made into a handsome man of action, but he’s also been placed in a relationship with Holmes that feels too much like “The Odd Couple.” With their connection damaged by Watson’s decision to move out and get married, the two men bicker almost ceaselessly over who left the stove on and who should be wearing what. In addition to creating a new persona for Holmes while remaining as faithful as they could to the tradition, a difficult circle to square, this cadre of writers also wanted to give more respect to the character of Holmes’ wingman Dr. With so many writers and so many focuses, it’s no surprise the film feels more disjointed than organic. No less than four credited screenwriters had a hand in the Holmes script (story by producer Lionel Wigram and Michael Robert Johnson, script by Johnson and Anthony Peckham and Simon Kinberg) and apparently director Ritchie took a pass as well. That has, in turn, given the picture an air of trying too hard, which is the one thing Sherlock Holmes should never have to do. This Hollywoodized epic has attempted to do too much, has had to serve too many masters. What is problematic about the film is not so much the change in character as the change in the nature of the classic Sherlock Holmes vehicle. On the other hand, though, all this “new Holmes” talk is something of a smoke screen. It’s helpful to add in the brisk style of British filmmaker Ritchie, best-remembered for two of his earlier films, “Snatch” and “Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels.” A director with onscreen energy to burn, Ritchie initially has fun with this story of Holmes versus master criminal Lord Blackwood, a man who dabbles in the black arts, says gnomic things like “death is only the beginning” and threatens to end civilization as we know it. His Holmes is as much Victorian action hero as master deducer, a buff and muscular lad who likes to indulge in bare-knuckle brawling and fits producer Joel Silver’s description of being “like James Bond in 1891.” is, as the spin on the film has emphasized, considerably more physical than what moviegoers are used to. ![]() is in as fine a form as he is here, bringing an energetic insouciance as well as a raffish air of bohemian disrepute to a man who lives by the motto, “Data, data, data, I cannot make bricks without clay.”Īs directed by Guy Ritchie, Downey’s take on the dean of 221-B Baker St. We also expect more when Robert Downey Jr. Solid, of course, is more than many studio films can muster these days, but we expect better when we’re dealing with the world’s greatest consulting detective, someone who has been played by more than 70 actors in something like 200 films, good enough for inclusion in the Guinness Book of World Records. It’s how a film that has so many good things going for it has turned out to be solid but not spectacular. There’s a mystery at the heart of “Sherlock Holmes,” and it’s not the one the great master of detection has been called on to solve.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |