Thursday, January 14, 2010

Sherlock Holmes (Spoiler free opinions)



The 2nd part of last night's double bill was Sherlock Holmes a la Guy Ritchie.  A film I had mixed emotions about well before I arrived at the ticket booth.

There were many things that made me feel down about this film.  From the trailer I thought it would be Bond set a century in the past.  A mix that I worried wouldn't go well together.  I'm not a huge Ritchie fan.  I find his films too obvious and highly stylised in a style that doesn't suit my tastes.  The biggest low for me was Jude Law.  I just can't take to this man as an actor.  This probably stems from the horrendous experience that was AI.  I'm no Holmes expert but I would like the film to at least bring more of the Holmes I have taken from the books than the setting and the names.

On the plus side we had the setting, Victorian London.  Depicted with a mix of authentic setting (yay) and CGI (not so yay).  There were also 3 actors that I would cross quite a few streets to see.  Eddie Marsan who falls under the radar a lot but always seems to give great performances without stealing anyone else's thunder. Robert Downey Jr whose charm and charisma just makes you want to watch him, luckily he has the chops to withstand your gaze.  Then there's Mark Strong whose mere presence sucks you into the screen, I'd watch him mow the lawn.

Well, I was pleasantly surprised.  This was never going to be the best film ever made.  It was much better than I dared expect though.  It's a fun, if rather silly ride.  Leave your Holmes pedantry and high art expectations at the door and you should find something to chuckle at along the way.

The setting impressed me.  It felt real enough  to immerse myself in the world Ritchie has created.  I never really noticed the join between 'real' shots and CGI.  To be honest though I wasn't really looking for faults.  Unless a film is awful I'd rather go along for the ride than give my attention to nitpicking.  The credits were a great opening dragging you into the world that had been created for you from the flagstones up.  Straight away you understood where you were.  Although rather cheesy I did love the shots, early on in the film, of Tower Bridge being built.  Congratulations to Guy for getting an ad for The Punchbowl into the film too.  The statistics Holmes gives us on the bridge makes me think that Ritchie is as fond of his home town as I am of mine.  Irene Adler's costumes were lovely, McAdams must have relished wearing those gowns.  In fact all the costumes were great.  You wanted to reach out and stroke the fabrics.

The Guy Ritchie influence on this film wasn't too hard to find.  I do think however he managed to rein himself in just enough.  The fight scenes didn't go on for too long or seem too many irritate me.  They fitted pretty well into the story.

My biggest (pleasant) surprise was Mr Law.  He was perfect in the role.  Just a little stiff, often infuriated whilst still being likeable.  This film has broken my Jude Law  blanket ban.  If he can do the same with his next film I may eat my words from days gone by.

As for the actors, mentioned earlier, that I was looking forward to.  Well there's no surprises there.  This isn't my favourite Downey role but he's still good fun to watch.  I won't beat around the bush.  Jeremy Brett is 'my' Holmes.  This probably stems from the time in my life that his version was shown on a weekly basis.  I also like to think it's because he was so bloody perfect in the role.  If Downey had given us an imitation of the Brett/Rathbone kind of Holmes this film would have fell flat on its face.  This isn't Downey's style however.  he takes a role and makes it his own.  Probably the reason Ritchie chose him for the role.  He isn't a Holmes I ever expected to see but that makes it all the more interesting.  There's the odd note of Chaplin that sneaks into his portrayal but not enough to spoil the mood.

Eddie Marsan is as good as he always is.  Solid dependable with absolutely no vanity in his craft.  He plays the Lestrade as a self-important buffoon very well.  Mark Strong is great.  He plays his dark character excellently.  The part could so easily have become pantomime villain.  He was believable in the world created and knew just how to rein his performance in.

The one part of the film I hadn't put much forethought into was Irene Adler.  Rachel McAdams played her very well. I personally would have left her character until a later film in what will obviously become a franchise.  Her presence didn't detract though as I would have thought it would.  It was nice to see a female the equal of the hero.

I would say this film is a fun blockbuster.  Not perfect but a good way to spend a couple of hours.  There were later parts of the plot that I found plain ridiculous.  The ending was left more wide open for a sequel than Batman Begins.  I have to admit though, I'll be there queueing for my ticket to Sherlock Holmes 2: Holmes Harder.

3.5 pawprints out of 5

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hi Mary, you know something? I agree with your entire review!

I saw this at the beginning of the month and I really enjoyed it. It's not perfect and, as a Holmes fan, I was dreading it almost as much as I was looking forward to it. However it was good fun, RDJ was excellent, the visuals were stunning and the supporting cast all very good. Roll on SH2...

Unknown said...

This seems to be the consensus on this movie. Nice. Not thrilling, but nice. I agree with your assessment on all fronts save McAdams. I thought she was terrible, but as she was quite decorative I didn't mind her too much, but as you said her presence in the film didn't add much, and was a bit too blatantly a 'coming attraction' for future movies. I've actually seen it twice and enjoyed it both times. Not a blockbuster, for sure, but a nice film.

Post a Comment