Summary
I’d really like to say that I LOVE Guy Ritchie movies. But I can’t honestly make that claim. Why? Well, because I really do LOVE Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, Snatch and Revolver. That’s not exactly his entire career. But those three movies are a decent lens into the style of film-making that Mr. Ritchie has subscribed to. So despite that potential inaccuracy, I’m more or less willing to make that statement. Guy’s movies tend to be disjointed, chaotic, violent, humorous and clever. The idea is that there is always something deeper than what he is showing you. Like jazz, it’s not about the obvious cues, it’s about what lies right behind them. He loves the off notes and the ethereal. Not in a ghostly sense, but in the way that what he wants the viewer to understand is perpetually outside their scope of vision at the time. His striated brand of story-telling is not for everyone, granted, but it appeals to me and that’s what matters here on MY blog.
When I discovered that the new ‘Sherlock Holmes’ was a Guy Ritchie film, there was immediately a two-fold reaction. Plenty of excitement and a considerably amount of apprehension as well. For me, Ritchie’s films succeed because they fall outside of the palette of many viewers. I mean, if you take a look at any of the 3 films I listed above, I’m sure plenty of people would tell you that they either didn’t understand them (the humor, wit or story) or didn’t like them. And to be fair, they aren’t exactly simple narratives carried on the shoulders of simple characters. There’s a lot going on in his films at any given time and missing one small scene could mean a complete lack of context for successive scenes. Once you understand what’s going on though, it’s a ride not to be missed. I could (and do) watch his movies over and over. So for ‘Sherlock Holmes’ I knew he was going to have to tone that down. A movie of this caliber (production-wise) simply couldn’t possess his true style of crafting and I knew that. Nonetheless, he had a lot to work with and Downey Jr., Law and McAdams are three actors I actually enjoy greatly. So we’re off to a decent start.
The movie mostly follows sort of standard blockbuster convention. This sounds like a bad thing, I think but really, in this case, it works really, really well. It does this because it hits on all the highs that I would expect from a high production title, but maintains a core of uniqueness that allows it to be both palatable and well… really good. Certainly entertaining. The title of the film should be an obvious indication of the focus and since we’re talking about Robert Downey Jr., it’s marvelous. The man may have his share of demons, but I’ll be damned if he isn’t one charming, hilarious and gifted actor. From start to finish, he carries the movie and it’s a romping good time. This will seem strange to say, I suppose, but… oh, the hell with it: Holmes is ridiculously badass in this movie. Yeah. Badass. And you know what? It’s awesome. I liked it. I did. I really did. The humor is very familiar, but for me, it’s not stale. Jude Law is an actor I have respected and enjoyed for quite some time now and he doesn’t disappoint here. The character is bit on the cliche side, but suffers only slightly from it. With the character that Sherlock embodies on-screen, there just isn’t much more room for flash or eccentricity.
I heart McAdams and her role was so-so. Fine.
The story is fascinating enough, revolving around the ever elusive Lord Blackwood and Holmes’ attempts to track him down and unravel the threads of his schemes. The occult-ish themes caught my attention certainly, but by the end, I have to admit that I found the story to lack the real substance I was hoping for. I think this is where the film shows it’s “blockbuster” traits, since I think that more could’ve been done considering the captain at the helm here. Nonetheless, the story is more than adequate to drive the movie forward. The ending was a little trite but simultaneously satisfying and creates an effective desire to re-watch the film.
One area that was Mr. Ritchie made his presence known in was his all-so-familiar cinematography. Love or hate it, it was there. Personally, I LOVE it. I’m not one of those self-righteous assholes who sees an effect or shot once then puts my nose up in the air everytime I see it afterwards. Sure, effects or lens tricks can certainly be overused, but if the context of either the style or ambiance in the movie allows for them, I see no problem with getting silly with visuals. Guy loves his slo-mo, always has, and from what I can tell, always will. It’s honestly fine by me because I always enjoy the method in which he employs it. Frames are intentional and the cut is focused on a particular action. He’s not just slowing things down for the hell of it, he wants to show you something. He wants you to understand that the man on screen isn’t just being punched; he is being hurt, a lot. It’s effective and sounds and looks great IMO.
The film takes full advantage of the rather vintage and raw portrayal of Sherlock Holmes from the novels of yore as well as some graphic novels. For some reason, the whole public over thinks that the character Holmes has always been a pacifist. Weird, considering that both he and Watson are indeed rough and tumble at times, with Holmes being an ex-boxer and Watson resorting to the fist a good amount of times in some of the older books and certainly in the graphic novels. In any event, it’s solid entertainment from start to finish, with plenty of action to boot. The trailers don’t betray the movie either. This is a shameless adventure film, with plenty of fighting and violence, so if you don’t appreciate that brand of Sherlock Holmes or find it to be a translation fallacy, then don’t even bother. I’m sure your philosophy books can keep you busy in the meantime.
A last nuance to note was the film score. None other than the brilliant Hans Zimmer is the creator of the music in ‘Sherlock Holmes’ and it’s just wonderful stuff. That’s right. Wonderful. As always, the score brings a stronger sense of vitality to the screen and the foggy London-town feeling is further enhanced with the melodious strings compositions with swells of crescendo and sudden staccato. It all works well together.
‘Sherlock Holmes’ was a fine movie. A damn fine movie. It’s good, solid entertainment across the board. It has action, humor, romance and mystery. You know what it is? It’s fun. A lot of fun. So go see it and keep an open mind. I really do think you’ll have a pretty good time.
Overall Score (out of 10): 9.0
Summary
Story/Writing: The narrative is a bit vanilla but certainly not bad. If not for the strong characters, this would’ve been a fairly weak aspect. Writing is clever, however, with a healthy injection of charisma and wit.
Acting/Cast: Both are good. Robert Downey Jr. is simply incredible and Jude Law follows very closely behind, despite a considerable disadvantage in character writing. McAdams is, very unfortunately, the weak leg on the tripod. Her role is rather flimsy and you get the sense that she could’ve been replaced. Not a terrible performance though.
Camera/Cinematography: Classic Guy Ritchie. The London-town dreariness is present and the film texture is somewhat gritty, much like the characters. There’s plenty of slo-mo, but for me, it plays out well and is purposeful.
Sound/Music: Ideally, you want good sound to accompany a blockbuster and ‘Sherlock Holmes’ isn’t lacking in this area. The explosions, punches and ambiance are all well done and appropriate. It might seem a bit much at times, and well, it is. The music is incredible, indicative of Zimmer’s ability to create a aural dimension that effectively supplements the film.
Website: http://sherlock-holmes-movie.warnerbros.com/
IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0988045/
No comments:
Post a Comment