In Theaters: Sherlock Holmes
Overloading the script by several orders of amplitude, the mystery devised for Holmes's delectation involves a megalomaniac named Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) who claims to have Satanic powers that he intends to use to "raise a force that will alter the course of the world." Oh really? Doesn't anybody just off prostitutes anymore? Substituting grandiosity for actual engaging material (or modern thematic resonance), Ritchie takes the exploits of Lord Blackwood, who appears to have risen from the dead after his execution by hanging and was part of a Skull and Bones-style gentlemen's club that practices "the black arts," to the far reaches of incredulity, leaving his viewers toeing the ground and pondering the more involving mystery of whether Mark Strong is actually Andy Garcia with really good plastic surgery. I'm not sure actual fans of Sherlock Holmes or Doyle would make it past the credits sequence.
Intent, obviously, on saving the world, when not ensconced in his putrid home laboratory or engaging in a little shirtless streetfighting, Holmes adds his powers of deduction to those of disguise and ass-kicking to stop Lord Blackwood from committing mass murder in the parliament, lest he convince the populace he's some sort of god and control them with fear. McAdams, whose Adler is a double agent with motivations that are never clear nor much cared about, is punching well above her weight with charisma vortexes like Downey and Law. Ritchie, who didn't know what to do with his own wife on the screen, is hardly a female-friendly director, yet McAdams herself, speaking in bland tones and straining to her hit her marks in a series of froufy get-ups, seems lost in an admittedly lightweight but potentially more memorable part.
Ritchie seems focused on nailing all of his extravagantly conceived plot points (along with Satanic rituals, black magic, resurrection, and spontaneous combustion, the world's first chemical weapon figures in) if only so Holmes can enumerate them to his nemesis in a climactic, gotcha scene that is set, naturally, on an exposed beam way high up in the air. By that point you hardly care who did what to whom when, where and why; I was already 20 minutes into a detailed review of the increasingly untenable case for Guy Ritchie's career.
Pages: 1 2
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
Ugh. This film is tying off the decade the way Wild Wild West ended the '90s -- with bombast, bastardized source material, and a duo of overscrubbed stars. Love this review, Michelle.
Best. Review. Ever. I am sorry to say I am, nonetheless, compelled to see this trainwreck. Why don't they let US make these films, Michelle? We'd actually know how to do it!
I had hopes for this, but they were dashed when Guy Ritchie's name surfaced as director. What a shame. Good review, thanks.
The Conan Doyle estate should sue. If not, perhaps a class action from the Baker Street Irregulars? (And yes, I did see it).
The while thing is pitched to a sequel; if there's any justice, Holmes, Watson and -- perhaps especially -- Lestrade will be left to rest in peace.
I'd seen it all before - it was called Shanghi Knights...
Somebody please inform Mr. Madonna that MTV died in the 90's, and that you do not need to edit motion pictures as such.
Excellent review.
Erm....
See I don't understand what your problem is.
I mean I guess if you were going there to see something that was 100% canon, then sure be angry. But if you wanted that, why not read the book?
Seriously, the only thing that was THAT DIFFERENT was that he knew how to fight.
You complain about how he's self destructive. Sherlock Holmes did drugs... In the books..............K, next.
Grab at the Pirates of the Caribbean? Because of that one scene where the ship falls into the water? Or because there's that one sword fight at the end? Or because there are Fist fights throughout the movie. Or maybe it was because of one or two scenes where there's breaking of wood.
Obviously Pirates was the first to cash in on those ideas.
So you're mad that there's more relationship between Watson and Holmes then Watson and Mary?
Well the story is about Sherlock Holmes. And Watson always follows him.
We didn't go to watch a movie about Watson getting Hitched. And another thing, (tell me if I have just plainly read this wrong) you complain that they bicker like old ladies or whatnot? Okay wouldn't you with your best friend/roommate of WHO KNOWS how many years, whom you know which buttons to press to tick them off, do the same exact thing if they were threatening to move out?
OH I'M SORRY
You were mad at Irene.
Yeah she was awful.
Good call.
They Strike Manly poses.
.....Uhm...So you don't like that it's more actiony now? I dunno, I thought it was cool when he knew exactly how to bring people down. But okay, your opinion.
You're mad that it was a grand scheme to take over the world rather then just some senseless murderer.
Well okay where's the story in that? "Someone killed Billy! Call Sherlock." "Oh look, John's shoe is left here." The end.
There's no story if the villain isn't at least somewhat of an evil genius.
You're mad about the Black arts?
SPOILER:
Turns out there are none and that it's all science.
And he deduces this by only examining the little things.
Didn't Sherlock always do things like that?
The Ending.
So you're saying you would have rather had him blurt out everything he found when he found it? So he can spoil everything for you? The fact that you see the flashbacks of how he ties everything together by noticing the smallest thing is what makes it so thrilling.
Okay, so it's cliche by being up high. Is that a problem? Cliche is something we as a civilization seem to love.
You don't care who did what? Maybe, but only if it was because that Irene girl kept coming on.
All in all, I don't see what your problem is, other then you were just complaining.