The mystery was well constructed and, despite my fears, actually something of a mystery. Other than the odd direction that the script took with Irene Adler and the stupid f–I promised I would stop rant–ing anachronisms, the script is strong. Side note: Sorry that the last two paragraphs resemble a loosely organized rant about what is lazy and stupid in the movies, but the truth is that they were a loosely organized rant about what is lazy and stupid in the movies.īack to the script.
SHERLOCK HOLMES REVIEW MOVIE
I am always reminded of the nadir (it’s a real word, look it up) of the historical action-y movie genre “ The League of Extraordinary Goddamn What a Terrible Movie,” when captain Nemo reveals his eight wheeled “Auto-Mobile.” I realize that this is a pointless request, but hey, Hollywood, if you’re listening, STOP IT! There is no need to pull this crap, and it never adds anything to the movie. There was enough interesting and bizarre technology in the late-middle nineteenth century that we don’t need to have the characters invent tazers. Unnecessary and unexplainable anachronism.
The other problem the script had was the one that everyone knew it would have. Doyle’s version of the character was never a badass tough guy, but she was much more interesting.
I think that the most compelling thing about the character of Irene Adler was her ability to match Holmes on a mental level. This is the problem with the film’s version of Adler. What I object to is the modern trend of assuming that any woman who is going to be a strong character in an action-y movie must either be a thief or an assassin or something, and must be able to kick as much ass as any man can. I loved the character of Irene Adler in Doyle’s story “A Scandal in Bohemia.” In that story, she beats Holmes at his own game. Now, before you get angry and start calling me sexist, read the next four sentences. First, and somewhat surprising, is the comically strong female character. While I don’t mean to suggest that it is a bad script, it does fall into two of the traps that historical action-y movies generally succumb to. The script is one of the weakest parts of this movie. In this movie Ritchie adapting himself admirably to the story he is telling, rather than adapting the story to his style. I should confess that I have only seen Lock Stock, Snatch, and the horrible Revolver. In fact, the direction never seemed to upstage the story or characters, which, as far as I can tell, is a first for Ritchie. One of the things that Ritchie is known for is his too-cool-for-school camera work and flashy editing. The audience is occasionally allowed to see Holmes’ thought process in the moment, but generally, as with Doyle’s stories, the explanation comes later. Ritchie managed to show Holmes’ intellect and keen faculties of observation in a unique and economical manner. I could start with the script (fairly strong, but not very Doyle-ish) or the acting (almost universally great), but I think I will begin with Ritchie’s direction.įrom the beginning, the direction was impressive. So, I am sitting down to write a review of Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes, and I don’t know where to begin.
0 kommentar(er)
