Sherlock Holmes

Guy Ritchie at the service of Hollywood. His strongest directorial trademark, as well as Hans Zimmer's most bombastic music exhibition, comes in the impressive introduction. The rest of the film is “just” a nice conversation movie between Robert Downey and Jude Law, set in a world of dark Harry Potter-style magic. There is little to surprise the audience, as the routine script relies on proven elements – great actors and the atmosphere of dangerous, overcast Victorian London. Sherlock Holmes is decent entertainment. (02/01/2010)

It's good that even though Hollywood tinsel tries to pummel Guy Ritchie with its most typical special effects (predictable plot pirouettes, character development), he’s still the distinctive, foxy filmmaker who squeezed the most out of even a banal detective plot within its limits (the boxing match, the flashbacks). Yet the main character (compared to the trailers) is not Robert Downey Jr., but Jude Law, who despite the thankless role of a dry sniffer throws up elegant bon mots and hard fists, and paradoxically I enjoyed him a bit more. Both Strong and McAdams are bland due to the minimal space they get and their total omission in the plot (yes, that’s quite a weakness with Strong as the main villain). Nevertheless, positive feelings prevail, mainly due to the pace, the whole peculiar aura, and Zimmer's very unconventional but excellent work. I’m looking forward to the second film. (14/01/2010)

Maybe even below average stuff, overly directed and tastelessly grafted onto a historical costume. Downey Jr. and Law are fine and their chemistry is good, the action is average, but the plot is bad. The greatest positive is Mark Strong as a demonic character, that man is phenomenal. I don't like Ritchie and this film doesn't change that. (04/04/2010)

I'm sure it was fun, I'm sure there was action, but it certainly doesn't deserve a better rating from me. Downey and Law made an interesting team, I'm not opposed to them playing together again, and given the way Sherlock ends, it's more than likely – that is, provided he does not succumb to some crisis. It's a film that brings nothing new, it doesn't surprise you, it may bore you, what may disappoint you are the same jokes that have been told a hundred times. I think 128 minutes is more than enough. It must be an interesting experience in the cinema, but I certainly don't mind missing out. I put this movie under the "once and enough" category. A weaker three stars in total. (10/02/2010)

Guy Ritchie is one of those directors whose qualities I acknowledge but whose films leave me underwhelmed, and Sherlock Holmes left me very much so. I didn’t get bored, I didn’t have fun, I’ve just watched it once and I’m no longer interested in it. I will forget that they exists. Sherlock. Guy. (20/01/2010)