Sherlock Holmes

A typical modern high-budget blockbuster with sophisticated visuals and a star-studded cast that will probably shock the traditional fans of the British detective, who honor the classic idea of a detective as it was served to them by Arthur Conan Doyle back in the day. Sherlock Holmes by Guy Ritchie has sidelined, as expected, logical deductions in favor of dynamic action. His Sherlock Holmes is an action hero who successfully battles in the ring and uses his fists or various arsenal of weapons more often than deep thoughts. His companion Watson has emancipated and is an equal player who, moreover, thanks to his sober approach, often saves his colleague's neck. The film is shot with a touch of irony and filled with constant bantering between both detectives and their surroundings. Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law live up to their reputations as actors and deliver outstanding performances, Rachel McAdams is charming, but her femme fatale doesn't have as much space to become a female counterpart to the central duo. The decent budget allowed for indulging in the magnificent period image of London, especially the view of the London shipyards (shot in Kent) offers an amazing glimpse into the industrial era, and the director somewhat megalomaniacally allows us to send an almost finished ship to the bottom after an exciting duel. Personally, I am not a big fan of snobbish British detectives, and this modern playful adaptation struck me as extremely entertaining. Overall impression: 80%. (16/02/2010)

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)

A perfect cast, but it doesn’t help much. Strong spends too much time in the background, Law can’t keep up with Downey in any of their scenes (while in this movie they are meant to be on level pegging!), Rachel McAdams is uninspiring, the movie lacks any real case, deduction is not employed, but abused like deus ex machina and so Hans Zimmer steals all the attention. And it’s not that Richie is bored; he is having fun, and it works well in some places, but he fell a long way short of managing to reproduce the type of goofy shenanigans like we saw in Pirates of the Caribbean. But it’s clear that’s what he was aiming for. If you want to make an untraditional Holmes movie, you need either a good idea or you need a good Sherlock to base one’s performance on, which Downey does in any case. ♫ OST score: 4/5 (07/01/2010)

All this current Sherlock hype is so very boring. It's been a long time since I've seen something that elicits a single reaction - disinterest. I'm thus sticking with the holy trinity of 1930s Central Europe - Lelicek in the Services of Sherlock Holmes, The Hound of Baskerville and The Man Who Was Sherlock Holmes. (22/01/2012)

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)