![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
blamebramptonObeying the primal urge of people who live in a city that is too hot by half, we sought out air conditioning and a cinema today.
Sherlock Holmes was the film of choice, both of us being avid Conan Doyle fans. We were prepared to take it on its own merits and loathe it if need be. But we did not need it to be Basil Rathbone or Jeremy Brett, as the world already has both of their Holmeses.
As it turned out, we quite enjoyed it. I liked the muscular, Byron with brains performance given by Robert Downey Jnr (who I admit is an old fave) and I even liked Jude Law very much as Watson (first time I've really liked him on screen) and think he did a very fine job with a character who canonically was a man of action and precision. The insertion of Irene Adler wasn't too annoying, Watson's fiancee Mary was excellent, and Mark Strong makes a most convincing Bad Guy.
But for all that, I wish that Guy Ritchie had a Neill Blomkamp. You know Blomkamp, he's the chap who Peter Jacksons now that Peter is busy being Sir Peter (which is well deserved, BTW). In Blomkamp's debut, District 9, he had all the good parts of an early Jackson film with none of the overblown grandiosity of the later ones, plus a bit of wit and coolness all his own.
Had Sherlock Holmes been produced by Guy Ritchie, rather than directed, I think it would have been a much better film. The gritty violence of Victorian London was splendidly realised and worked perfectly for the modernisation of the story, but there was just too much of it and not enough story telling. The chop-cut editing to show Holmes's thought sequences was effective, but each time it was followed up by the real-time action, wasting valuable film time that could have been used on more topless RDJ shots. Similarly, the denouément begins in typical Holmesian 'What first gave you away' style, but it is as though the film-maker quickly grew bored and decided to insert another action sequence.
The problem, of course, is that Holmes works best because its action and thrills are centered around tight story. Take that away, focus on the action and thrills, and it's all just bread and circuses. Though hot bread and circuses, with very good performances and great production values (save for that leather coat, which just looked wholly out of place).
On the whole, four and a half stars to everyone else, two and a half to Guy Ritchie.
As to the whole pre-slashed angle, well, it's Byron and Shelley and you can read that as you will. A fun start to the year, but one that had me wishing I could have been on set with a rod that I was allowed to apply to the director whenever his indulgences appeared. And for those of you who know it, you can play Spot Hatfield House, too!
Sherlock Holmes was the film of choice, both of us being avid Conan Doyle fans. We were prepared to take it on its own merits and loathe it if need be. But we did not need it to be Basil Rathbone or Jeremy Brett, as the world already has both of their Holmeses.
As it turned out, we quite enjoyed it. I liked the muscular, Byron with brains performance given by Robert Downey Jnr (who I admit is an old fave) and I even liked Jude Law very much as Watson (first time I've really liked him on screen) and think he did a very fine job with a character who canonically was a man of action and precision. The insertion of Irene Adler wasn't too annoying, Watson's fiancee Mary was excellent, and Mark Strong makes a most convincing Bad Guy.
But for all that, I wish that Guy Ritchie had a Neill Blomkamp. You know Blomkamp, he's the chap who Peter Jacksons now that Peter is busy being Sir Peter (which is well deserved, BTW). In Blomkamp's debut, District 9, he had all the good parts of an early Jackson film with none of the overblown grandiosity of the later ones, plus a bit of wit and coolness all his own.
Had Sherlock Holmes been produced by Guy Ritchie, rather than directed, I think it would have been a much better film. The gritty violence of Victorian London was splendidly realised and worked perfectly for the modernisation of the story, but there was just too much of it and not enough story telling. The chop-cut editing to show Holmes's thought sequences was effective, but each time it was followed up by the real-time action, wasting valuable film time that could have been used on more topless RDJ shots. Similarly, the denouément begins in typical Holmesian 'What first gave you away' style, but it is as though the film-maker quickly grew bored and decided to insert another action sequence.
The problem, of course, is that Holmes works best because its action and thrills are centered around tight story. Take that away, focus on the action and thrills, and it's all just bread and circuses. Though hot bread and circuses, with very good performances and great production values (save for that leather coat, which just looked wholly out of place).
On the whole, four and a half stars to everyone else, two and a half to Guy Ritchie.
As to the whole pre-slashed angle, well, it's Byron and Shelley and you can read that as you will. A fun start to the year, but one that had me wishing I could have been on set with a rod that I was allowed to apply to the director whenever his indulgences appeared. And for those of you who know it, you can play Spot Hatfield House, too!
no subject
Date: 2010-01-01 02:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-01 02:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-01 03:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-01-01 03:10 pm (UTC)