Title: Sherlock Holmes Director: Guy Ritchie Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Rachael McAdams, Mark Strong Aspect Ratio: 1.85:1 Studio: Warner Bros. Pictures Genre(s): Action/Mystery Rated:       (For intense sequences of violence and action, some startling images and a scene of suggestive material)   Buy From Amazon.com: a / a / a / a / a / a

CONSUMER ADVICE

Parents will want to take note that this can be VERY scary and has many violent images. There is also a fair amount of language and sexual content. Recommended for ages 14 and up.

As both a fan of cinema and literature I have a fine line to walk when I see movies like “Sherlock Holmes.” On one hand I am loyal to the source material and agree that that’s usually the way to go, on the other hand I can’t compare it to the movie on the sheer fact that movies are different storytelling mediums. Unless there is a narration there is no way to see what Holmes is thinking, therefor the movie has to find other ways to express his inner thoughts. In this case Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) turns into a blabber mouth (for lack of a better term), who simply is so observant he can’t seem to ever shut up. This is not a problem I had with the character, as I feel this is as close to the personality the film makers can get without turning this into parody.

His partner Dr. Watson (Jude Law) is a reluctant partner. Always annoyed with Holmes, he is constantly complaining about his methods. He tags along though, I suspect, because he enjoys solved mysteries and going on adventures. He may say one thing, but the twinkle in his eye says something different. Rounding out the cast is Irene Adler (Rachael McAdams), the only woman who ever outsmarted Holmes. Because of this he loves and hates her at the same time. The fact that his usual suspicious nature fails him only with her is either the result of pure ignorant love or lazy screen writing, and I’m having a difficult time deducting which of these it is. I’m going to ultimately assume this is lazy screen writing.

I deduct this because I realize I’ve spent two paragraphs writing on the characters, who they are, what they do, and how they relate to one another. I don’t mention the story because it’s not worth mentioning. While there is a mystery there is no way for the audience to engage in it as the clues are not in front of us as they should be. Because we can’t spot the clues we have to assume Holmes knows what he’s doing, and therefor we pay more attention to the character interaction. For Holmes and Watson I feel the chemistry is there. Less so for the obligatory sex pot that is Irene and double less for antagonist Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), who isn’t quite an enigma and not enough of a villain.

Therefor his presence is that of a McGuffin. Director Guy Ritchie has created a dirtier world Holmes lives in then what we usually get, but I don’t know why everything has to look murky and muddy. The city is allowed to have dirty sets and houses, but the graphics and the film should not be unpleasant in what is supposed to be (I presume) a fun romp. Likewise the lightweight story and emotional core is fairly lacking, and I’ve had enough with movies that give us a mediocre story only to drop the bomb that *gasp* a sequel is in the works, and it will likely be better then this one. I miss the days where the first movie was there to entertain you, and if a sequel came along that was good we were all the more blessed. “Sherlock Holmes” is far from a terrible film, but chemistry aside there’s nothing too special about it, and it will likely be found in the bargain bin if you wait another year.

Spaceriffic Review