Sherlock Holmes
I wasn't sure what to expect from Sherlock Holmes. I am a casual fan of the character and have read a couple of the stories, but they never quite sucked me in. In addition to this director Guy Ritchie's previous work in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, Snatch, and RocknRolla doesn't necessarily mesh well with the story of a private detective in Victorian England.
The highlight of Sherlock Holmes is the fantastic performance by Robert Downey Jr. While he isn't who you would immediately picture in the role, he fills it out well and has a lot of fun with the part. Jude Law is also solid as Dr. Watson; the remainder of the cast, however, is hamstrung by the messy script. Rachel McAdams is underused and Mark Strong could have been a much more sinister villain if his part weren't so poorly written at times. The weak villain adds to an already mediocre plot and makes for some tedious moments as Holmes wades through the minutiae of the story. After considerable build-up the movie concludes in an ending that falls fairly flat, especially the five minutes spent setting up a sequel.
Despite these issues, Sherlock Holmes can be a lot of fun. The dynamic between the lead actors is fantastic and Ritchie's stylistic flourishes are a good change of pace for a period piece. The production design also does a very good job of presenting a caricatured version of 19th century London. Sherlock Holmes is an uneven film, but the style, acting, and overall entertainment value make it worth a look. 3.5/5
Comments