69 of 78 people found the following review helpful
Holmes sweet Holmes,
This review is from: Sherlock Holmes (DVD)
Ok. For all those who are saying. "If you are looking for a faithful version, adaptation, etc look elsewhere..." I ask you: Have you actually read Sherlock Holmes or are you basing that statement on your image of Sherlock Holmes as has been portrayed in the past?
Where in all of the stories does it state that Holmes wears a deerstalker hat and walks around with a Calabash pipe? Sidney Paget, who illustrated the stories for The Strand magazine, interpreted the descriptions in the stories. That was his version of what Holmes might look like.
This new version is Guy Ritchie's interpretation and it is quite refreshing. In the stories, Holmes is a boxer, bare knuckle fighter, marksman, swordsman and an accomplished martial artist in addition to being brilliant at deduction and a master of disguise. There was only one woman whom Holmes was impressed by in his life -most of these qualities are portrayed in the new film so how is this "not faithful"? If anything, it is one of the most faithful movies to deal with Holmes that I have ever seen.
I will admit that for "classic" Holmes there is no better than Jeremy Brett in my humble opinion. His performance will never be matched. However, that is an entirely different interpretation of the character. I approached this new film with an open mind and was very pleasantly surprised.
Robert Downey Jr. is, in my opinion, a perfect fit for this role. His ability to reflect the intelligence, physical prowess and sardonic wit of Holmes was dead on. Jude law was exceptional as Dr. Watson. Not some bumbling, moronic sidekick of the past but a true companion possessing formidable skills of his own. Just as in the stories.
Downey and Law's performance was a pleasure to watch and they have great chemistry on screen. I was also very impressed by 19th century London. CGI has come a long way.
The main reason that I do not give this movie 5 stars is due to the plot itself which I will not go into here. (I don't like SPOILERS) I will just say that though we are most likely being set up for a sequel I felt the story could have had a little more meat on it's bones. Overall though, I thought it was extremely entertaining.
I still do not understand why there are so many saying that this new film is not faithful. Is it a word for word adaptation of the stories? No. The worst that could be said is that like Peter Jackson did with Lord of the Rings, Guy Ritchie has maintained the true "spirit" of the Holmes character -though I would say he has done much, much more.
Tracked by 2 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-6 of 6 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Feb 24, 2010 10:47:38 AM PST
Old Wierd Kate says:
Your humble opinion of Jeremy Brett's Sherlock Holmes is the same as mine. Now I am looking forward to this new release. Thank you for your review.
In reply to an earlier post on Aug 10, 2010 5:56:14 PM PDT
Terry Goldman says:
Jeremy Brett's portrayal of Holmes was nothing short of perfect. Downey with the aid of a ridiculous script gives a bona fide "action hero" view of Holmes. A terrible film save for the sets and re-creation of the filth that was London.
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 1, 2010 6:19:59 PM PST
Rajesh Motie says:
I absolutely positively love this review. Thanks for writing it.
Posted on Dec 20, 2011 7:36:57 PM PST
M Lee says:
A sequel with the same casting, but with a better script that's more balanced and developed. This one flattens between the action hero cheese. The work comes very close to being a miss even with the talent, chemistry and spirit...and yes, CGI. So I'm not tossing this into the Goodwill donation box yet. I'll save it to watch it again for comparison with what I hope will be a terrific sequel. Also, refreshing to find a review instead of a plot summary. Thanks.
Posted on Aug 30, 2012 6:15:47 AM PDT
H. Tague says:
"a true companion possessing formidable skills of his own. Just as in the stories."
Funny, I've read some of the stories and in them Watson was an injured war vet, not an experienced martial artist. What books have you been reading?
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2012 5:01:06 PM PST
G. GREEN says:
Watson's wounds heal after "A Study in Scarlet"(The first story) and are not mentioned in any of the later stories. And he doesn't use any martial arts in the film, he just knows how to fight. There's a difference.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›