The Truth About Music

"What's hot, what's not, and whats next in pop music"

The Truth About “Sherlock Holmes”

The most anticipated movie of the winter finally arrived on Christmas Day in the United States. After a heavy advertising campaign that started a long time ago, “Sherlock Holmes” was finally here and opened with a huge weekend box office. The problem for me is that it wan’t very good.

Iron Man and Sherlock

Robert Downey Junior (“Iron Man”) was cast as Holmes and Jude Law (“Cold Mountain”) as his assistant Watson. Rachel McAdams (“Wedding Crashers”) would be Holmes squeeze and Mark Strong (“Syriana”) played Lord Blackwood, the movies villain. With such an amazing cast I couldn’t imagine where this movie would go wrong. What I forgot to take into consideration was the director.

Guy Ritchie who is most known for his work in the movies “Snatch” and “RocknRolla,” did a simply terrible job with “Sherlock Holmes.” From the fake looking CGI to the way each character delivered their lines to the out of place action scenes (the boxing scene if you’ve seen the movie), the direction of this movie was completely lost. You can’t argue with the talent. Downey and Law are both fantastic actors with long resumes to speak of, leaving only Ritchie to blame.

From what I’ve been told, he has a very “unique” style of both writing and directing. According to some, “you just have to like this type of movie.” It worked in “Snatch.” It worked in “Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrells.” It did not work for “Sherlock Holmes.” What should of been an amazing story with great action scenes, turned into a yawn filled wish to see Downey in “Iron Man 2.”[poll id="3"]

Add A Comment

5 Legacy Comments

  • Comment by Jon posted January 04, 2010 at 18:46

    Ur review is simply innacurate… His style of directing is critically acclaimed and ur one of 3 people in the world who don’t like it… As far as the cast yes it was amazing ur right there, but as far as the way the script was written and subsequently directed, it’s dead on… Whether u like it or not that’s how they talked back then so it was accurate. The boxing scene although somewhat misplaced was needed to show that Sherlock was not ur run of the mill pussy PI but rather had the skills neccessary to protect himself through his trialsand tribulations. On the whole I give it an 8.5-9 out of 10 and think ur review is too harsh and more bias because instead of paying attention to a fantastic movie, u spent most of it tweeting about how bad it was… Which u couldn’t possibly know.

  • Comment by Greg posted January 04, 2010 at 19:51

    1. you never saw snatch or lock stock so how can you say they were dead on? How can you appreciate the early works of a director and from it his style if you havnt watched the movies. Im willing to bet serious money that you would infact not like Ritchies other movies because of his style which is: being cool for the sake of being cool.
    2. the boxing scene was out of place but for the wrong reasons. sherlock holmes was a man driven by intellect not physicality. This should not have been an action movie, at least in the sense that the main character should not be an action star. One would have to envision holmes as a gregory house type character (better yet house as holmes) in order to better understand what holmes is supposed to be, a man who use logic and logic alone to solve mysteries, all of the brute force is left for watson.

    Having said that, i have yet to see sherlock holmes so i cannot pass judgement on the movie as a whole, only answer certain question that i do know. I do however look forward to seeing it, a movie that i’m sure will add to the impressive resumes of all those involved.

  • Comment by Candace Sargent posted January 05, 2010 at 15:00

    I agree that a more seasoned director could have really hit it out of the park. So then, thank God for a great cast and the fact that I was sooo in the mood for Sherlock Holmes that I was blind to its short-comings:)