Christmas Day. Hundreds of millions celebrate, tens of millions have the day off, millions head to one of the few places open and collectively spend billions. Hint: It's not Chinese food joints or drug-stores I'm speaking of. It's the cinema. I'm one of thousands

of employees who work on Christmas day, in movie theaters nationwide,

to feed the insatiable American monster-- Yule-tide escapism. However,

even I get excited for films this time of year.

The movies

provide one of the few situations in which people can sit next to their

families, spend time with them, and (hopefully) not hear their voices.

Seeing as receiving a Christmas-y cold shoulder spurred on by tragedies

such as divorce, death, or disownment are less appealing methods to

achieve quiet many are willing to part with the ~$10 per admission to

seize the magic of cinema and familial silence.

Studios plant their most serious block-buster hopefuls to open around, if not on, Christmas day not least of which is Sherlock Holmes directed

by Guy Ritchie. It's opening weekend fell short of beating the cool

blue 75 million dollars James Cameron's alien epic, Avatar,

raked in Christmas weekend but was no slouch, bringing in 64.5 million

dollars. But those are sales numbers, the question remains, "Was it any

good?"

My initial reaction, in short, was "YES!" In long,

"YEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSS! (but not without it's flaws)." Perhaps it'll

be more clear once these three are addressed: acting, plot, and

cinematography.

I'm

impressed with casting over-all. Downey Jr. (Holmes) clearly brings

personal experience into his character where it is needed and politely

leaves it at the door where it is not. Holmes' mannerisms and habits as

a reckless genius are projected flawlessly and with clear thought

behind the motives of the character. Throughout the entirety of the

film I never found myself comparing that version of Sherlock Holmes

with a character from another movie or someone else that Downey Jr. has

played. I could think of comparison if I wanted to but they didn't come

to me naturally. He was distinctly Sherlock.

Still, while the

accent was well done it was muddy. Sometimes I would miss a line Downey

quipped and was disappointed every time fearing I had missed something

hilarious or important. I realize muddy accents are a reality but I

wouldn't have minded toning down the integrity of the accent (if only

half a point) for greater clarity of the dialogue. As impressed as I

was with Robert Downey Jr., I was actually even more impressed with

Jude Law.

Jude Law put a fantastic spin on Watson but with a duo

as old as Holmes and Sherlock modern adaptations are sure to take some

creative liberties with the canon. A younger, but still wise and

practically minded, Watson is a comforting change. It breathes life

into the old-man while maintaining him as a perfect counter-balance to

Sherlock Holmes. Law elevates Dr. Watson from the shadows of

side-kickdom without becoming annoying and trying to steal all of the

spotlight.

Rachel McAdams' character, whom I cared for so little

I didn't even bother to remember her name, is aggravatingly neutral.

Perhaps it is not her fault as it seems the writing didn't give her

much to work with (which will be covered later). Am I supposed to like

her? Is she a villain? Hero? Do I even care? No, no I don't. I don't

care about her and I'm ashamed to admit that this character had to

exist. Certaintly, she moves the plot forward but I can think of at

least three other ways the plot could have been put in motion without

her. My theory is Holmes had to have some love-interest written in for

him because there is scarcely a character in any modern movie who can

walk two blocks without signs of a female-love interest lest the

audience start instinctively bearing homosexual suspicions.

All

the blame can't be put on Ms. McAdams. Watson had a love interest the

writers must of seen it a natural thing to give Holmes one (or else

face the audience's arched eyebrows concerning just why

Holmes dare seem reluctant to meet Watson's said fiance). The problem

is with the audience thirsting to see a love story thrown into an

otherwise respectable thriller, action, mystery. It's like mixing

vampires with sparkles and moody teen angst-ridden relationships. But I

won't go there.
Side note: I'm perfectly at ease with saying I may have over-stated this last point.

Speaking

of writing, the aforementioned dialogue is witty, the majority of the

characters are well-developed and the plot mixes science, occultism and

the key Holmes' rationalization into a crafted-web of events. In fact,

the story is markedly satisfying and Holmes

would make a fine mystery film if the pacing wasn't on caffeine pills.

Only a few science-fiction-esque devices are used and none are so

ridiculous that it completely shattered the illusion of the story. One

or two machines that don't even exist in modern day, if properly placed

and explained, are acceptable. I won't quibble over that. I will

quibble about how the film assumes I have the attention span of a fruit

fly with ADHD.

It moves too fast. Whether it is because the film

doesn't want the audience to figure anything out ,in order to make

Sherlock Holmes seem all the more genius, or the director was trying to

prevent an Avatar or Lord of the Rings

length screen-time the scene changes and sequence of events have a

tendency to move at break-neck speed at inappropriate times. I wish I

would've had that chance to piece together the mystery myself before

Holmes, along with a flash-back montage, explained absolutely

every-last detail in one of the last scenes. The movie is clearly

set-up for a sequel, perhaps more than one, so maybe over-time I can

practice deducing faster than Homles himself. It's the only hope I

have, in that regard.

Finally, cinematography. Lack of

mega-expensive super camera lens, and souped up CGI, technology James

Cameron has heralded in his recent effort few expenses were denied for

the film. The frame spins around buildings, climbs unfinished bridges,

dives into sewers, hides and reveals characters to create palpable

suspense that's simply grin-worthy. London has come alive with all the

dirt and grit of the industrial age and it's beautiful.

Excellent use of slow-motion is used in ways reminiscent of the recent Watchmen, 300, and Inglorious Basterds.

It must be some sort of post-modern film trend-- using slow-motion

violence to satisfy some primitive desire for violence and combining it

with a dry, sarcastic irony to make an artistic, intellectual, or

social point. In Sherlock Holmes it is utilized several times to introduce the character of Sherlock Holmes.

The way he fights helps us know how he thinks and how he thinks helps

know just who he is. So while it is similar to recent movies that have

partaken themselves to fist-fights a definite purpose is there so it

isn't simply violence for the sake of playing with slow-motion effects.

If

you just want to have fun, escape from the noise for an hour or so, or

simply want a film that mixes action and light-mystery in a whimsical,

humorous manner see this film. Perhaps some will actually find

themselves taken in with the love-interest sub-plot-line. You won't

leave the theater contemplatively, the movie ensures most of the

thinking is done by Holmes for you, but you may be thinking of your

favorite scenes and especially the best one-liners. The Christmas

season may be early but it's not to late to sneak in a winter escape.

Run-time: 128 minutes
Date Viewed: December 30, 2009
Rating: 4/5
Release Date: December 25, 2009

Article Tags

Write a Response