Sherlock Holmes: "The Matrix Meets Vaudeville"

I Think We Got Ourselves A 'Situation'

Its difficult to find the good in Sherlock Holmes. Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law are an odd pairing as the Hounds of Baskerville, but their occasional conversational quips make some of the dialogue tolerable. When did the tales of Holmes call for jaw-breaking action sequences? Oh, I see, this is a Guy Ritchie joint. Imagine a Sherlock Holmes tale where mystery and a concise plot jauntily jump out of the window. Ritchie's vision of the [eventual] Holmes cinematic franchise is one of bullets, oddly-placed swash-buckling and slow-motion beat-downs. Surprisingly, the cast was more-than adequate. Sherlock Holmes accomplishes the look, but beyond the surface of the rich visuals the movie harkens only inspires naps.

I am always astounded by Guy Ritchie fans. His films have progressively lost the spirit and effort seen in Snatch or Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. Casting was able to pair Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law as Holmes and Watson -- a very odd achievement. Downey Jr. suffering from the George Clooney acting-disease, where playing the quick-witted smarmy jerk seems to be the only way for the two actors to pay the rent. Raise your hand if you were one of many who thought Jude Law should have been a bigger star in Hollywood by now. Law as Watson does well given the script's action-over-substance leanings. And did I mention? He's adorable.

I can't seem to find the silver-lining with Sherlock Holmes. The wardrobe and set design help ease the digestion of a movie that regurgitates genre cliches over a century ahead of the film's setting. Rachel McAdams make-up and the soot on Holmes and Watson's faces show the work of an expert aesthetician. The mood and tone of the score have hints of vintage Gaelic influences. To the ear and eye this was confusing for me, seeing as the movie is set in in the heart of London [but I understand that London has a fair amount of Irish background]. The sights and sounds pulled me in -- I am comfortable admitting this, while acknowledging Sherlock Holmes' many short-comings were what abruptly pushed me far away from liking the film.

The resident bad guy was painted so broadly in the script that the only mystery in the movie was when he was returning for the lackluster climax. Holmes has the chief of police chasing him. Watson has to balance his gallivanting old lifestyle with his new life as a future-husband. All of these little pieces are supposed to further the character tension. The fine details of solving mysteries in a plot, which was as interesting as the opening credits, didn't have to insult my intelligence. The talent was there. The money was more than abundant. Sherlock Holmes falls prey to what many movies of this caliber [budget] -- of this generation -- terrible vision. Holmes and Watson have so few moments of brilliance when they share the screen together, because the narrative [using the term loosely] is trying to establish a superfluous franchise as opposed to telling a story.

I was never pulled in to Sherlock Holmes meticulously crafted world. Guy Ritchie's Sherlock is snapping necks and cashing checks. A real shame for the film considering how gorgeous some moments of this film are. Camera tricks used too often extended an already long epic tale that I dare any viewer to both make sense of and subsequently care about. The plot was muddled, but not complex. The director's successful moments were taking the mystery out of a beloved novel and making an otherwise fun film feel punitive with its bloated length. But hey, at least it made a ton of money, right?

I Give Sherlock Holmes...

The "Really? Taco Bell Taquitos?" Award