Seriously, I wasn't even gonna say anything. I mean, I want to be diplomatic. Robert Downey Jr. is practically my best friend and all. In my mind.
I saw a screening of Sherlock Holmes a couple of weeks ago and thought, man, OK, let's just never speak of this, America. But given the relentless drumbeat of actual mixed-to-positive reviews, I can no longer keep silent. This will not stand.
I can pretty much let the screenplay go. Wait, no, I can't. I mean, in spite of the efforts of four screenwriters, there is not one actual witty line in it -- I defy you to find one. Though Downey and Law are such monstrously intelligent actors that by sheer force of will they actually get some of it off the ground. And as Snydes has pointed out, Holmes' first meeting with Law's fiancee is a well-turned moment. (And it's touching how her teeth are messed up.) (Snydes actually said all of this already, and better, since he actually knows about movies and uses examples and stuff.)
But then there's London, which looks thin and grey and depressing in that way that only digitally re-recreated Victorian cities can be. And the real crime is the plot. Which just ... makes ... no sense. The idea that a Sherlock Holmes movie would insult your intelligence by degenerating into a chase scene as totally wooden and nonsensical as any I've ever seen anywhere, not excepting Fletch Lives ... it's just depressing. You actually cannot make it make sense.
As Mike would say, it's the biggest disappointment since my son.
I agree completely, I have no idea why this movie is getting positive reviews. The movie's biggest crime is it's BORING. I found myself checking my watch about halfway through wondering how much longer it could go on.
jeffreytz
Dec. 28, 2009 11:33:am
at 11:33:am
And can I just add, in the scene where they have dinner, Holmes sniffs the wine cork before he takes a drink. Such a sucker move.
Lev Grossman
Dec. 28, 2009 13:27:pm
at 13:27:pm
I rather liked it. The plot makes sense in the same way that the technology on ST:TOS makes sense - i.e., it doesn't but it's a lot of fun if you imagine it does.
tereglith
Dec. 28, 2009 16:03:pm
at 16:03:pm
I must have had this same conversation ten times in the last week. The film's concept is pure folly, yet it succeeds. The whole thing smacks of a Simpsons-type caricature of what Hollywood might do with the Sherlock Holmes franchise, complete with Rainier Wolfcastle playing the lead. When I first saw the trailer, I honestly thought it was a joke - I kept waiting for a punchline, which (alas) never came. Still, at least now I can look forward to that Wizard of Oz reboot with Megan Fox (Dorothy), Mickey Rourke (Lion), Keanu Reeves (Tin Man), etc...
igrokspock
Dec. 28, 2009 21:46:pm
at 21:46:pm
I haven't seen it yet but I completely agree, this movie is getting so much hype for what seems like a large portion of idiocy.
markkammel
Dec. 29, 2009 11:01:am
at 11:01:am
I was beginning to think I was the only one out there who is at least ambivalent about this film. I haven't seen it yet (and probably don't plan to), but the trailer definitely looks like the movie turns a well-developed literary character into what igrokspock calls a "caricature" for a 21st century audience.
guymont
Dec. 29, 2009 11:54:am
at 11:54:am
I didn't HATE it, but it was just so much fluff. I actually rather like the idea of remaking Sherlock Holmes as some kind of steampunk action hero, but this wasn't any of that. It was just a poorly written light action movie. It was well made, just dull.
Hopefully the inevitable sequel does a bit better, although I'll be renting that, not rushing out to see it.
loonyboi
Dec. 29, 2009 13:32:pm
at 13:32:pm
I must say i only watched the trailer and i thought at the time that making an action movie starring sherlock Holmes was pure heresy..... it reminded me of "the league of extraordinary gentlemen" debacle.
grendel2000
Dec. 30, 2009 08:39:am
at 08:39:am