well maybe AND Watson...I saw Sherlock Holmes in London, not too far from the famous 221b Baker Street, on Crate Day. And boy were there crates (of the exploding kind).
The film was actually quite pleasant, having not read the books I can only base my knowledge of Holmes on the Basil Rathbone series and the Hound of the Baskervilles with Richard Roxburgh (and Richard E. Grant) both of whom played a markedly different Sherlock from that of Robert Downey Jr. .
The film centres on the Victorian penchant for the dramatic and mysterious, with white magic and black magic and Masonic sects. The big bad (Lord Blackwood) being a bent toothed Mark Strong (who has a habit of playing exceedingly good bad guys, although I' sure he doesn't mind being type cast and I don't mind watching him so, though I will always remember him as Mr. Knightly), who has decided to ...
take over the world (duh duh durrrr)...
the world obviously being Victorian England. Sherlock is sent to clear Watson's name and find out how Blackwood a) survived a hanging and b) is killing off the prominent people of London.
It's swashbuckling fun, with disguises and animated conversation, coupled with a gorgeous seductress and a bit of physics. On a whole a great action film with a bit of brains and brilliant accents including Dredger - the French giant's. And the promise of more to come with Holmes' arch-nemesis Prof. Moriarty making a discrete appearance.
The dynamic between RDJ (Downey Jr.) and Jude Law is brilliant, they really bounce off each other well and make the film brilliant. Even though I had my apprehensions about the casting of RDJ I think that the right choice was made and can't think of a contemporary actor who would have played the part better.
My only bugbears are minor but worth their input.
Firstly, the slow-mo fight scenes are good (a couple of my friends can't stand them, but I'm willing to give the film the benefit of the doubt) but if you are going to use that technique, it should be consistently used and not just twice in the beginning of the film. It may have been something to do with the pacing, obviously the climatic fights at the end wouldn't do with slo-mo parts, but if it is going to be used it should be in the whole film.
Secondly, the film is grand but it does feel a bit like Poirot (I could have more fun watching David Suchet). What I mean is that I don't think that the big screen really offers it much; I could easily have accepted that this was an extended TV drama, and happily watched it.
Thirdly, the locations are great but I don't think the time taken to travel from one to another was well considered. Guy Ritchie is a London lad and I'm a London girl so I do expect better. All right trying to palm off something like this to those not from the city but at least cater for those who are. Such as running through the sewage tunnels and managing to get from the Houses of Parliament to Tower Bridge in 10miutes is not possible. Sure the tunnels exist but even running as they are would take significantly longer. The trip also from the South to Pentonville Prison just seemed too short as well but is less of a concern.
Finally the pacing does seem a bit off, although I didn't look at my watch once, the flow of the film isn't altogether as it should be.
On the whole a film worth the watch, though I think equally as watchable on the small screen instead of the big.
Oh, and that scene where the girl floats towards camera didn't take place when I went to watch it. Maybe the projectionist decided to cut it out and take it home as a souvenir.
