Sherlock Holmes

Rating: 5/10

This movie version of the classic Sherlock Holmes tales lacks emotional engagement and has a frenetic, yet soporific, pace. The movie stars Robert Downey Jr, an actor I've thoroughly enjoyed in several movies, most recently Iron Man. Downey's performance in Sherlock Holmes is entertaining, he portrays a quirky and moody Holmes with a striking personality resemblance to TV's House. While overall the movie may have lacked the anticipated magic, it is not without several significant virtues.

The Good:
+ Engaging cinematography

+ Fast action

+ Unique pre-action descriptions

The style of the film is unique among recent big budget movies. The camera work is artistic. They chose to use  a very large aperture for much of the film, which gave the shots a small depth of field. This shallow focus is what's responsible for the extreme blurring of background and foreground objects. The effect is that the director (Guy Ritchie) can choose a small area on which to focus the audience's attention. They also play with the speed of the film, speeding up and slowing down the photography.

Note the background blurring. This shot is only an okay example of
the depth of field, but all I could find online.

The best part of the movie was the action scenes. In particular, the pre-action descriptions were awesome. In these descriptions, Holmes narrates what he will do, and how it will effect his target while the visuals show the punches, slaps, etc in slow motion. This may sound like it would make the actual occurrence of the action less engaging, but it does the opposite. These descriptions create anticipation, and if they weren't provided, we wouldn't be able to follow the action at all. Overall, these pre-action descriptions are the best part of the movie, and something I hope others have opportunity to use in future movies.

RDJ's weight loss reportedly started with food poisoning,

but that kind of muscle doesn't come without some

serious weight lifting too: Sherlock Holmes Workout

The Bad:

- Plot

- Pace

- Characterization

The mystery of the film lacks intrigue. There are a couple of novel, "how did he do that?" puzzles, but overall, I didn't really care what was going to happen. The pace of the film kept changing. This movie is the rare instance where during action scenes I was excited and engaged, while during plot movement scenes I could barely keep my eyes open. This change of pace wouldn't have been a problem if the plot of the film (storyline elements) didn't feel artificial and forced. Rather than genuinely engaging us by creating characters we cared about, then putting those characters at risk, it feels as though we were assumed to care about the characters from the get go. Aside from the relationship between Holmes and Watson, none of the characters made a convincing connection, and so putting their relationships at risk offered no suspense. In particular, the connection between Holmes and Adler (Rachel McAdams) was  tenuous at best. It was obvious that there was a history between them, and the history is alluded to, but never elaborated upon. Yet, a significant portion of the plot depends on their feelings for each other.

Conclusion:

Sherlock Holmes is great for it's cinematography and poor for it's emotional engagement. Overall, I can't recommend this film, unless you would like to sit through a weak plot to get to the interesting visual elements. Did you like the Matrix II and III? You'll love Holmes. Otherwise, skip Holmes and go see Avatar.