Australia's Best Movie Magazine

Film reviews

Chronicle

Let down by its illogical “found footage” approach, this remains an impressively compelling ride, which has more in line with classic storytelling than current fads.

Man On A Ledge

While Worthington doesn’t quite match the talent of his top-notch co-stars, this admittedly implausible but impressively dynamic thriller is exciting stuff.

The Artist

Beautifully made, surprisingly fresh, and there’s no denying its charm, but ultimately, it’s a slight case of style over substance.

Martha Marcy May Marlene

Driven by Elizabeth Olsen’s mesmerising lead performance, this languid and unsettling story buries deep into your mind

search the site

Enter search term:

newsletter

Enter your email address below to receive the weekly Filmink newsletter

Enter search term:

Sherlock Holmes (Film)

by Erin Free | December 22, 2009 17:25 | Edited December 22, 2009 17:28

Lacking an emotional core, this badly scripted and unoriginal mess is barely saved by its leads.

Sherlock Holmes might be set on the wet, grimy cobblestoned streets of eighteenth century London, but the principal vibe here is not of mucky Victorian England, but rather ham-fisted Hollywood hit engineering.

 

You can practically hear the slickly suited studio executives putting it all together. "All the good comic books and TV shows have already been adapted...what other famous character can we wrench out of his grave and spruce up for a new generation? Mmmm...Sherlock Holmes! But we'll make him cool! No daggy deerstalker hat this time! We'll get Guy Ritchie to direct it! He's British! Who should we get to play the famous detective? Robert Downey Jr.! He's eccentric...and more importantly, Iron Man was a smash hit! Let's throw in Jude Law as Holmes' sidekick, Dr. Watson...the chicks love him! Speaking of chicks, who's hot right now? Rachel McAdams! Let's throw her in as the love interest! Boom! Instant franchise! Now let's just sit back and wait for the money to roll in."

 

That might sound cynical, but it's probably dangerously close to how it all went down. Though it has humorous moments, an occasionally rich sense of mood, and sometimes interesting interplay between the characters, Sherlock Holmes is devoid of any real sense of heart or feeling.

 

Guy Ritchie and his typically large team of screenwriters don't help matters by essentially beginning the film in the middle of the story, failing to effectively set up the central characters of Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson. Sure, we all know that Holmes is a genius detective and Watson is his straight-laced assistant, but that's not enough. In a new cinematic take such as this, they deserve a proper grounding, particularly with what is obviously designed to be the first in a series of adventures. Any real characterisation is left to the actors themselves.

 

Downey Jr. is his usual oddball self (he appears to be in cruise control mode, while still managing to be interesting), but Jude Law proves to be the film's surprise highlight, making Watson a funny, enjoyable, everyman character, and the audience's most ready source of engagement. Their mismatched buddy dynamic - the staple of a thousand cop/action thrillers - is the focal point around which the film's sluggish plotting (hokum about a British politician, played by English bad guy du jour Mark Strong, using black magic to destabilise the government) spins, and they provide enough comical mooring to anchor the film effectively.

 

Without Downey Jr. and Law, Sherlock Holmes would be an unbearable mess, replete with the ugly, overly slick sheen of blockbuster CGI and a clunky ending filled with more expositional dialogue than an episode of Scooby Doo.

 

As it is, Sherlock Holmes stands as slightly above average Hollywood studio fare - that's not a fiery damnation, sure, but it's hardly glorious praise either...