For or against: Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes reviews

For or against: Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes reviews

When it was released in 2010, the action film starring Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law divided audiences. And the writing.

TMC will rebroadcast this evening Sherlock Holmes, by Guy Ritchie. Robert Downey Jr has a blast playing Sherlock Holmes, facing a nonchalant Jude Law. The duo works, the action scenes follow one another and clearly Guy Ritchie is having fun dusting off the myth imagined by Arthur Conan Doyle. However, if the film was a great success in theaters (all the more remarkable since it faced Avatar in the United States), it divided the public and critics upon its release. Particularly within the editorial staff of Firstwhich published two conflicting opinions in February 2010.

Does Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes really betray the work of Conan Doyle?

For Jérôme Dittmar, who officiated at Fluctuate (cultural site then partner of First), the result was positive: From badass fights to scenes worthy of a blockbuster, the film demonstrates a readability that in no way hinders its speed. Even in the use of slow motion, a usually cunning trademark of Ritchie, who works on a global and elastic rhythmic sensuality: a beautiful passage in particular where Holmes flies like a feather in the middle of an explosion, and a clever transfer of the power of analysis of character in a fight. We can, however, regret that Ritchie does not have the intelligence of his hero, that he relies too much on a demonstrative illustration of the enigmas (although this transparency is defensible), but he does not pretend to be Billy Wilder. It is rather his modesty, his ability to stand behind his actors, giving them absolute confidence, which is a pleasure to see. Would the swaggering mannerism of the 90s become a new, unpretentious classic? Who knows.

For Gérard Delorme, on the other hand, the “Ritchie recipe” did not take, even if he recognized the obvious talent of the casting (Downey Jr. and Law are notably surrounded by Mark Strong, Rachel MacAdams, Kelly Reilly…): For this umpteenth adaptation of the adventures of Conan Doyle’s hero, the Producer Joel Silver didn’t have to find many people to contradict his instructions: an action sequence every twenty minutes. The rest is left to the discretion of the mercenaries engaged in this project targeting multiplexes. In order to strengthen an extremely conventional plot, the screenwriters worked together to find at least two ideas. The first consists of rejuvenating the duettists and making them superheroes, with Holmes having his ability to deduce. This manifests itself almost exclusively in the form of premonitions; before neutralizing an enemy, the detective-boxer mentally plays a film of what he is going to do to him. Incidentally, the process allows you to furnish by serving the same sequence twice. Another idea: lend homosexual tendencies to the detective, who shows his jealousy every time Watson is in the company of a woman. Unfortunately, the track is never exploited. Guy Ritchie, who still hasn’t figured out what a feature film pace is, does the action sequences at a sprint pace and rests the rest of the time, executing endless scenes like a civil servant. dialogues in busy settings. However, despite its obvious flaws, the film leaves a not really unpleasant aftertaste. The actors, maybe.

Where is Sherlock Holmes 3?

Similar Posts