First Sherlock Holmes reviews
“Singularity is almost invariably a clue.” – Sherlock Holmes
The game’s afoot! And who but Hunter himself is better equipped to find the first non-anonymous review, from Katey Rich at CinemeBlend:
It’s become a central truth of American filmmaking that audiences will watch Robert Downey Jr. doing pretty much anything, and when he’s having as much fun as he is as the magnetic center of Sherlock Holmes, there’s no choice but to be swept along for the ride. Effectively remaking the original Pirates of the Caribbean as a Victorian London caper, Guy Ritchie combines his kinetic direction with the limitless charms of Downey Jr and Jude Law to come up with terrific entertainment that’s equal parts brains and brawn, American recklessness and English manners. In short, it’s a blast…
Then again, all that Ritchie noodling works great in Holmes’s investigation scenes, allowing him visual flashbacks to all the clues that led him to his conclusions and avoiding the dreadful slowness that comes with most mystery-solving monologues. Miraculously the audience is right there with Holmes even during his most out-there epiphanies, and the equally out-there camerawork pays off well in making this period piece feel unstuffy, but also not gimmicky.
And yet, when Ritchie holds the camera relatively still, letting all of the actors play off each other, there’s nothing better. Eddie Marsan is hilarious as the frustrated Inspector Lestrade, and Strong’s Blackwood makes for a great intellectual equal against Holmes, but when Downey Jr. and Law are together the screen lights up so brightly it could catch fire. Bantering like Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell or trading off punches in a fight, the two actors have rarely looked so self-assured or in synch with an onscreen partner.
Another vote of approval from Gabe Leibowitz at Film and Felt:
At last, Guy Ritchie has found the perfect vessel for his sugar-rush, hyper-kinetic style of filmmaking. The director of the hit-or-miss Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch—as well as the supposedly unwatchable Swept Away, unseen by me—absolutely nails Sherlock Holmes, staying true to the classic Arthur Conan Doyle characters in spirit while imbuing them and the film with his ADD-eque energy and unique style. And really, what better fit for Ritchie than an opium-addicted, violin-strumming genius who’s incapable of sitting still for more than a moment at a time? Riding a lights-out performance by Robert Downey Jr. as Holmes and an outstanding supporting turn from Jude Law as Watson, Ritchie steps on the pedal from the opening shots and doesn’t take his foot off the gas until the credits wrap up. Aside from perhaps Inglorious Basterds, which is an entirely different sort of picture, Sherlock Holmes is the most entertaining movie of the year. It pulsates with energy, vim and vigor.
Jesus Alonso says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 6:06pm
Seriously, didn’t we all see this kind of reaction coming, from the very first trailer? I still remain on my suspiction Downey Jr and Law can end up winning both Male Acting awards at the Academy. Downey is overdue, so Law is, and this seems to do what Pirates of the Caribbean did to Depp… make the AMPAS surrender to their talent.
If it manages to sneak in at the Best Picture list, both guys can surprise.
Joe W says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 6:09pm
Had the chance to see Sherlock Holmes last night and I was very unimpressed. The movie just felt incredibly average. Downey Jr and Law are great and their chemistry together is what carries the movie, but I felt I had seen the exact same movie 100 times before. I had already forgotten about the movie after leaving the screening. Very meh.
babalabalu says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 6:12pm
Fantastic to hear. It looks great.
rodrigo jp says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 6:21pm
That is great news, but I do not see both actors winning the Oscar.Maybe, maybe a nomination .
Hunter says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 6:22pm
Seems the reports of cheering at the Guild screenings wasn’t BS.
allen says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 6:23pm
I doubt Downey will get in the top 5, maybe law can for supporting however, since it’s a comeback as a character actor which is what he is best at
Noah R. says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 6:24pm
Invoking Pirates of the Caribbean with respect to Sherlock Holmes is not a good thing for me. In fact, it’s far from a good thing. I’m all for updating Holmes but not like this. And I’m sorry but Depp isn’t that good as Jack Sparrow. He’s like the lead in the high school play who has talent but has mistaken gurning with acting, while nobody has the guts to tell him that it’s obnoxious. Downey is a ham. He’s a brilliant ham sometimes but he is still a ham, and he needs a good director to reel him in (e.g. David Fincher in Zodiac). And Guy Ritchie is not a good director.
bambi says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 6:26pm
Ahem,ahem, how come that now we`ve seen this reaction coming? Should I remind everyone of the naysayers who wanted to banish any mention of Holmes in Oscar threads? But this isn`t an occasion to argue but to celebrate. Hunter is vindicated and his faith in Holmes is now rewarded by these raves and soon by the out-of-this-world boxoffice and the start of the new megafranchise. Bravo!
Extremly happy to read these reviews. December 25 can`t come soon enough!
Yvette says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 6:26pm
Great reviews!! Happy to hear.
Loyal says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 6:30pm
But there isnt a hint of Oscar talk in either review. I dont see the leap.
Craig says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 6:32pm
“Aside from perhaps Inglorious Basterds, which is an entirely different sort of picture, Sherlock Holmes is the most entertaining movie of the year.”
I’m sold, by this sentence alone.
daveylow says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 6:33pm
Katey Rich went to my alma mater, Wesleyan, and she’s a smart cookie. I would trust her review.
Hunter says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 6:34pm
@ Loyal
This is EXACTLY the kind of movie the Academy extended the BP field to ten to include. Blockbuster + Critical Acclaim = nomination. Until now, however, that movie simply hasn’t existed.
Craig says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 6:40pm
Star Trek had both of those things…
Loyal says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 6:42pm
UP (293m + 98% RT), Star Trek (257m + 95% RT), Inglourious Basterds (120m + 88% RT), District 9 (115m + 90% RT), Avatar (TBD), there’s no shortage of films that fit that mold Hunter. You don’t have to resort to Sherlock Holmes.
Hunter says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 6:44pm
@ Craig. Yes it did, and I loved the movie. But it’s still another Star Trek picture to the Academy. They would never have gone for it.
Hunter says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 6:46pm
@ Loyal
Up is animated. Star Trek and District 9 are summer sci-fi movies. Inglourious Basterds is an arthouse movie. Avatar is unseen. But what really matters at the end of the day is that finally we have a year-end movie that will knock everyone’s socks off.
Loyal says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 6:48pm
@ Hunter
And Sherlock Holmes is a Guy Ritchie movie. And so we’re back to square one.
daveylow says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 6:51pm
I would love it if Downey and Law got nominated. It would certainly make the awards more fun. Golden Globes, lead the way! I guess Law has a better shot in the suppporting category.
The Natural says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 6:52pm
“Aside from perhaps Inglorious Basterds, which is an entirely different sort of picture, Sherlock Holmes is the most entertaining movie of the year.”
Really? The insanely overlong, unwieldy dialogue scenes that don’t know when to stop keeps “Basterds” FAR from being the most entertaining movie of the year. Try “Star Trek.”
Hunter says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 6:53pm
@ Loyal
I would read the full reviews and tell me again that Ritchie directing Holmes was a bad idea. His notices are just as good as the raves for Downey and Law.
bambi says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 6:53pm
Wow, why isn`t Guy Richie allowed to make a great movie? great directors deliver turkies so why so-so director wouldn`t click with the material, rise to the occasion and deliver the glory that is Sherlock Holmes? Also, Pirates of the Caribbean is adventure classic so all comparisons are huge compliments. Deal with it haters.
Katey says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 6:55pm
For what it’s worth, I don’t really see an Oscar future here, though the production design is fantastic as is Hans Zimmer’s score (kind of kicking myself for not mentioning it in the review). But given a field of 10, as we keep saying, anything is possible.
Thanks for the link!
Hunter says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 6:56pm
The first time I saw the first Pirates it was opening day afternoon in a theater perhaps 10% full. And everyone cheered at the end. Pirates 2 and 3 were so bad that people may have forgotten what a terrific picture the first one was.
Loyal says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 6:57pm
Hunter, listen to Katey. She went to Wesleyan.
m1 says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 6:59pm
I wanted something about Rachel McAdams… But I’m happy that the movie is a success.
Hunter says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 6:59pm
Loyal, listen to me. I went to Oxford.
But Hi, Katey! Fantastic review!
bambi says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 7:04pm
#24
POTC:TCOTBP is the best movie of 2003 for me. One of the best of the decade and one of my all times favorites. I actually liked the second one but the third one was abomination. However, I totally agree that second and third cloud some people`s judgement about the first. Just like how they feel about original The Matrix post-Reloaded&Revolutions. here`s hoping that Holmes franchise will not go south with bloat and nonsense.
Robert says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 7:09pm
Oh God, the hysterical overstatements and breathless fawning is getting even worse.
All this because of two positive reviews from largely unknown critics? It’s hardly a critical consensus. Didn’t someone on another thread unearth a review that was fairly mediocre? Didn’t Hunter himself say that his sources claim the movie didn’t play well with the HFPA? (Not that the HFPA should be confused for critics!)
Remember, the debate about Holmes hasn’t been so much about whether it would make money or whether a lot of people would enjoy it. Hunter and Bambi have been insisting that it will be an Oscar game changer in big categories. That’s what most of us are waiting to see happen.
Cinefanatic says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 7:12pm
Re: The Natural
I’d hardly call the dialogue in Basterds boring, or unwieldy…in fact, I’d much rather call it tense, suspenseful and multi-layered in meaning-(heck, maybe just genius)-but that’s just me (and a whole lot of critics and general audiences but…I digress.)
Star Trek was pretty good, but also almost 50% dependent on nostalgia-I think Tarantino deserves a little credit for his originality, if nothing else.
Hunter says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 7:16pm
@ Robert
No, what i said was that Greg Ellwood of HitFox said that Homes didn’t play well with the HFPA, but that they went nuts for Avatar. We’ll find out soon if what he said was true.
And those reviews aren’t “positives” – they are raves.
Loyal says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 7:20pm
Well, I at least applaud Hunter and Bambi’s enthusiasm, no matter how extreme it appears. You two should videotape yourselves on opening day and post it.
I just want an entertaining film. Hitching Oscar hopes to it prematurely just doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. At least wait for something more substantial. An Oxford grad would do that (I only went to Columbia :sad face:)
Hunter says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 7:21pm
You know something? Now that we know that Sherlock Holmes is terrific, I find that I don’t much care if it makes the ten BP noms. I mean, great if it does, but I’ve been a lifelong Holmesian (that’s the British version of the American “Sherlockian”) and all I wanted was a great Holmes movie that was both faithful to the Canon and a wonderful movie in its own right, with tremendous acting and script and direction and score and the whole ball of wax. And that’s what Warner Brothers have given me for Christmas. So I say, God bless ‘em and God bless us, everyone.
Loyal says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 7:28pm
a bit too Dickensian at the end there Hunter. But fair enough.
Craig says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 7:35pm
The dialogue in Inglourious Basterds is boring? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
The Natural says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 7:44pm
Hmmm… funny, because I never even said the dialogue was boring. Not once. Re-read my original comment.
Ryan Adams says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 7:47pm
Listen to me. I went to U. of Chicago.
(But don’t listen to me if I start blithering about economics.)
Jeremie says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 7:49pm
Four star review. That’s impressive. Especially from a website which seems really picky. They only gave three and half stars to Ninja Assassin, Tyler Perry’s I Can Do Bad All By Myself or GI Joe…
I think it’s safe to consider these four films absolute locks for Oscar after that.
Robert says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 7:54pm
@ Hunter, #31:
Ah, that was it. I thought Ellwood was one of your “sources.” Sorry about that.
@ Hunter, #33:
Okay, now we have the back off. The slow retreat. Now you don’t care if SH gets a BP nomination or not? Are you starting to worry it won’t?
You also say: “Now that we know that Sherlock Holmes is terrific…” But we don’t know that yet. I remember Sasha posted a couple of early reviews for “Amelia” that were positive. We saw how that turned out when a majority of the critics had their say.
sartre says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 7:57pm
“Now that we know that Sherlock Holmes is terrific, I find that I don’t much care if it makes the ten BP noms.”
If reviews are a measure of being a terrific film, then two positive (or even rave) reviews does not substantiate this claim Hunter. I hope you’re ultimately proved right about this film but such declarations remain premature. I appreciate that a good script and the talent involved (besides Ritchie IMO) gives you a basis for optimism (and you’ve picked up on positive responses elsewhere), but we still await a meaningful sample of reviews before determining whether it constitutes a critical success.
fred says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 8:04pm
A critical success ?
Do you know any director who has EVER made a film hoping to achieve a “critical success” ?
aspect ratio says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 8:06pm
Considering how underwhelmed I’ve been by the trailers I’m certainly happy to hear it getting this positive reaction. I’m still not completely sold or excited about it, but at least the odds have improved.
What I’m wondering now though is.. Is it in time for Golden Globes consideration? If it’s a blast it could certainly land some nominations in the comedy section, Downey Jr. in particular, maybe film, maybe score (which Kris Tapley raved about).
Hunter says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 8:11pm
@ Robert and Sartre
Yes, yes, yes. All that you have said is fair and true and the rest of it. But these reviews only echo what i have been hearing from advance word, corroborated by wildly enthusiastic Guild screenings, which I have been passing along to you on this site, so I am confident that the overwhelming majority of reviews will follow suit.
Hunter says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 8:12pm
@ Aspectratio
I think you’ll find that Kris Tapley has seen the movie now, and liked it a great deal. He’s embargoed, though.
JR says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 8:25pm
Okay, so we see good reviews. Does that matter?. Iron Man got great reviews and did that make any Oscar impact?. This year, District 9 and Star Trek got great reviews. Why is no one talking about these films chances?. I think Star Trek has a better chance.
Hunter says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 8:30pm
@ JR
To answer your question you only have to answer one of my own. What is the secret of great comedy?
Hunter says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 8:43pm
Timing.
bambi says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 8:50pm
I agree. Holmes is timed well. It`s coming out at the time that 3 of Big Four failed to deliver let alone change the game. That puts Holmes is a good position as a late-in-the-game surprise.
Craig says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 9:05pm
I think Hunter needs to calm down a little, two raves to not make a movie a huge critical success. I don’t care how possitive they are there is still only TWO of them. I’ve seen just as many people say, meh.
That being said I hope it IS great, but I’m not gonna call it a masterpiece because of these two.
Robert says:
Tuesday, December 8, 2009 at 9:05pm
@ aspect radio:
If Holmes is in the GG/Drama category, I doubt it will get a BP picture nomination or an actor nomination. But if it is considered in the Comedy/Musical category, its chances are better because that category usually is weaker than the drama category. And it sounds like people are thinking of it being in the Comedy category.
Unless Greg Ellwood is right and the HFPA didn’t take to the movie…