Sherlock Holmes

Guy Ritchie au service d'Hollywood. Son trait de réalisateur le plus fort, tout comme l'exhibition musicale la plus bombastique de Zimmer, sont ressentis dans l'introduction spectaculaire. Le reste du film n'est « juste »  qu'une conversation agréable entre Downey et Law se déroulant dans le monde de la magie noire de Potter. Nous ne sommes pas trop surpris, le scénario routinier parie sur des valeurs sûres - de grands acteurs et l'atmosphère d'un Londres alors dangereux et enveloppé de nuages. Un divertissement décent. (02/01/2010)

Robert Downey Jr. a bien mérité son Golden Globe, Jude Law m’a agréablement surpris par son excellente prestation et Rachel McAdams ne m’a encore jamais déçu, ici avec un rôle de voleuse rusée qui lui va comme un gant. Tout comme avec les autres œuvres de Guy Ritchie, j’ai quelques réserves pour l’ensemble du film, mais il faut quand même lui reconnaître la remarquable retranscription qu’il a faite de l’ambiance du vieux Londres. Je reste conservateur en ce qui concerne le genre policier. (07/02/2010)

Guy Ritchie is one of those directors whose qualities I acknowledge but whose films leave me underwhelmed, and Sherlock Holmes left me very much so. I didn’t get bored, I didn’t have fun, I’ve just watched it once and I’m no longer interested in it. I will forget that they exists. Sherlock. Guy. (20/01/2010)

It's good that even though Hollywood tinsel tries to pummel Guy Ritchie with its most typical special effects (predictable plot pirouettes, character development), he’s still the distinctive, foxy filmmaker who squeezed the most out of even a banal detective plot within its limits (the boxing match, the flashbacks). Yet the main character (compared to the trailers) is not Robert Downey Jr., but Jude Law, who despite the thankless role of a dry sniffer throws up elegant bon mots and hard fists, and paradoxically I enjoyed him a bit more. Both Strong and McAdams are bland due to the minimal space they get and their total omission in the plot (yes, that’s quite a weakness with Strong as the main villain). Nevertheless, positive feelings prevail, mainly due to the pace, the whole peculiar aura, and Zimmer's very unconventional but excellent work. I’m looking forward to the second film. (14/01/2010)

A perfect cast, but it doesn’t help much. Strong spends too much time in the background, Law can’t keep up with Downey in any of their scenes (while in this movie they are meant to be on level pegging!), Rachel McAdams is uninspiring, the movie lacks any real case, deduction is not employed, but abused like deus ex machina and so Hans Zimmer steals all the attention. And it’s not that Richie is bored; he is having fun, and it works well in some places, but he fell a long way short of managing to reproduce the type of goofy shenanigans like we saw in Pirates of the Caribbean. But it’s clear that’s what he was aiming for. If you want to make an untraditional Holmes movie, you need either a good idea or you need a good Sherlock to base one’s performance on, which Downey does in any case. ♫ OST score: 4/5 (07/01/2010)

The Victorian magic works like never before. The master of deduction comes in full force and his creators have flown into the performance in the most pleasant way possible. Action-packed, grandiose, and clever. Holmes can certainly throw punches, but more importantly, he can perfectly engage the mind. Despite a complicated plot, everything falls into place, the viewer can barely keep up with the lightning-fast explanations, and Sherlock (along with Guy Ritchie) can leave triumphantly, having surpassed his own reputation. This is simply the right kind of Adventure with a capital A. And I will want to be the first in line for the next installment. (14/01/2010)

I'm sure it was fun, I'm sure there was action, but it certainly doesn't deserve a better rating from me. Downey and Law made an interesting team, I'm not opposed to them playing together again, and given the way Sherlock ends, it's more than likely – that is, provided he does not succumb to some crisis. It's a film that brings nothing new, it doesn't surprise you, it may bore you, what may disappoint you are the same jokes that have been told a hundred times. I think 128 minutes is more than enough. It must be an interesting experience in the cinema, but I certainly don't mind missing out. I put this movie under the "once and enough" category. A weaker three stars in total. (10/02/2010)

A typical modern high-budget blockbuster with sophisticated visuals and a star-studded cast that will probably shock the traditional fans of the British detective, who honor the classic idea of a detective as it was served to them by Arthur Conan Doyle back in the day. Sherlock Holmes by Guy Ritchie has sidelined, as expected, logical deductions in favor of dynamic action. His Sherlock Holmes is an action hero who successfully battles in the ring and uses his fists or various arsenal of weapons more often than deep thoughts. His companion Watson has emancipated and is an equal player who, moreover, thanks to his sober approach, often saves his colleague's neck. The film is shot with a touch of irony and filled with constant bantering between both detectives and their surroundings. Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law live up to their reputations as actors and deliver outstanding performances, Rachel McAdams is charming, but her femme fatale doesn't have as much space to become a female counterpart to the central duo. The decent budget allowed for indulging in the magnificent period image of London, especially the view of the London shipyards (shot in Kent) offers an amazing glimpse into the industrial era, and the director somewhat megalomaniacally allows us to send an almost finished ship to the bottom after an exciting duel. Personally, I am not a big fan of snobbish British detectives, and this modern playful adaptation struck me as extremely entertaining. Overall impression: 80%. (16/02/2010)

All this current Sherlock hype is so very boring. It's been a long time since I've seen something that elicits a single reaction - disinterest. I'm thus sticking with the holy trinity of 1930s Central Europe - Lelicek in the Services of Sherlock Holmes, The Hound of Baskerville and The Man Who Was Sherlock Holmes. (22/01/2012)

Maybe even below average stuff, overly directed and tastelessly grafted onto a historical costume. Downey Jr. and Law are fine and their chemistry is good, the action is average, but the plot is bad. The greatest positive is Mark Strong as a demonic character, that man is phenomenal. I don't like Ritchie and this film doesn't change that. (04/04/2010)

I was nervous about this one… really nervous, since Sherlock Holmes was my most anticipated movie last year. With all the mixed reviews, I started losing hope (which is rare for me). But now I know that was a mistake—I won’t doubt again! Robert Downey Jr. and his expressions are unbeatable, and he nailed it once more. Whether or not this Holmes is true to the original doesn’t bother me; I don’t get why some people let that ruin it for them. Guy Ritchie had me laughing last time, and he did it again, this time with my favorite actor and composer. Funny, refreshing, and stylish. 90%. (22/01/2010)

It gets a fifth star after the home DVD "screening".__Sherlock Holmes is a first-class entertaining film that runs like clockwork from start to finish, is thrilling and playful at the same time, and doesn't let up for even a second. Downey and Law played the central duo excellently, Strong's Blackwood is very good as the villain - however, he could have been given a bit more space - and Rachel McAdams doesn't disgrace herself either. Ritchie's direction should be singled out, which in some moments (the boxing, the Holmes+Watson battle against the meat and potatoes, the explosion on the docks) really takes your breath away. I must also mention Zimmer's music - the most addictive soundtrack of the year - and the original plot. The film is of course full of catchphrases, the best being Watson's "Relax... I’m a doctor". I'm looking forward to the second film and to Professor Moriarty! (05/02/2010)

Modern popcorn entertainment the way it should be. I would never have imagined that the famous London detective could become an action star of the first magnitude, but in Ritchie's hands everything seems relaxed and natural, and Downey fits the role like a glove. And I mustn't forget Jude Law, who delivers perhaps the best portrayal of Dr Watson of all the actors who’ve had the honour of taking on the role so far. While it's true that other Watsons are usually the sidekicks of the sophisticated and patient investigator, Law shares his views with the occasional boxer and prototype of the modern movie detective who would rather jump off a roof than run down a flight of stairs. And that is the film a whole – hardly comparable to its predecessors, but all the more original and entertaining for that. (19/10/2012)

It's true that in some places it was our old familiar cliché and it was also a bit more modernized, but I liked it on the whole. Guy Ritchie breathed a new look into the most famous detective, which I didn't enjoy at times, but the idea wasn't bad. I wasn't bored, the plot moved along and was relatively unpredictable (or I was too lazy to predict). Great soundtrack, costumes, plot and atmosphere. Mark Strong was perfect for the role of the villain. Rachel McAdams didn't seem like it, but she was a pretty badass. Overall, this looks above average to me - 75%. (22/02/2010)

As Cervenak has already written – the really sadly untapped potential of Mark Strong's character and consequently his acting ability. He stayed on screen for what, 25 minutes total? In general, with the characters and script overall it's not particularly glorious, but that's perhaps my only complaint. The main duo plays for the viewer, sprinkles one funny line after another from their sleeves, disposes of the villains in luxuriously filmed (especially slow-motion) scenes, and occasionally "saves" some time for their dear counterparts. Bottom line – Guy Ritchie does not disappoint, his Sherlock Holmes is fresh and stylish entertainment, backed primarily by good and inventive direction and, once again, Hans Zimmer's excellent score. I think even Arthur Conan Doyle himself would have laughed his heart out at this modern film adaptation (in a good way, of course :)) 80% (14/01/2010)