Watson's big dilemma – whether to quit his life with Holmes for marriage to lovely Mary (Kelly Reilly, underused) has, at heart, all the depth of a Wham! song. With their natty suits and canes, their opera ticket tiffs and their campy domesticity Downey Jr and Law have the faint look, at times, of Gilbert and George.īut it's a hollow attempt at modernisation, and quickly grows dull. His one stab at the latter appears to have been the elevation of the Holmes/Watson relationship from clubby friendship (with homoerotic undertones) to full-blown bromance. His self-disbelief may be well-founded but competing intentions cancel each other out and Ritchie ends up picking up points neither for authenticity nor fashionable reinvention. This muddle of genres reflects a collapse of confidence in his ability to deliver anything. Is it a cool satire on Victorian seriousness? A thriller? A comedy? At least in the past Ritchie knew what he was making, even it wasn't always much good. Sherlock Holmes baffles in all the wrong ways. The disguises hardly wow, the wit fails to sparkle and the imagery tends to clod (there's an especially over-used crow). This Holmes's expertise would struggle to impress the cops at Sun Hill. All deductive insight here is in fact, rather feeble. This mammoth scale rather takes away from the minute pleasures of Holmes's sleuthery. An Aleister Crowley-style Satanist (Ritchie regular Mark Strong, with a Bela Lugosi hairdo) has cooked up a Da Vinci Code-sized plot involving coming back from the dead, infiltrating parliament and taking over the world. While Arthur Conan Doyle set his hero small, neat conundrums, this Holmes has the whole world to save. The case they're given to solve is a non-canonical international emergency. But they're both a pain: the former a cartoon with darting eyes rather than a brain, the latter just a blank. Holmes is played with boggle-eyed haminess by Robert Downey Jr while Jude Law is Watson – inspired casting at first glance: his weirdly boring aura superficially lending itself to the role. It's just a film that makes you hanker after Ritchie's back catalogue. A third film in the series was briefly in the works, but never ended up moving forward.īecause these two new series are only in early development at the moment, it’s still very possible that HBO Max doesn’t choose to move forward with them.Good news for those Holmes purists appalled by the prospect of literature's most cerebral sleuth getting a geezer makeover, but bad news for the rest of us: Sherlock Holmes isn't even a magnificent mistake. The actor played Holmes in two films directed by Guy Ritchie, the first of which came out in 2009, and the second in 2011. will reprise his role as the titular sleuth. Perhaps the largest outstanding question about these new Sherlock Holmes shows is whether or not Downey Jr. We also don’t know if this Holmes universe will be interconnected, or if it will simply include many different series about the world’s most famous detective. For instance, we’re not sure what these shows might be about, or even if they’ll take place in the same time period. Neither show has any concrete details yet, which leaves plenty of questions up in the air. The former Holmes actor is set to executive produce two new Sherlock Holmes universe series that are in early development at HBO Max, according to The Hollywood Reporter. might be returning to the Sherlock Holmes universe - but he may not be playing the character.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |