#FILM REVIEW SHERLOCK HOLMES UPDATE#
#FILM REVIEW SHERLOCK HOLMES TV#

We deduce, we smile, we run, all with him. And while doing it, he folds us into his game, so we do everything with him, side by side. He invests totally on the creation of a character who merges with the textures of the context, while being distinct from it. So he gives in to Ritchie's demands, and introduces humour, irony, and self-awareness in the character, to make it usable for the director's winks at ironic action. The man is capable to work his performances on several directions, and each of them is a perfect link to its surroundings. There certainly will be a before-after Holmes character, with this film. He is the gold piece in the puzzle of updating Holmes. There are not many actors who can claim they can do this competently. He willingly becomes a piece of a larger tapestry, and that really is something to look upon. Jude Law is a clever guy, an interesting actor whose greatest quality is how he merges anonymously with the context he is intended to integrate. But there are two big things in this film, which take it to new levels of interest. In the greater arc, there are good action sequences, because, as any competent action these days, considers the elements of the surrounding space, and uses them. Well, their watchable, though not particularly interesting. A minor trick here is the association of the deduction with the very process of physical fighting, which creates some Matrix moments.

This might be a flop, and make the version laughable, but by now there is a sense of irony and self awareness in Ritchie's films (sincer Lock Stock) that allows him to support a xxi century action figure in Holmes clothing that actually is watchable.

#FILM REVIEW SHERLOCK HOLMES TV#

One is the most obvious, making Holmes an action character (which actually is in its original dna, even though TV productions usually ignore that). Several tricks are used here, most of them successful, even if straightforward.

#FILM REVIEW SHERLOCK HOLMES UPDATE#

So the challenge for any modern filmmaker, and actor, who wants to update Holmes, is to make the character more cinematic, more appealing. I suppose Doyle formed his mind before cinema had any significant impact on how our minds work. Notice that Christie's crimes are many times a matter of understanding how things happened, spatially (murder on the orient express is the zenith of that). But, unlike for example anything by Agatha Christie, Doyle's cleverness is rooted in pure deductive logic, not on the mechanics of the world. That part is visual, and a good ground to invest a cinematic world. More than that, the character is a perfect piece invested in a clever, irresistible and fascinating world. Even when the deductions are over the top (which happens often!) one can't stop smiling at the cleverness.

His deductions, the way he surrounds the worlds he investigates are a feast for thinking minds. I find the character fascinating, but i always felt it was more invested in literature, not cinema. Somehow, i've always avoided the cinematic (or TV) presentations of Sherlock Holmes.

Film review sherlock holmes