When it came out in 2010, the action film starring Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law divided audiences. And the writing.
TMC will rebroadcast tonight Sherlock holmes, by Guy Ritchie. Robert Downey Jr has fun in the skin of Sherlock Holmes, facing a nonchalant Jude Law. The duo works, the action scenes are linked and obviously Guy Ritchie has fun dusting off the myth imagined by Arthur Conan Doyle. However, if the film was a nice success in theaters (all the more striking since it faced Avatar in the United States), it divided audiences and critics upon its release. Particularly within the editorial staff of First, which published two conflicting opinions in February 2010.
Does Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes Really Betray Conan Doyle’s Work?
For Jérôme Dittmar, who officiated at Fluctuat (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, usually a cunning trademark in Ritchie, who works with 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 skillful transfer of the analytical power of the character in a fight. We may 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 defended), but he does not pretend to be Billy. Wilder. It is rather his modesty, his ability to line up behind his actors, to give them absolute confidence, which is a pleasure to see. Could the brash mannerist of the 90’s become an unpretentious new 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 the hero of Conan Doyle, the producer Joel Silver couldn’t have found many to contradict his instructions: one action sequence every twenty minutes. The rest is left to the discretion of the mercenaries involved in this project aimed at multiplexes. In order to strengthen an extremely conventional plot, the writers have worked together to come up with at least two ideas. The first is to rejuvenate the duettists and make them superheroes, Holmes having as power his capacity for deduction. This manifests itself almost exclusively in the form of premonitions; before neutralizing an enemy, the detective-boxer mentally goes through the film of what he is going to do to him. Incidentally, the process makes it possible to furnish by serving the same sequence twice. Another idea: to lend homosexual tendencies to the detective, who shows his jealousy each 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-length rhythm is, shoots the action sequences at a sprint pace and rests the rest of the time, performing like a civil servant endless scenes from dialogues in busy settings. Yet despite its obvious flaws, the film leaves a not-so-unpleasant aftertaste. The actors, maybe.
Where is Sherlock Holmes 3?