Dr. Watson and Irene Adler await Holmes' foregone conclusions in "Sherlock Holmes."

(Guy Ritchie, 2009)

December 27, 2009

by Joel Crary

I’m just not a fan of Sherlock Holmes. My mother is, and through her I am familiar with certain Holmes short mysteries such as “The Hound of the Baskervilles.” As a boy I gathered that the most intriguing stories of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s detective are those in which the master sleuth Holmes is put up against seemingly supernatural forces that are never supernatural after all. Intriguing, because should the supernatural exist, what could Holmes’ logic possibly do to preserve the natural order of things?

Guy Ritchie’s adaptation is in the tradition of the supernatural tales, scrambled together from different Holmes stories into an original work by Lionel Wigram and three screenwriters, told with Ritchie’s signature slow-motion sequences of violence and obsessive detail paid to muscular reaction. Three screenwriters feels about right, since Holmes’ deductions are so convoluted that it would take a small team to keep track of them all. Not that it would matter, because they all seem so ridiculous that their veracity scarcely seems the point.

I understand what makes Holmes a fascinating character. He is brilliant, compulsively so, with regard to his work and, in Ritchie’s film, his fighting technique. There are scenes in which Holmes outlines how he will attack a man point-by-point – Ritchie takes us through the moves one after the other, and then lets Holmes do it quickly. Holmes’ analytical mind seems to function to the point of mania, and Robert Downey Jr. is mad in the role, fun to watch and engaging because he always seems so close to crumbling. That is, until the screenplay makes it clear that he won’t.

Jude Law plays a far more active Dr. Watson than any BBC miniseries would suggest. Here, he is not only Doyle’s military physician but a veteran soldier, serving as less of a sidekick and empathetic foil to Holmes than a partner and acting more acidic than astonished toward his methods. Rachel McAdams appears as Irene Adler, a criminal and love interest who seems to be able to get the better of Holmes, though it’s unclear why. Holmes hardly seems to find time to allow attraction into his life, busy as he is masochistically entering bare-knuckle boxing matches and directing the flight paths of flies with a violin he only sharply plucks and never bows.

The villain in Ritchie’s reboot is Lord Blackpool (Mark Strong), a practitioner of black magic who is hanged for the sacrificial murders of five women, yet returns from the grave to lead an order of magicians against the British Empire. There’s a conspiracy afoot and so Holmes sets about finding obvious facts about the case, which he maintains are always the most elusive. Law and Downey Jr. have good chemistry together and their exchanges are a highlight when Holmes isn’t prattling on at length about the origins of plants and the effects of certain powders.

The film’s action sequences are all pretty stupendous, particularly a gorgeous sequence involving an exploding slaughterhouse, shot entirely in slow motion to allow a better look at Holmes’ split-second physical timing. Ritchie is far more focused in his camerawork than director Michael Bay, who seems to use slow motion to communicate little more than a heroic pride in a character’s anguish. With Ritchie, it’s all anguish and entirely visceral, accompanied by great sound work that immerses one in the action. It suits the Holmes of his universe, who is not the type to wear heavy checkered coats for fear of the immobility they impose.

For me, the problem with Holmes will always arrive at the level of his genius, which is insane, unlikely and insulting at once. Holmes’ knack for reason makes each of his adventures moot, robbing the plot of all suspense and freshness, no matter how the character is redressed or shot. His sureness in himself prevents the character from expressing any real emotion. Though his witticisms are funny, Holmes isn’t a bungler like Clouseau and can’t sustain a humourous pitch. The film starts to feel like a matter of time.

A good mystery allows the opportunity for its convicting evidence to be seen, but keeps it beneath notice. In “Sherlock Holmes,” the evidence doesn’t matter because it couldn’t possibly be made apparent to anyone but Holmes. A great Holmes film would turn his obvious sickness into a weapon to be used against him. Ritchie opts for making Holmes more physical, but it doesn’t solve the character’s inherent flaw. He’s simply too good to ring true.

Guy Ritchie has been a slightly over-rated director since his debut with LOCK, STOCK & TWO SMOKING BARRELS. This isn’t to say I haven’t enjoyed all of his movies – well, alright, I never saw SWEPT AWAY, and don’t really care to – just that he’s someone whose style has superceded anything else taking precedence, like story. He’s had a knack for picking visually interesting actors and characters; great action scenes (I still love the jogging chase scene in Rock-n-Rolla).

But, with his new movie, SHERLOCK HOLMES, he has crafted a movie that still has his mark on it – some great slow-motion work – but there’s a fun story to it as well, that I think might make SHERLOCK HOLMES the new INDIANA JONES. The movie gives us the supernatural, logical reasoning for things and some really fun, jaunty action. So, Guy Ritchie, I thank you for stepping up your game, and showing us that you can also make a great, and still fun, movie.

The story, written by a number of screenwriters – Michael Robert Johnson, with his first screenplay credit; Anthony Peckham, who also wrote INVICTUS; and Simon Kinberg, who also wrote JUMPER, X-MEN: THE LAST STAND, and MR. AND MRS. SMITH – focusses on Sherlock Holmes, as he deals with the impending loss of his partner and sidekick, Dr. Watson, who is soon to be married. The movie opens with Sherlock and Watson – with the help of the police and it’s lead inspector LeStrade – capture what could very well be considered a Victorian era serial killer (that isn’t Jack the Ripper), Lord Blackwood and send him to prison. On the day he’s to be hanged, he asks for Sherlock Holmes, to which he promises the end of the world and the end of Holmes’ sanity. Then Blackwood is hanged and presumed dead.

The next day, his tomb has been destroyed and a witness has seen Lord Blackwood walking through the cemetery. Thus begins the mystery surrounding the apparent resurrection, and his plot to…well, take over the world. We meet the only woman to stymie Sherlock’s skils of deduction, a “ginger midget”, a giant that doesn’t mind electrocution, and of course the mysterious man, who remains unseen other than his hat and suit. There are some great breakdowns in how Holmes looks at the smaller details in order to gain advantage either over his opponents, or his friend’s fiancee. And there’s even the Scooby-Doo-esque explanation at the end; that amazingly enough managed to remind me of things that had happened earlier, and revealed the mysteries that seem predictable – but make sense in how the clues are all put in front of us through the whole movie.

The acting is all top-notch. Obviously great is Robert Downey, Jr. as Holmes. There are moments that seem to be authentic if only because we, the audience, knows so much about Downey’s past. But, overall he’s great, and completely believable as both the thinking man that can tell from the slight fade on your skin whether you’ve been married before, and also as a man that knows the best way to kick the crap out of you.

Jude Law, as a Watson, that isn’t the conventional interpretation of the character from the original stories. He is great though, as a man who is the yang to Holmes’ yin; and is also far more of a normal person that the eccentric and socially awkward Holmes. Rachel McAdams, who plays Irene Adler, is as always a welcome actor to see on the screen. Her role, which is seemingly far more reduced than what it originally had been – considering almost every moment of her that has been shown in trailers, is not actually in the movie. Mark Strong, as Lord Blackwood, continues his streak of interesting – and always never on-screen enough – characters. He’s menacing, evil, and is a great foil to keep us occupied as the real villain – from Sherlock Holmes’ books – Moriarty, sets his own schemes in motion, and promises us hopefully another venture into this universe. Lastly, the appearance of great actors such as Eddie Marsan (HAPPY GO LUCKY), Kelly Reilly (THE LIBERTINE and PRIDE AND PREDJUDICE) bring their characters to life, and make this movie even more fun to watch and see the characters interact.

The other fun thing to mention, is the music. It might just be me, but the opening credits and music seemed to owe a great debt to the classic Carol Reed movie, THE THIRD MAN. Which is about, well, a man that is supposed to be dead; and winds up still causing a whole bunch of trouble. There’s also some great Irish tunes that help to elevate the score by Hans Zimmer. Thought it was worth mentioning, even if it’s only me that gets that connection.

Arthur Conan Doyle’s character, Sherlock Holmes has been around for a little over 120 years. In that time, the character has been translated to the screen (and various other media) countless times – according to Wikipedia, the only character to come close to being adapted into other media is Count Dracula. Ranging in being played by actors such as Basil Rathbone to Jeremy Brett to Michael Caine in the 1988 movie, WITHOUT A CLUE. He has also been reinterpreted into movies, as characters who are essentially Holmes, but don’t use the name – or time period. TV’s MONK, PSYCH, THE MENTALIST and even HOUSE to a degree, are all Holmsian; in movies, one of my favorite movies to reinterpret Holmes into a contemporary environment is Jake Kasdan’s first-directorial effort, ZERO EFFECT. Which starred Bill Pullman as Darryl Zero, as a reclusive, private investigator who is only comfortable in his own skin, when he’s pretending to be someone else.

Overall, I’ve always been a fan of mysteries and intrigue, and Sherlock Holmes is the epitome of the genre. The movie that Guy Ritchie, his crew, and the marvelous actors, have put together is an excellent example of how there is more to the character than the pipe and deer-stalker hat. Including many references and comments that fans of the original stories will “get” and enjoy. And I see this movie, gaining a wide fan-base and becoming a well-loved interpretation of the world’s greatest detective.

It’s got three things going for it: Rachel McAdams, Robert Downey Jr. and Guy Richie.  With that said I’ve been reading the reviews and most negative reviews say it lacks a script that makes sense, so I did a little research and found out why.  One of the writers, Simon Kinberg, has written the following films: xXx: State of the Union, Jumper, Mr. & Mrs. Smith, and X-Men: The Last Stand.  Having seen 3 of the 4 mentioned I can only imagine how crappy this script must be.  Those movies are awful.  Dear Hollywood, why do you keep giving Simon Kinberg the ability to write more crap.  He must be stopped.  I’ll see this film so you don’t have to.  You’re welcome.

Here is the trailer for the upcoming blockbuster- Sherlock Holmes. Its a film version of Arther Conan Doyles fictional character of the same name. The film is directed by Guy Ritchie and produced by Joel Silver, Lional Wigram, Susan Downey and Dan Lin.

The world is a mercurial and ever changing place. Continuous improvement, career enhancement and professional development are buzzwords that permeate every industry, even ours. So you think you know everything about screenwriting after reading a few books by Christopher Vogler, Linda Seger or Syd Field, think again. You always need to update your skills or even refresh them. Most of what you hear will be a rehash or reinterpretation of what you already know, but repetition is part of the learning process. Many success and self help gurus profess that you should align yourself with your heroes. Find out what they do and try do imitate it, but with your own spin. There is no formula for success. The long, hard road is really the only way. There are some fly by nighters who manage to sell a script quickly, but they rarely have longevity because they lack the gravitas and basis to proceed.

I’ve mentioned books and podcasts, now it’s youtube. Key in search screenwriting and see what comes up; lots of exciting interviews with masters and mistresses of the trade. They inspire and lead all writers by guiding us along the journey of screenwriting. Here are some of my favourites:

Paul Haggis on Screenwriting
Peter And Bobby Farrelly on Tricks of the Trade
Simon Kinberg on Dialogue
The Dialogue Series
Kurtzmann & Orci on Screenwriting
Callie Khouri on Screenwriting
Susannah Grant on Tricks Of The Trade
Nia Vardalos on Dialogue
Paul Attanasio on Dialogue
Syd Field with Stuart Beattie
Advice for Screenwriters by Walt Disney Pictures Executive
Breaking into Hollywood
Attracting a Literary Agent

This is by no means an exhaustive list, but a good start nonetheless.

If you get square eyes watching videos, try reading. Any script you can get your hand on. Look for styles. Enjoy the whiteness of the page, the lack of huge chunks of dialogue and the clarity of award winning scripts. I love reading descriptions. I remember reading “she entered his grotty studio apartment that would even make a cockroach feel claustrophobic”. Visualize that!

Check out the WGA library in West Hollywood or your local library or writers’ guild. If you don’t want to leave the house, try the online script sites such as Simply Scripts, Drew’s Script-o-rama and imdbs.

Dentro de las cosas del cine, se suscitan este tipo de eventos. Según el Variety, la Paramount se gastó casi $2 millones de dólares para asegurar un guión que no tiene título pero que está hecho por los guionistas Aline Brosh McKenna y Simon Kinberg con la participación de J.J. Abrams para que la produzca así como Bryan Burk a través de los estudios de Bad Robot.

También nos cuenta de que el estudio de la Paramount tuvo la oportunidad de darle un primer vistazo pero que ni ellos ni Bad Robot van a contar de que se trata la trama ni de como estos dos guionistas combinaran sus diferentes estilos para este guión.

“Estos dos escritores no podrían ser más diferentes, los géneros en los que ellos escriben son casi opuestos totalmente” Nos cuenta Abrams y continúa diciendonos: “Pero llegaron a Bad Robot con un plan que nos intrigó. Nos sentimos con un montón de suerte para poder trabajar con este asombroso equipo”.

Quién sabe de que será pero a uno le nace la curiosidad cuando se combina la persona que hizo “El diablo viste de Prada” con el que hizo una de X-Men, Sherlock Holmes y sobre todo una película de Triple X.

Apparently all the X-Men movies needed was the vapidness of Brett Ratner. What’s strangest about his replacing of Singer is the mutation being a metaphor for homosexuality. Singer used it as a metaphor (poorly) for race in the first one. I don’t think there were any metaphors in the second one, but it works perfectly in this one–especially since the mutation can be hidden and so on. But Ratner doesn’t harp on it, it’s just a little detail.

Maybe it’s Ratner’s lack of harping–Dante Spinotti’s cinematography and some great special effects sequences (the whole Golden Gate bridge scene is handled maybe better than any superhero movie moment since Superman)–but X-Men: The Last Stand is a lot of fun. It features some great character actors in bit roles–Michael Murphy, Bill Duke, Josef Sommer, Anthony Heald–finally casts some good actors in the supporting roles–Ben Foster and Kelsey Grammer. Grammer, under pounds of makeup, is great.

The regular cast is better this time too. Berry’s not as annoying as usual, Hugh Jackman’s fine, Patrick Stewart and James Marsden aren’t in it enough to hurt much… Ian McKellan finally gets a director who understands encouraging his overacting is funny. And even though Aaron Stanford’s a terrible actor, it’s hard not to get a homoerotic vibe off he and McKellan’s scenes together.

Anna Paquin’s terrible, but no worse than usual. Ellen Page is pretty obnoxious. Famke Janssen’s blank, but it’s finally her role.

It’s a good time.

CREDITS

Directed by Brett Ratner; written by Simon Kinberg and Zak Penn, based on ; director of photography, Dante Spinotti; edited by Mark Helfrich, Mark Goldblatt and Julia Wong; music by John Powell; production designer, Edward Verreaux; produced by Lauren Shuler Donner, Ralph Winter and Avi Arad; released by 20th Century Fox.

Starring Hugh Jackman (Wolverine), Halle Berry (Storm), Patrick Stewart (Professor Charles Xavier), Ian McKellen (Magneto), Famke Janssen (Jean Grey), Anna Paquin (Rogue), Kelsey Grammer (Dr. Henry McCoy), James Marsden (Cyclops), Rebecca Romijn (Mystique), Shawn Ashmore (Bobby Drake), Aaron Stanford (Pyro), Vinnie Jones (Juggernaut), Ben Foster (Warren Worthington III), Ellen Page (Kitty Pryde), Michael Murphy (Warren Worthington II), Shohreh Aghdashloo (Dr. Kavita Rao), Bill Duke (Trask) and Josef Sommer as the President.

La revista National Enquired reporta que Angelina Jolie y Brad Pitt ya visitaron a Simon Kinberg para encargarle el proyecto de escribir el guión de la secuela de “Sr. y Sra. Smith”, que ellos producirán. Al parecer, la idea es muy básica aún pero quieren convertir a ésa pareja de esposos asesinos (y que provocó la separación de Pitt con Jennifer Aniston) en una serie de cintas de acción, tipo Bourne o Bond.

El único problema es que… la primera parte fue pésima, mal hecha, mal actuada, la historia es un bodrio… ¿cómo puede alguien, en su sano juicio, hacer una secuela de un producto tan malo? Bueno, ¡es hollywood!

A young man finds he has the ability to ‘jump’ to anyplace on earth and comes to find himself caught in a centuries old war between ‘jumpers’, those like himself, and ‘paladins’, those who try to kill his kind.

Directed by – Doug Liman

Written by – David S. Goyer, Jim Uhls, Simon Kinberg

Starring – Hayden Christensen, Jamie Bell, Rachel Bilson, Diane Lane, Samuel L. Jackson, Michael Rooker, Anna Sophia Robb, Max Thieriot, Jesse James, Tom Hulce, Kristen Stewart, Teddy Dunn, Barbara Garrick

I wasn’t expecting much before I sat down to watch this one. I originally was very interested in seeing it and then I realized that Hayden Christensen was in it and that it wasn’t getting very good reviews. Well, I was surprised at how much I enjoyed it, even with Hayden Christensen’s terrible performance. Watch out Keanu Reeves!

I like the idea here and the fact that once he learns to ‘jump’, he robs banks. That is exactly what anyone would do, admit it. Also on display here is Samuel L. Jackson. Every time I see him in a flick, he’s stealing the show. It doesn’t matter how good or bad the movie is, I can always look forward to a fun performance from Jackson.

Now, could this movie be better? Sure. It’s a great idea that I felt just wasn’t explored well enough. You have this war going on between ‘jumpers’ and ‘paladins’ but we never really see more than a few ‘jumpers’. Are there any or have they all been killed? It seems to me that this is not the thinking mans action movie and that’s alright. I still had some good fun watching and really dug the special effects. But could someone get Hayden to show some emotion other than Duh!

Under the marquee – Will

The new Sherlock Holmes movie from director Guy Ritchie (RocknRolla) is shaping up to be sexier than the world’s greatest detective has ever been, as after Rachel Mc Adams (The Family Stone) joined the cast as Holmes’ love interest, British actress Kelly Reilly (Mrs Henderson Presents) has now signed to play Watson’s.

[Her character Mary] causes tension between Watson – who wants to marry her – and Holmes – who resents her competition for Watson’s affections.

One of the most talked about forthcoming movies, Sherlock Holmes is said to be a reinvention of Arthur Conan Doyle’s character and starts shooting tomorrow in London for a 2010 release. It star Robert Downey Jr. (Tropic Thunder) as Holmes, Jude Law (Sleuth) as Watson, and Mark Strong (RocknRolla) as Blackwood, the villain. The film was co-written by Ritchie, Anthony Peckham (Don’t Say A Word), Simon Kinberg (Jumper) and newcomer Mike Johnson.

Source

Australian Botox addict Nicole Kidman (The Golden Compass), aka the most overpaid actress in Hollywood, will produce and star in The 8th Wonder, an adventure film described as Indiana Jones meets Jason Bourne, except with a girl. In other words a amnesiac fedora-wearing female archeologist will go globe-trotting, followed by a very shaky camera.

Written by Simon Kinberg (Jumper), one can guess the film will deal with Kidman finding the “eighth wonder of the world”. Wonders refer more to man-made constructions such as the Great Wall of China rather than natural formations or mythical objects, so it is anyone’s guess what this new wonder will be. Atlantis? Shangri-La? Operation Treadstone? Any other guesses?

In any case, Nicole Kidman will next be seen in the Australian war film Australia, premiering late November in Australia and the US.

Source

Secondo un sondaggio della rivista americana Forbes, Nicole Kidman sarebbe l’attrice con il compenso più sproporzionato rispetto ai miseri incassi dei suoi ultimi film, flop ai botteghini quali “Invasion”, “Golden Compass”, “Bewitched”, “Fur”. La Kidman, dopo il dramma in costume “Australia” per la regia di Baz Luhrmann che l’aveva già diretta in “Moulin Rouge”, sta lavorando alla produzione di un blockbuster che, nelle intenzioni dell’attrice, dovrebbe essere un mix tra “I Predatori dell’Arca Perduta” e “Bourne Ultimatum”: il film in questione si intitola “The Eight Wonder” e sarà un action d’avventura tra lo spionistico e l’archeologico. Il film è scritto dallo sceneggiatore Simon Kinberg, autore di “Mr. e Mrs. Smith” che in un primo momento doveva essere interpretato proprio dalla Kidman, poi sostituita da Angelina Jolie. Il film sarà anche prodotto dall’attrice insieme alla major 20th Century Fox.

www.occhisulcinema.it

After debunked rumors casting Russell Crowe (American Gangster) in role, it seems Jude Law (Sleuth) will play Sherlock Holmes’ buddy Dr. Watson in the forthcoming film from Guy Ritchie (RocknRolla), starring Robert Downey Jr. (Tropic Thunder) in the titular role.

The movie is said to be a reinvention of Arthur Conan Doyle’s character and will start shooting next month in London for a 2010 release. It was co-written by Ritchie, Anthony Peckham (Don’t Say A Word), Simon Kinberg (Jumper) and newcomer Mike Johnson.

Source