Sherlock Holmes

2009

Action / Adventure

Synopsis


Uploaded By: YIFY
Downloaded 223,730 times
December 15, 2011 at 3:00 pm

Director

Cast

Robert Downey Jr. as Sherlock Holmes
Jude Law as Dr. John Watson
Rachel McAdams as Irene Adler
Mark Strong as Lord Blackwood
720p 1080p
799.43 MB
1280*720
English
PG-13
English
23.976 fps
2hr 8 min
P/S 30 / 143
1.70 GB
1920*1080
English
PG-13
English
23.976 fps
2hr 8 min
P/S 54 / 268

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by paperback_wizard 9 / 10

It saddens me ...

... not the movie, but the number of self-professed Holmes aficionados who apparently have no knowledge of Holmes. For the record, Holmes was a miserable, irresponsible drug addict who did indeed sleep on the floor, insult his best friend, experiment on his dog, and never ever wore a deerstalker's cap (at least, not until television was invented). He was a brawler who practiced martial arts and was as likely to slum around in the filthiest of rags as he was a suit.

It wasn't until after Doctor Watson took him in hand that he truly refined himself and became a "respectable" member of society. And yes, we can tell that this movie takes place THAT early in their relationship because Watson has not yet married his wife (the retconning did annoy me, too, by the way, but you just can't avoid a little re-imagining here and there).

Speaking of unavoidable, Irene Adler, Holmes' one uncapturable (is that a word?), simply had to be cast as a potential love interest. The flirting, the romance, and the near-make-out session were irresistible to the director (and to all of the audience who're honest with themselves).

That being said, I felt Robert Downey, Jr. played Sherlock Holmes to perfection. His characteristic caustic attitude towards Lestrade and even Watson at times was exactly how I'd imagine him. He gives several summations of his observations and deductions that brought Holmes to life in an almost unparalleled way. His fight scenes (preceded the first few times by superhuman calculations) show both the mental and physical sides of Holmes in ways that Watson's notes can't quite convey, but at which they constantly hint.

As for Watson himself, Jude Law delivered a wonderful performance. I was a little skeptical of how well he fought, given Watson's wartime injury, but his character and demeanor were entirely on the nose. His loyalty to Holmes despite his frustrations with him could not have been captured more expertly, I feel. No one, no matter how patient or forgiving, could endure Holmes forever without the occasional confrontation. The original Holmes, after all, was not above insulting his best friend or even deriding his deductive capabilities at times. Nevertheless, Watson never could abandon his friend in his time of need.

This version (or vision, if you will) of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's greatest creation may be more swashbuckling, more thrilling, and more edgy than any other incarnation, but that doesn't make it any less faithful to the original. Aside from a little revisionist history in the cases of the female leads, nothing is that far out of the ordinary; and no amount of references to Madonna will change that.

Reviewed by SylvesterFox007 10 / 10

They Finally Got It Exactly Right!

Nearly hundreds of actors have played Sherlock Holmes and his sidekick Dr. Watson, and it may seem rash to call Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law the best Holmes-and-Watson-duo so far. But I've been a Sherlock Holmes fan my whole life, and most of the portrayals I've seen of the character only focus on an aspect or two of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's character. In Guy Ritchie's film, as in Doyle's "canon", Sherlock Holmes is an avid boxer, a martial artist, a dabbler in many sciences, and a master of disguise. Most importantly, he's an expert in logic and deduction. He playfully torments his housekeeper Ms. Hudson (Geraldine James) and shares an antagonistic but symbiotic relationship with police Inspector Lestrade (Eddie Marsan).

The movie opens with Holmes and Watson apprehending serial killing Satanist Lord Blackwood (played broodingly by Mark Strong). Blackwood is executed, but when he seemingly rises from the dead, the deductive duo must determine whether it's a supernatural occurrence or if there's a logical explanation. It's exactly the type of mystery Doyle would have devised, with plenty of twists and opportunities for Holmes to show off his genius as he races to stop a plot to take over England and (gasp!) America. Everything from the experiments Holmes performs in his Baker Street flat to his climatic revelation of the mystery on the Tower Bridge seems perfectly in line with Doyle's writing.

One of the only departures from the canon that bothered me was Sherlock's introduction to Dr. Watson's fiancee, Mary Morstan, played as a delicate English rose by Kelly Reilly. In the stories, Mary was Holmes' client in "The Sign of Four" before Holmes first encountered Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) in "A Scandal in Bohemia." Then again, the continuity of the stories was rarely important to filmmakers, or even to Sir Arthur, so I'm just nitpicking.

As a film on its own merits, "Sherlock Holmes" is almost perfect. The movie's opening shot grabs you, and Guy Ritchie's directing stays gripping all the way through the end titles. His version of Victorian London is moody and atmospheric. Hans Zimmer's quirky score blends well with the film's tone and Downey Jr.'s off-kilter Holmes. Meanwhile, Jude Law transforms Dr. Watson from the bumbling comic relief of most movies into a cool, competent sidekick. Perhaps owing to his own considerable acting chops, he's the rare Watson who manages to be as interesting and watchable as Holmes. When he leaps into action, he relies on a sword-cane and a trusty revolver, while Sherlock favors a riding crop (which die-hard fans will recall was his preferred method of self-defense in the canon). Rachel McAdams manages to tweak Sherlock's classic adversary into a feisty action heroine. All the while, another familiar adversary skulks in the shadows.

Even when Sherlock Holmes feels a little bit more like James Bond, he doesn't feel any less like Sherlock Holmes. Ritchie finds a way to depict Sherlock's fighting as a mental exercise as much as it's a physical feat. In the same way, though "Sherlock Holmes" is grander and more commercial than Guy Ritchie's usual films, it doesn't feel any less like Guy Ritchie.

Reviewed by ruiresende84 (ruiresende84@gmail.com) 5 / 10

Actor, and Placement

Somehow, i've always avoided the cinematic (or TV) presentations of Sherlock Holmes. I find the character fascinating, but i always felt it was more invested in literature, not cinema. His deductions, the way he surrounds the worlds he investigates are a feast for thinking minds. Even when the deductions are over the top (which happens often!) one can't stop smiling at the cleverness. More than that, the character is a perfect piece invested in a clever, irresistible and fascinating world. London. That part is visual, and a good ground to invest a cinematic world. But, unlike for example anything by Agatha Christie, Doyle's cleverness is rooted in pure deductive logic, not on the mechanics of the world. 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). I suppose Doyle formed his mind before cinema had any significant impact on how our minds work.

So the challenge for any modern filmmaker, and actor, who wants to update Holmes, is to make the character more cinematic, more appealing. Several tricks are used here, most of them successful, even if straightforward. One is the most obvious, making Holmes an action character (which actually is in its original dna, even though TV productions usually ignore that). 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. A minor trick here is the association of the deduction with the very process of physical fighting, which creates some Matrix moments. Well, their watchable, though not particularly interesting. 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.

But there are two big things in this film, which take it to new levels of interest.

One is the acting. 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. He willingly becomes a piece of a larger tapestry, and that really is something to look upon. There are not many actors who can claim they can do this competently. But the king of the game is Downey Jr. He is the gold piece in the puzzle of updating Holmes. There certainly will be a before-after Holmes character, with this film. The man is capable to work his performances on several directions, and each of them is a perfect link to its surroundings. 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. He invests totally on the creation of a character who merges with the textures of the context, while being distinct from it. And while doing it, he folds us into his game, so we do everything with him, side by side. We deduce, we smile, we run, all with him. So, if the film hadn't other qualities, Downey Jr would still make it worthy, because he, alone, solves one the most basic problems with any film: to find a channel audiences can safely cross into the game someone (director) proposes. He is one of the best ever.

But there is another great thing here, which i suspect has a lot to do with several guys involved in the process of making the film. The result is an incredible sense of placement. London, XIXth century. All those dirty muddy streets, all the dirt. The fascination of the inner locations, namely the midget's laboratory. How those sets are usable, in the action scenes. That's all competent, more than competent. It's perfectly rendered, carefully photographed, it sounds overly artificial, but it's a matter of taste, i suppose. But what was really striking was the use of the London bridge. Notice how it is announced, early in the film, with a similar perspective to the one we'll get in the end. Than, the great sequence, when Irene Adler goes through the sewage, goes up, and we end up with a close up of her, in an unidentified location. The angle opens, we move away, and we are set up in the location for the final fight scene, which in its own merits is interesting enough. So, this was a unique way to actually use an establishing location, instead of merely showing it. I mean, how many films have shown the Eiffel towers? countless. How many actually use it? not so many. This is one of the best London cities we've seen lately.

My opinion: 4/5

http://www.7eyes.wordpress.com

Read more IMDb reviews

213 Comments

Be the first to leave a comment