Saturday, January 9, 2010

4 Reasons Why "Sherlock Holmes" is a Mediocre Film

I didn't hate "Sherlock Holmes", but it definitely wasn't as good as it could have been. It is a film that I will most likely forget about in a few months. Here is why I would describe it as a mediocre film -

1. The actors had more fun than the audience - a'la the Oceans Trilogy - the actors were definitely having a ton of fun, however in the Oceans films I felt like it translated well for the audience (maybe not as much in the second and third). In Sherlock Holmes the witty banter between Jude Law and Robert Downey Jr was probably the best part of the film (both of them were spectacular), but it wasn't enough to really carry the whole film. It almost felt like they didn't want to let the audience in on the joke.

2. The story wasn't memorable - I couldn't even really tell you what it was about. The plot didn't really have a point or have any real depth to it.

3. Typical Guy Ritchie style - It is not necessarily a bad thing (I actually really like Guy Ritchie's films - especially Snatch) it is just that it isn't anything new. His action sequences were intense, but I felt like i have seen it a million times before.

4. It felt long - It was 2 hours & 14 minutes, which isn't that long for this type of film - it should move along quickly seeing as it is filled with action, yet after the first hour I kept hoping for the conclusion and checking the time...not a good sign for a film.

No comments:

Post a Comment