Guy Ritchie

February 16, 2014

DJ Simply Loves Robert Downey Jr.: Sherlock Holmes

PULSE

After Robert Downey Jr. put comic book films back on the map with Iron Man, I was thoroughly on the RDJ train.  Then I heard what his next big film role was going to be.  Another super genius with substance abuse issues.  A character who might arguably be one of the first ever superheroes.  The immortal Sherlock Holmes.  Despite everything Downey Jr. had accomplished with Tony Stark, I was still nervous about him tackling the world’s greatest detective.  Hell, how many American actors can you count that pull off a convincing British accent?  And Downey Jr. would be under the direction of Guy Ritchie.  Another man looking for a career rebirth after hitting a rough patch.  Then I saw the trailer for the film.  Holy crap!  That was all I could say.  It was everything I imagined in my head a Sherlock Holmes movie would be like, but with something extra.  An energy.  An excitement.  A PULSE.  A PULSE that Ritchie, in his early directing days, always delivered.  A PULSE in which Robert Downey Jr. thrives in.  Sherlock Holmes was the Sherlock for me.

As I’ve said in my review for the BBC show Sherlock, 2009’s Sherlock Holmes was a film that I could appreciate separately and equally with the other incarnations that followed.  As time has passed the difference between BBC Sherlock and RDJ Sherlock have grown.  RDJ Sherlock shares more similarities with the vastly underrated (Even by me) CBS show Elementary than it does with its British equivalent.  That is mainly due to characterizations and relationships.  Where Cumberbatch exudes stoic intensity, both Robert Downey Jr. and Jonny Lee Miller are playful to the point of annoyance and crazed to the point of concern.  Their brilliance seems more like the lasting side effects of some illegally imbibed elixir.  And that is what I like about them, Robert Downey Jr. more so.  Predictably, Downey Jr. brought to the forefront more of Sherlock’s drug issues.  His darker stuff.  And he brought back his physicality.  Physicality most people were unaware of at the time.  Some of the so-called Sherlock Holmes purists saw the trailer and quickly said it was a dumbing down and shoehorning of action into a Sherlock Holmes film.  Unbeknownst to them, Downey Jr. did his homework.  Sherlock Holmes creator Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote in several stories that Holmes had some fighting skill.  It is turned up in this film, however, it comes from a place of fact.  It more or less showed that Downey Jr. wasn’t sleepwalking through an action role.  He was totally making it his own. 

I put a picture of another actor at the top with Robert Downey Jr. because of his importance to Downey Jr.’s performance.  Jude Law’s portrayal of Dr. John Watson is one my favorites in any incarnation.  Downey Jr.’s humor is undeniable, but it works more so because of how Law plays off of him and sets him up.  On the BBC show and the CBS show, we are introduced to Watson and Holmes as they are introduced to each other.  In Sherlock Holmes, however, we meet Watson and Holmes in the middle of their relationship.  So, Law and Downey Jr.’s chemistry not only has to work but feel like its been working for a while.  A task Law and Downey Jr. completely did for me.

This film was also the first time I really began to recognize the awesomeness that is Mark Strong.  He kind of fell into the background of the large ensemble cast of the first film I saw him in, RocknRolla.   Strong here gets to play a villain that felt like a true threat to Holmes.  Lord Blackwood is equal parts creepy and entertaining.  It would have been easy to fire off the infamous Moriarty in the first film, which they do hint to.  However, I think it was more important to establish Holmes and Watson, while still giving them an enemy that is still a great foil.  Strong helps accomplish that.  The one place I think cast chemistry fails is between Robert Downey Jr. and Rachel McAdams as Irene Adler.  I’m not a McAdams hater, and I don’t think McAdams is horrible in this.  I just felt that McAdams’ energy did not and probably could not equal Downey Jr.’s.  It is more a criticism of casting than anything.  Adler is supposed to be Sherlock Holmes’ kryptonite.  McAdams just didn’t have enough charm or charisma to make me buy their relationship being an actual problem for Holmes.

I was so happy for Guy Ritchie after this film came out.  You have to understand, Lock, Stock, & Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch are two of my favorite films.  Watching him make the film Swept Away with his ex-wife Madonna was like seeing a close friend of yours date that girl you know is gonna f%$k his life up.  Revolver has a small cult following, but is an overly convoluted mess.  RocknRolla gave me hope that the Ritchie I loved was still in there somewhere.  Sherlock Holmes really got him to flex his cinematic muscles again.  The set pieces, the style, the humor, and the action scenes are terrific.  The criticism for their being so much action is akin to the criticism JJ Abrams received for his Star Trek films.  To me the action does not take away from the mystery Holmes is trying to solve at all.  Every action sequence is always in service to the story.  And the bit that Ritchie uses to show Holmes working out his movements before actually doing them was a clever touch that I had never seen before. 

Robert Downey Jr.’s Sherlock Holmes, for some odd reason, gets a cynical bum rap that I wholeheartedly don’t understand.  Not only is his version of Holmes one of the most accurate to the books, the film is fun, entertaining, PULSE pounding, and underratedly smart.  There isn’t any time to waste then…widen your gaze…watch it…if you dismissed it…watch it again…then tell me I’m wrong.

September 29, 2012

Pusher

REMINISCENT

I’m a child of the 80s.  I grew up with Michael Mann’s Miami Vice.  I watched movies like Scarface and To Live And Die In LA religiously.  I lived through the end of the Cocaine Cowboys era.  I called it the time of “colorful crime“.  Pink and green neon lights shining over crooked drug deals in night club parking lots.  Rhythmic synthesizer beats blaring out of passing car speakers.  That stuff just screams 80s.  Its why I love the film Drive.  It speaks to my youth.  Director Nicolas Winding Refn shot it like a film that could slide right into that era or universe.  Some people didn’t understand or appreciate its minimalistic nature and sudden brutal violence.   But it was a depiction and/or nod to the lifestyle of that time more than an intricately plotted crime drama.  A loner trying to make better of himself is unwittingly forced into a situation that brings it all down.  A simple formula that fits perfectly with 80s sheik.  After Drive, Refn produced a remake of his first film with that same formula and style.  That film is Pusher.

Pusher comes to us from Spanish director Luis Prieto.  Set in England, Pusher tells us the story of Frank.  A loner trying to make better of himself but is unwittingly forced into a situation that brings it all down.  See?  From the opening sequence you can feel the British crime vibe as Guy Ritchie like title cards flash over character’s faces.  British crime films like this are a little more frenetically paced than films like…Heat lets say.  Pusher, however, still feels very REMINISCENT of the 80s style.  The neon is there.  The rhythmic synthesizer beats are there.  The amazingly photographed night shots are there.  And boy, are the crooked drug deals there.

Prieto’s visual style does tend to teeter back and forth between 80s art piece and British gangster film.  From Manhunter to Long Good Friday and back again.  However, when he sticks to the neon and naked city aspects, the film really sets itself apart.  Less so than Refn’s original but still enough for you to take notice. 

Whenever Brad Pitt or George Clooney or Tom Cruise play a role, you have the sense that no matter what’s happening, they’ll be okay.  You don’t really worry for their characters the way you should.  They just present themselves as the inevitable winner in most of their films.  That works out well when they aren’t, but it only serves as a benefit for the end of that film.  You never experience the growing peril or dread fully.  In Pusher, Richard Coyle plays Frank with a rich and realistic feel.  He’s not a stereotypical hero.  He’s not amazingly smart or an amazing fighter or a nut case.  He’s real.  This makes you concerned for his safety and feel his desperation more than if they’d gone with a more recognizable star. 

Pusher is not groundbreaking or a classic.  However, it is a very visually interesting watch and does hold itself up as a worthy remake.  Blag some gear….give it a propah butcher’s….then tell me I’m Pete Tong.

Welcome to the new home of SimplisticReviews.net - We're currently still working on the site. You might notice a few issues, please be patient with us. Thanks! (Store also in testing — no orders shall be fulfilled.)
Scroll to top