Sherlock Holmes

It's good that even though Hollywood tinsel tries to pummel Guy Ritchie with its most typical special effects (predictable plot pirouettes, character development), he’s still the distinctive, foxy filmmaker who squeezed the most out of even a banal detective plot within its limits (the boxing match, the flashbacks). Yet the main character (compared to the trailers) is not Robert Downey Jr., but Jude Law, who despite the thankless role of a dry sniffer throws up elegant bon mots and hard fists, and paradoxically I enjoyed him a bit more. Both Strong and McAdams are bland due to the minimal space they get and their total omission in the plot (yes, that’s quite a weakness with Strong as the main villain). Nevertheless, positive feelings prevail, mainly due to the pace, the whole peculiar aura, and Zimmer's very unconventional but excellent work. I’m looking forward to the second film. (14/01/2010)

Guy Ritchie at the service of Hollywood. His strongest directorial trademark, as well as Hans Zimmer's most bombastic music exhibition, comes in the impressive introduction. The rest of the film is “just” a nice conversation movie between Robert Downey and Jude Law, set in a world of dark Harry Potter-style magic. There is little to surprise the audience, as the routine script relies on proven elements – great actors and the atmosphere of dangerous, overcast Victorian London. Sherlock Holmes is decent entertainment. (02/01/2010)

The Victorian magic works like never before. The master of deduction comes in full force and his creators have flown into the performance in the most pleasant way possible. Action-packed, grandiose, and clever. Holmes can certainly throw punches, but more importantly, he can perfectly engage the mind. Despite a complicated plot, everything falls into place, the viewer can barely keep up with the lightning-fast explanations, and Sherlock (along with Guy Ritchie) can leave triumphantly, having surpassed his own reputation. This is simply the right kind of Adventure with a capital A. And I will want to be the first in line for the next installment. (14/01/2010)

I'm sure it was fun, I'm sure there was action, but it certainly doesn't deserve a better rating from me. Downey and Law made an interesting team, I'm not opposed to them playing together again, and given the way Sherlock ends, it's more than likely – that is, provided he does not succumb to some crisis. It's a film that brings nothing new, it doesn't surprise you, it may bore you, what may disappoint you are the same jokes that have been told a hundred times. I think 128 minutes is more than enough. It must be an interesting experience in the cinema, but I certainly don't mind missing out. I put this movie under the "once and enough" category. A weaker three stars in total. (10/02/2010)

All this current Sherlock hype is so very boring. It's been a long time since I've seen something that elicits a single reaction - disinterest. I'm thus sticking with the holy trinity of 1930s Central Europe - Lelicek in the Services of Sherlock Holmes, The Hound of Baskerville and The Man Who Was Sherlock Holmes. (22/01/2012)