Sherlock Holmes

Trying to make fiction's foremost intellectual into an action hero seems to entirely miss the point. A large part of Holmes’ appeal comes from his ability to fight crime with his mind, not so much with his fists or a weapon. Here, the bits where Holmes describes and acts upon his deductive reasoning come across as unconvincing. Perhaps that’s a product of Robert Downey Jr. playing the title character; though he’s a fine actor, Downey simply doesn’t look the part of the famously tall and angular sleuth. In fact, Jude Law as the long suffering—and somewhat whiny—Watson is also miscast; if the actors had traded roles, the whole movie might have worked better. The storyline, about occult murders and other assorted hoohah, is notable mostly for the presence of Mark Strong hamming it up as a supposedly supernaturally-inclined peer of the realm who comes across as a cheap Dracula knockoff. The presence of Rachel McAdams as Irene Adler provided something nice to look at, but she too is unconvincing in her role. Finally, director Guy Richie offers some good visuals—the depiction of Victorian London looks spot on—but does so in a way that suggests a strong affinity for style over substance, or over anything else for that matter. It all comes across as something of a mess: a movie with poor casting, a story that really isn’t all that interesting, and a production team that simply didn’t understand the very nature of Holmes and his appeal. I offer these people this clue: don’t do this sort of thing.

Atomic Blonde

This movie probably never would have been made if it had not been pitched with the word "blonde" in the title. Hollywood, of all places, knows what sells. (The source material's title is "The Coldest City." Go figure.) So does this flick achieve such golden status as its title wants to suggest? Well, the story is a muddle, but that may not really be a problem, since this film is clearly an exercise in trying to recreate pre-Achtung Baby Berlin to its greatest degree. How much it succeeds is a matter of speculation, as few of us were actually there and can make a comparison. A lot of the clothing and stylistic touches--for instance, neon lighting in peoples' apartments--look about right for the late '80s, although the music choices are ham-handed (many of the songs, though authentically '80s and some even quite good, had long since fallen out of rotation by 1989). Mostly, this movie is an excuse to see Charlize Theron beat the tar out of people. On that front, she acquits well, and the filmmakers deserve credit for making the violence legit and not creating some stylized, "fight ballet" stuff like we've seen a lot lately. All in all, it's OK--not great or necessary, but hardly the sort of thing anyone would really clamor for (certainly not for a sequel).