One piece of advice about men is that if you believe that your career has decent room for improvement, then you should never mix with a woman like Madonna, otherwise the result will be bad. As for the example of this advice, there is Dennis Rodman before and Guy Ritchie afterwards. Although the former is lost, the evening scene is a bit bleak, and the latter is completely dizzy. A "Revolver" is incomprehensible. However, a "Rock Gangster" is nothing new, and the box office can't make it out of the British Isles. It is hard to toss until today, and there is a decent movie, this "Holmes".
Subversive and Fun
Cult fans often compare Guy Ritchie with Quentin Tarantino. In 2009, the latter on the other side of the ocean also released a "Shameless Bastard", and in these two films, " "Subversion" is undoubtedly a key word.
In "Holmes", Guy Ritchie redesigned the image of this magical detective. The English gentleman, who always wears a black top hat and a meticulous suit and bow tie, disappears, but appears to be an unruffled, decadent and neurotic one who is mostly unruffled, decadent and neurotic. The muscular violent man, perhaps from producer Joe Silvo’s statement, is more precise, "007 of 1891"-it has to be played by Daniel Craig, and Watson has also become a very skilled doctor. , Of course, the personality is also very hot.
As for Quentin, the subversion of the American land ruffian in "Shameless Bastard" taught people that the spectacles were broken. Even Hitler was killed in an unfavorable manner. It is undoubtedly a joke that is not surprising and endless. Compared with this soaring scorn, Guy Ritchie's subversion in "Holmes" can only be regarded as a trick.
Coincidentally, both Quentin and Guy Ritchie gave up the usual structural patterns in the new film. The narratives are mostly rigorous and orthodox. They all seem to be quite smooth and complete, but obviously, the "Shameless Bastard" reveals that the film noir The extreme preference for fun is very different from the petty play in Sherlock Holmes. For this reason, in contrast, Guy Ritch’s handling of stories and characters is more like commercials and Hollywood blockbusters. As for "Stealing and Robbery" or "Two Smokers" all the way. Fans who come here must be disappointed.
Sorry, detective fan
As for those detective fans who try to find the kind of inference fun from the old-school suspense film in this "Holmes", they undoubtedly made the wrong choice. Yes, you can't get a better look when watching this movie. "Die Hard 4" has more intellectual superiority-if you need it.
The only suspense of the movie, the so-called dark magic mystery, is already revealed in the middle, and the protagonist is omnipotent, and the audience only needs to sit on the sofa steadily. As for the process of solving the case--does this 007-like Holmes still need to follow the picture, from the numerous clues, from the mist released by the screenwriter, from the hard thinking of "who is the murderer", and gradually derive a conclusion? What he has to do is to touch it at the crime scene, sit on the floor of the apartment and think about it symbolically, and then easily tell the conclusion that the so-called millions of soldiers in his chest is such a realm.
Hello,
what movie is Donnie Yen 007? Of course it is an action movie. Whether it was in 1891 or 2010, it was an action movie, and the most interesting part of "Holmes" is naturally the fight. Guy Ritchie poured the only Cult fun into the action scenes of "Sherlock Holmes." Robert Downey Jr. in the black market boxing match was quite a bit of Brad in "Snatch and Snatch". Pete’s madness is a genre, but the tricks of even the elimination of fights look a bit like Wing Chun. Who makes Robert Downey Jr. a fan of Wing Chun himself? In the subsequent fist contests, there was a lot of mixed fighting. It's no wonder that after watching "Holmes", Yen Zidan said proudly that Guy Ritchie must have watched "Fuse" and "Slaying the Wolf".
Donnie Yen’s statement is, "How is it so like", of course, like the final battle on the London Bridge in "Holmes", the battle between Holmes and Blackwood, which is simply a remake of the duel between "Slaying the Wolf" and Wu Jing. The action of closing the stick is exactly the same. Of course, this kind of treatment is quite interesting for a western film. You know, the fights of European and American blockbusters usually lack aesthetics. "Die Hard" is a muscle fight, and "The Bournemouth" is too much. Realistically, the camera shake and high-speed editing make it impossible to see clearly and fleetingly, unless you want to mention "Ultimate Target"-that's what age.
Long live popcorn
No matter how you look at it, "Holmes" has the temperament of a Hollywood popcorn blockbuster, the contest between the male protagonist and the insidious villain, the beauty of the vase, the explosion and the explosion, and the indispensable huge dark organization and the conspiracy to reverse the earth. Of course, the explosion The label of rice flower blockbusters is by no means an accusation-as long as it is interesting enough. Therefore, whether it is the subversion of the characters or the handling of the action scenes, it can be regarded as a plus point, not to mention the wonderful reproduction of the 19th-century London street scene, just the unfinished Tower of London, has taught people to be satisfied.
As far as Guy Ritch is concerned, "Holmes" may not be regarded as a return of his personal style, but at any rate the movie is decent enough. Perhaps for him, it is a serious matter to step out of the "Magic Sister Curse" early.
("Weekend Pictorial" special manuscript, please do not reprint)
View more about Sherlock Holmes reviews
