« Further "Carnage" | Main | Not disavowed »

December 14, 2011


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

mike kenny

Wow, that was far reaching, but interesting to ponder.

John M

I'm sure it's all intentional. This kind of inter-textual rigor is par for the course in Ritchie's films.


Now just consider this: Ritchie's version of 'Sherlock Holmes' has moved so far from the Conan Doyle material at this point, can you imagine how a 'Sherlock Holmes' movie will look on screen in forty years?

David Ehrenstein


David Ehrenstein

a fortiori



"a kind of quick-cutting ESP thing with sepia-toned images of violence"

Yeah, that bothered me when I was watching the first part: does Holmes' superpowers include foreseeing the future? Is that come under deduction now? And Christ, they really need more and more newfangled technology to evoke an increasingly primitive past, don't they?

But I enjoyed that movie (haven't seen the second one yet) because, oddly, it had almost nothing to do with the stories (thank heaven): felt more like the TV show House, actually.

But to come back to the point: great review!

Owain Wilson

I would like to point out that Jude Law rather closely resembles Robert Shaw in these two movies.

Chris O.

Are we missing the end of a sentence after the parenthetical or am I misreading it? Don't pretend that Losey what?

GK UPDATE: Ooops. Fixed.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Tip Jar

Tip Jar
Blog powered by Typepad