Simple my dear Watson - it didn't work for me!Downey Jr. looked old and haggard. Like Al Pacino after several nights on the town. As for Jude Law, an impossibly good looking fellow, he was packaged like a total, and I'm sorry to have to say this, wimp. Guy Ritchie has made a guy-film. Perhaps that was his intention. It is such a buddy movie, I felt totally excluded and promptly fell asleep. I swear I did! When I woke up, it was as if I hadn't missed a thing. The dark forces of evil were still doing their bad stuff. The black crow was still cawing ominously, and these two studs were still making eyes at each other and not at the luscious wenches lusting after them. 'Sherlock Holmes' is an unambiguously gay love story and a really whacked out take on the original - from that point of view alone, I found it rather refreshing. The Brit humour and dry, throwaway lines make up for the dumb action and over dramatic sets. As for the background score, come on, it is just so loud and 'seventies!! That too, Bollywood 'seventies ...when the Ramsay Brothers ruled with their horror films. Had it not been Guy Ritchie and those BIG names involved in this super production, I doubt Sherlock Holmes would have been such a huge hit! Frankly, I vastly prefer the ancient version. And I am hoping Downey Jr. will go back to edgy, contemporary roles and save his passion for a worthier love interest than Jude Law!
Oh, the movie I watched the previous night was 'Pyaar Impossible' and you are going to hate me for saying this, but I enjoyed it a whole lot more than this over hyped blockbuster. For one, I like Priyanka Chopra - she is by far the most versatile and intelligent actress in Bollywood. Compare her role as Alisha in 'Pyaar' to the maharashtrian character she played opposite Shahid Kapoor recently. Is it the same person ?? Well... it doesn't matter a damn to me that 'Pyaar...' is a super flop. Or that 'Sherlock ...' is a super hit. Personal opinions should be separated from box office returns or even other people's reviews. At the end of the day, a movie is about an emotional experience - if that experience is satisfactory, even on an illogical level, well then, who can contradict or challenge it?? The pundits?? And who are these pundits anyway? People like you and me , whose jobs it is to assess and critique movies for a living. Alas, not all pundits are independent thinkers. There are various considerations at play when reviews get written, at least that's how it is in India. 'Pyaar Impossible' had an appealing premise - geeks\losers can win the girl of their dreams after all, in the face of stiff competition ( if Dino Morea can be considered competition!). It was pretty brave of Uday Chopra to write such a role for himself. He is a star son, and the way it works in Bollywood is to prop up a beta even if that beta is a dead horse that can't be flogged any further. Sensibly, Uday came up with a script that didn't require any 'herogiri' of the cliche kind. The songs were well picturised... and as for Priyanka - I thought she looked like a million bucks and delivered her lines with finesse. Yes, the story is ludicrous and completely annoying in parts ( hello! do ladies in Singapore go half -naked to work?). There are holes as gigantic as Mumbai manholes in the story line, and it is obvious nobody in that set- up has ever experienced modern corporate life. It gets from absurd to pathetic... but you know what?? It hardly matters. This is Bollywood, folks! Sab chalta hai..... even something as impossible as this dud.