Sherlock Gnomes: Why?



If you love yourself, you will never press play.

Alexander Yagoda, Staff Writer

Release Date: March 23, 2018

Director: John Stevenson

Starring: Johnny Depp (Sherlock Gnomes), Chiwetel Ejiofor (Dr. Watson), Emily Blunt (Juliet), James McAvoy (Gnomeo)

MPAA Rating: PG

Our Rating: F–

There are many movies that are fantastically funny, moving, touching or just, in some way or another, good. However, Sherlock Gnomes manages to be none of those things. In fact, it was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Some movies are intentionally silly to the point where it can be enjoyed ironically, like the masterpiece that is “Spiderman 3.” “Sherlock Gnomes” is so bad it inspires pity for the poor souls who were forced to work on it, like the apparently washed-up James McAvoy, Emily Blunt and Johnny Depp.

For McAvoy and Blunt, it makes some sense that they would be in this movie due to the fact that they had already starred in the movie’s precursor, “Gnomeo and Juliet,” which was a decent film. However, Depp, star of movies like “Pirates of the Caribbean,” “Charlie and the Chocolate Factory” and “Edward Scissorhands,” has now apparently turned to F-rated films to pay off his massive amounts of debt.

“A highly underrated cinematic masterpiece. Just kidding, it was awful,” sophomore Jonathan Mesa said.

“Well honey, I’m off to ruin our careers!”
“You can try, but we have a large fan-base.” “Aight bet.”

In regard to the plot, the film is a shoddy off-brand version of an Adam Sandler romcom: a low quality plot based around a couple’s relationship going sideways for no reason, and then the couple fixing it by realizing that there was no problem. Not great. Although, a good director could work with it and give it a new spin, making it not bad. John Stevenson is an experienced director, being the mastermind behind “Kung Fu Panda,” one of the best animated movies about pandas doing kung fu of all time. That amount of experience gives no excuse to make a movie that bad. The humor isn’t funny, the lines feel forced and fake and, worst of all, it was not enjoyable to watch. Regardless of any level of sophistication, there is an unidentifiable variable in all movies that makes it either a fun to watch film or a drag.

“Sugar, maybe if we spin fast enough we can travel back in time to a series that isn’t bad!”

For example, “Trolls” was an upbeat movie with a decent soundtrack, but was weak in plot and structure. “Transformers 4” was a huge stretch on a dry story, but its scenes of breathtaking special effects and action made it, if nothing else, cool. “Sherlock Gnomes” has none of those things. The animation is of the same quality as its precursor, “Gnomeo and Juliet” from 2011, the writing is of low quality, the soundtrack is tough to notice over the loud and stupid lines, the plot moves too quickly in some parts, too slowly in others and the whole movie feels like a business product rather than something made to entertain. “Sherlock Gnomes” tries to be culturally relevant by adding in a computer and a mobile camera, as well as cell phones and some weak attempts at poking fun at the differences between the stereotypical expectations of males and females.

“It was the sequel no one knew they wanted, and when it came, they realized they didn’t want it,” sophomore Kevin Monjarrez said.

Overall, the movie simply isn’t enjoyable to watch and relies on the assured audience of infants and fans of the original movie to make-up for what is clearly a semi-failed attempt at making money for the producers.