Charlie Chaplin said, "Art is the concealment of effort."

"Art is the concealment of effort" -- how I wish I had said that.

If you take any great piece of editing in a film -- you either notice it or you don't. Either way, you can tell whether it is good or bad, if you notice it, in the first place.

The best editing can be seamless and invisible. It doesn't get in the way of the story, but it certainly pulls the story forward. The pacing creates tension. The pacing can also be like notes in a piece of music -- building to a pitch or climax. But what if you have editing that is obvious because it is cool?

SHERLOCK HOLMES, directed by Guy Ritchie, has a signature feel to it. Slamming fast beats with a freeze for emphasis at the end.

With LOCK, STOCK and TWO SMOKING BARRELS by the same director, it was crisp editing, it was new, kinda fresh. It had an original indie appeal. But with SHERLOCK HOLMES, the big Hollywood blockbuster (that takes place in the 19th century), the editing wasn't true to genre. It kinda throws you off. It says, "cartoon". Never mind that the fast cut montage occurs around the "kung fu" fighting sequences and it spells out that we are really moving into a different world.

I just can't seem to forget that I am watching a Guy Ritchie movie -- the editing has turned itself into a visual logo! It looked -- just that cool -- but certainly not invisible. And remind me again, what was taking place in the story line?