Reviews
Sherlock Holmes
December 26 2009
Guy Ritchie
Starring Robert Downey Jr, Jude Law, Rachel McAdams
Related reviews and interviews
‘When is a Guy Ritchie film, not a guy Ritchie film?’ Not much of a mystery, the answer is, ‘When it’s Sherlock Holmes and he wants to show Hollywood he’s now a jobbing director for hire.’ Holmes is straight down-the-line action/comedy that, despite being set in London, is a million miles away Ritchie’s customary cockney-tough guy turf. To that end it’s surprisingly good fun, but never evolves beyond a series of vignettes.
This is ‘Holmes and Watson go on cheerful romp around London’, and it never demands any real mental exertion of the audience, or (most disappointingly) of its protagonist. The story begins unexpectedly, with Holmes (Robert Downey Jr) and Watson (Jude Law) about to go their separate ways (professionally) as Watson prepares to marry. This sparks Holmes’ jealous streak and when the satanic Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) mysteriously comes back from the dead, Holmes has the perfect excuse to drag Watson – feigning protest all the way – back into another adventure. There’s a delightfully camp but decorous interaction between Jude Law and Robert Downey Jr here, that’s played more as filial devotion than anything amorous. Yet it’s undeniably romantic and probably the best aspect of the film.
It’s in this respect that Downey Jr is most faithful to Conan Doyle’s sleuth as he is never more than a-sexual, demonstrating fascination rather than lust for the tricksy Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams). That’s where the literary accuracy ends though as Downey Jr runs with Ritchie’s idea of Holmes as a mischievous dandy – cutting a devilish swathe through London with a penchant for booze, violence and dark humour.
Downey Jr’s recent return to prominence is well-earned and he gives the character a fun twist, but the real crime is that he’s not given more to work with. The film moves like clockwork – swiftly, but exactly as expected. There’s never any real mystery or surprise and the revelations when they come are met with a “huh” rather than genuine surprise. But there are explosions, fist-fights, daring escapes and high-speed chases around a well-realised version of 19th century London. It’s everything you want from a family holiday movie, but not worthy of the world’s greatest detective.
Anticipation:
Enjoyment:
In Retrospect:
Agreed, I saw this for free last night at my local and enjoyed it for what it was, alwyas nice to see Downey JR on screen (except maybe in Tropic Thunder) and the exchanges between Watson and Holmes were entertaining. Not one for the DVD collection but not a bad cinema film. Also, Holmes kicks ass!
Written by Myke on December 29th, 2009 at 12:03
Nearly every review I've read or heard of this film has said something similar – i.e. "surprisingly good". I probably never would have bothered with it had that not been the default comment, but I'm glad I did. Ritchie's hyperactive directing style actually suits this type of knockabout actioner. Even the most ardent Ritchie hater would have to agree he puts together fight sequences better than almost any other mainstream Hollywood director out there. A good Christmas romp, though I would agree with Jon that Sherlock Holmes deserves greater consideration…
Written by Dan Stewart on January 4th, 2010 at 17:35
"A good Christmas romp", are you kidding? London as a giant, overflowing toilet bowl with little pink people swirling in the filth. The main characters ARE kind of cute and of some interest, yes, if only they would stand still for a minute and if only one could understand the mumbling dialog or the plot. Ugly. Violent. The boxing scene is sick. The gay angle is barely there, and thank God for that.
Written by Shrike on January 5th, 2010 at 19:03
´That’s where the literary accuracy ends though as Downey Jr runs with Ritchie’s idea of Holmes as a mischievous dandy – cutting a devilish swathe through London with a penchant for booze, violence and dark humour.´
My dear sir, how do you dare to speak about literary accuracy while showing in this review your complete ignorance of Doyle´s work? Holmes is, in its paper and original version at least, a character with a penchant for booze, violence and dark humour. He is mischevious, though certainly not a dandy, and if you had paid more attention to the dialogues you would have noticed Holmes only dresses himself properly by external pressure, and that he is not concerned seriously about his appearance (note the difference between his clothes at the introductory dinner with Mary and the ones he wears when visiting Blackwood at jail). Downey gives a vibrant, contemporary performance of a Holmes which is neither too distant from the refined Rathbone, who already portrayed a bit of the detective´s mischief (allow me to quote him in "Dressed to kill", talking about a criminal he has just captured and wounded: ´He will look his best when he´s hanged´)
Written by Carlos Millan on January 7th, 2010 at 05:54
If you had read The Sign of Four, you would notice the fidelity this film keeps towards the description of Mary Morstan, of Holmes´ uncanny knack for boxing and of his facility to have friendly relationships with prisoners, gypsies and personalities of the like. Furthermore, if you were able to recollect information from The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes, A Study in Scarlet, and The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, you would see that this movie portrays like no other the non-detective facets of Holmes: the chemist, the craftsman, the soil expert, the scientific, the music, the lover of disguises and food. There are besides, so many scenes directly extracted from the books (the deductions from a watch, the experimenting with a dog, the mention by Lestrade of what a magnificent criminal Holmes would be, the reclusion in his room for several weeks, his addiction to strong drugs, and yes, his complete lack of hygiene). As for the action, several Doyle´s stories do feature escaping through flames, swift persecutions and brutal wrestle (if you want more details you would have to read The Adventure of the Empty House, The Adventure of the Priory School, The Adventure of the Engineer's Thumb, among others).
Written by Carlos Millan on January 7th, 2010 at 05:56
Some subtle references to the books are simply impressive, such as the music played during the scene in which Watson appears to have perished in the explosion (quoting from the books "Sometimes the chords were sonorous and melancholic [...] long-drawn and wailing"), and the one Holmes himself appears playing with the violin standing against his chest ("Occasionally they were fantastic and cheerful").
Contrary to what you think, Holmes´ relation with Adler in the movie is one of the aspects which more differ from the original stories. In the movie Holmes has some special interest in this lady, inexistent in the book. Even if he does admire Irene, he shows no affection at all towards her. However, I understand the producers wished to give the character a hint of romance (nothing sells like romance) and I find quite acceptable the way in which they added this ingredient.
Written by Carlos Millan on January 7th, 2010 at 05:57
The only thing I do not tolerate is whole occultism issues with the villian. It is just like they could not leave behind Spielberg´s "Young Sherlock Holmes and the Pyramid of Fear". Why on earth do they associate Holmes with occultism? Perhaps one could do that with Doyle, but none of the detective´s cases are related to occultism. You might think this spoils the whole film, lessening the dignity of the plot, but there too many good elements of the film to discard them because of the poor antagonist Blackwood was.There is kind of attempt to justify this flaw at the end, when Holmes tells Blackwood he never believed magic was involved in the case but rather employed himself to find data that proved everything had a natural explanation (something which does happen in some of the original stories (The Creeping Man, The Lion´s Mane, The Sussex Vampire, The Hound of the Baskervilles).
Written by Carlos Millan on January 7th, 2010 at 05:58
In sum, the film was not perfect, but as a fan of Doyle´s works, I was most satisfied with it. I´m sorry if you have a different idea of the character, based in the numerous films he stars, or if I made a great deal out of nothing, but it would have been more proper if you had used the words ´filmographic accuracy´.
Written by Carlos Millan on January 7th, 2010 at 05:58
ine thing i dont like in the film is the whole death of lor blackman. i mean, checking one's pulse isn't the sole way of checking that someone is dead, even in those days. plus when someone's hung there are physical evidences, like abroken neck, severe strangulation marks, the face goes all red, there's a release of bowels and so on. not just a man lying there with no pulse. then it's obvious he didnt die. that would make watson a pretty poor doctor or thinker.
i don't know it just doesn't sit right by me, it's not intricate or clever enough for sherlock holmes. plus tower bridge was way too close to the parliament, i mean it took adler what..2 minutes to get there from parliament? come on that's impossibe.
Written by margaux on January 11th, 2010 at 09:49
well made but could have done with a bit more umph in the story..im sure there will be another one though, the acting is first rate though
Written by micro sd on January 26th, 2010 at 07:47