As indelible a character in audiences mind as pop-culture icons like Superman and James Bond, viewers have expectations as to what they want to see from Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes. The opener in what one can only assume Warner Bros. is considering to be a new, major franchise, Guy Ritchie’s 2009 adaptation is a stark difference from the cinematic Holmes of old, but, thanks to brilliant performances from Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law and Rachel McAdams, fits well into the character’s influential cannon.
After the hanging of their longtime nemesis, occult murderer Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), eccentric detective Sherlock Holmes (Downey Jr.) and his ever-faithful partner, Dr. John Watson (Jude Law), are called back into action when the sorcerer mysteriously rises from the grave. Now, the original dynamic duo must try to put their logical, deductive skills aside to unravel Blackwood’s mysterious plot, one that threatens to destroy the stability of England.
Guy Ritchie, best known for his stylish portrayal of England’s underbelly in films like Snatch, and more recently, RocknRolla, brings quite a bit of energy to the Sherlock Holmes lore, though his touch, at times, can feel overindulgent. They say that 99% of making a movie succeed is good casting. Sherlock Holmes is brilliantly cast from its titular lead, right down to Lord Blackwood’s goons. When Ritchie lets his actors breathe and explore their characters, the picture is deliciously fun. However, when the filmmaker overexerts his trademark visuals, ramping up and slowing down the picture, they detract from the sheer cinematic joy that the actor’s performances and intricate plot otherwise produce.
And what a story Richie and company created! With Downey giving Holmes an obsession for small details, to the point where he is almost socially unacceptable, it is remarkable how many tiny moments add up to solving the picture’s bigger mystery. While some people might find that the third act takes far too big a leap into the realm of the unfathomable, you can’t help but be swept up in the details and Holmes’ seemingly limitless genius. Of course, like any good serial mystery, Sherlock Holmes ends on a note that, not unlike the finale of Batman Begins, will leave fans clamoring for more for years to come. Consider this one holiday blockbuster worth investigating.
Release Date: December 25, 2009
Russo Rating =7 out of 10 stars
Excellent! I’m going to try and see it next week.
It was very good. I disagree that the ramping up and slowing down was distracting. It was used in a way that made sense and I didn’t feel like it was overindulgent. I also appreciated that the story wasn’t spoon fed to the audience, and that the score was period appropriate and didn’t lapse into techno (I hate that!).
The slowed down film bits were supposed to give us a glimpse into how Holmes’ mind works. I thought it was used appropriately and if it were Ritchies’ most indulgent moments at least it served a purpose (more than 90% of Star Trek’s lens flairs as an example).
Overall I enjoyed the film. I thought it was a bit slow in parts. Some may call this development. I call it poor editing. It was a good story and fun to watch.
I wish Holmes didn’t come across as someone you felt sorry for. This did seem more a function of the actor’s performance rather than the script itself.
I am also happy they didn’t go steampunk crazy either. the few pieces that popped up were reasonable.
I liked it. The two leads really did make the movie. They have the kind of easy, bantering chemistry that George Clooney and Brad Pitt have in the Oceans movies. My only criticism is that the mystery was somewhat predictable. It became obvious early on what they were doing with Irene’s mysterious employer (setting up sequels) and the resolution to the Lord Blackwood mystery was no surprise either. If the mystery plot had been a little more clever, it would’ve been a great movie, instead it was just a good one.
The big reservations I have about this film is that it looks like they are completely re-interpreting the classic character on a fundamental level. I haven’t seen it but the bit in the previews of Holmes tied to a bed and expressing sexuality. I don’t have any hang-ups about sexuality but it was core to his character that he didn’t have patience for conventional human interaction. I don’t want to judge it without watching but I think I gotta wait till it comes on video and watch it in secret where my lit snob friends can’t see me :p
The Sherlock of the movie, if anything, had even “less patience with conventional human interaction” than the typical depiction. The scene you mention is not in the context you seem to think. The trailer was just a trailer and hardly captured the real tone of the film. If you are not going to watch it based on one scene from a trailer then I am not sure how you go see any movie. If trailers actually depicted movies correctly than Wild Wild West would have been a great film for example. Trailers can make bad films look good and good films look not as they seem depending how the five second clips are spliced together.
Thanks Hils, that’s good to know. It was just a concern knowing full well that I haven’t seen it yet. I wait for most movies to come out on video whether I think they’re good or not. I’m not like some of my friends who have already decided it’s a perversion of a classic literary character without seeing it. I had the same gut reaction to the trailer but it is not my foregone conclusion. I know trailers can make a good movie look bad and vice versa.