REVIEW: Star Chemistry Lifts ‘Sherlock Holmes’
by John NolteFor those of you expecting what the trailer promised: a bloated, confusing, noisy, headache-inducing Christmas blockbuster weighed down with CGI and barely made watchable by the presence of He Who Makes Everything Better – star Robert Downey Jr. – you’re in for a surprise. Director Guy Ritchie’s “Sherlock Holmes” might be a tad bloated, somewhat hard to follow, and easily 15 minutes too long, but the director makes this umpteenth cinematic re-imagining of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s intrepid detective his own and delivers a spirited, entertaining, blissfully mindless couple of hours at the movies.
Ritchie’s slovenly Holmes is a long way from Basil Rathbone’s, the actor who played the resident of 221 B Baker Street in 14 films over half as many years starting in 1939, and he’s even further from Doyle’s. The mannered, sophisticated detective is now a borderline recluse who’s utterly dysfunctional when not preoccupied with a case, a glib ladies man and ready action hero who knows how to use his fists. As his physician-partner in crimesolving, Jude Law grabs his best role in years as Holmes’ closest friend and mother hen.
Set in London in the late 1800s, the game afoot does not involve Holmes most famous nemesis Professor Moriarty this time, but instead Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), a presumably hanged ritual killer and user of the dark arts who might have risen from the dead with a master plan for world domination. Through an influential Gentleman’s Club of fellow occultists, Blackwood all but controls Scotland Yard which leaves only Holmes, Watson and Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) — a scheming American woman from Holmes’ past with dueling loyalties and a mind just as sharp as her romantic rival’s — to stop him.
The glue that holds the narrative together is not a somewhat convoluted –though smart in places – story, or the tense, suspicious romance between Holmes and Irene (has anyone ever created romantic sparks with McAdams?), but rather the detective’s affectionate friendship with Watson. Contrary to the rumor, there’s no gay subtext at work here. The dynamic between the two adventurers is similar to Hope and Crosby‘s “Road” films not a mountain named Brokeback. Holmes knows he’d be lost and lonely without his old friend to guide him, and though he doesn’t know it, Watson would be terribly bored were he to go through with his plans to marry and stake out a life as a run-of-the mill physician.
That’s not to say the film doesn’t employ other charms. There are a couple of terrific actions sequences, one involving a shipyard and the other a slow-motion explosion, and the washed out cinematography does a lot to hide the CGI’d cityscapes and create the perfect wet and foggy atmosphere for such a dark story. But the real plus is Ritchie’s success where it counts. Like Easter eggs for purists, bits and pieces of Doyle’s stories are seamlessly integrated into this affectionate piece of revisionism, and then there’s the genuine star chemistry between Downey Jr. and Law. Much can be forgiven if a film’s central relationship works, and as was the case with “Iron Man,” the blockbuster that made Downey Jr. the superstar comeback story of the decade, it’s hard to imagine how much lesser “Holmes” would be without him.
Fun, frivolous, and bearing no agenda other than pure holiday escapism, Guy Ritchie and Jude Law have officially earned a comeback, Downey Jr. has cemented his, and that promise of a sequel made just before the final fade sounds good to me.
UPDATE: Here are a couple of well-argued articles, one via Instapundit and the second from reader Nate Winchester, claiming the film is closer to Doyle than I gave it credit for. Instapundit’s is the more convincing; the idea being that Doyle gave Holmes certain character traits that “Guy Richie’s re-invention of the Sherlock Holmes film has, at it’s core, a great idea: let’s re-examine the way Doyle might have written about the exact same character in a more permissive, action-oriented era. All the elements are there[.]”
That’s an excellent way to put it. Or as one commenter put it, Ritchie “extrapolated” what would work best for a modern action-adventure. The link from Winchester is to an article written prior to the author seeing the film, but still worth a read.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
111 Comments
Re: "The mannered, sophisticated detective is now a borderline recluse who’s utterly dysfunctional when not preoccupied with a case"
I'm not that familiar with the inner-workings of Holmes' psyche but Nicholas Meyer (no stranger to Holmes stories, having written The Seven Percent Solution) talks about this in his Star Trek II DVD commentary, comparing Holmes to Kirk, explaining how both characters are unable to function in the absence of stimuli. (He phrased it better than I did.)
Sounds like a fun flick. And it's nice to see Jude Law having fun.
I liked it, but I wouldn't mind if the sequel were "polished up" all around. The look of this, and the plot, were too messy for my taste.
I had read in an ex-pat English newsletter called "Union Jack" (I think) that I picked up at a local all-things-British store that producers of the film had looked at the finished product months ago, and were fairly shocked that Moriarty was hardly anywhere to be seen. This paper claimed that Brad Pitt was called in to shoot additional scenes as the dastardly professor.
I sat all through the end credits hoping for a final surprise reveal of Pitt as Moriarty. Alas, no.
I was hoping at least they would have done that old fafashioned Bond movie thing: "SHERLOCK HOLMES WILL RETURN IN…"
Holmes…..my favorite detective. O goody a movie I might want to see.
….has anyone ever created romantic sparks with McAdams?.
That's what I like about you, John. You have the guts to say out loud what the rest of us only mutter to ourselves. That's a hoot! (Yup, I did see Rachel in 'Wedding Crashers' and came to the same conclusion.) Anyway, thanks for the laugh – and also thanks for giving me a film that I can look forward to seeing. It's sure been slim pickings this year.
[...] REVIEW: Star Chemistry Lifts ‘Sherlock Holmes’ Big HollywoodFor those of you expecting what the trailer promised: a bloated, confusing, noisy, headache-inducing Christmas blockbuster weighed down with CGI and barely made watchable by the presence of He Who Makes Everything Better – star Robert Downey Jr. – you’re in for a surprise. Sherlock Holmes | Film review The Guardian – London – UKBox Office Report: “Sherlock Holmes” Leads Record-Setting Christmas at the Movies Holiday Sales News Tracker – The Wall Street JournalView All (957) [...]
As a young boy, I was a fan of Jeremy Brett's Sherlock Holmes back in the 1980s. Its good too see Holmes come to the silver screen without a political agenda. I think I will take this classic in tonight!
It was…ok. Jude Law is a terrific Watson–maybe one of the best onscreen evah, but Downey was never Holmes to me. (Too…scruffy. And not nearly enough detecting. Even after a heroin bender in the books, Holmes at least would shave!) It's a decent Victorian steampunk flick, but so much with the hitting of the people with the sticks in the head! I think part of the issue I had was the villain wasn't very formidable to me. A pleasant enough diversion, but not destined to be a classic, IMHO. But a sequel called "Dr. Watson, Asskicker"–I'd pay for that in a heartbeat.
I still think Brett was the best Holmes, period, and I've loved Basil Rathbone. But the look of those Grenada tv episodes was just fantastic, and they hold up extremely well.
Thanks John; the reviews I have read hve been disappointing, but I don't give much stock to "mainstream" reviewers anyway—-now I will give it a try. Love Downey, and love Holmes; it will be interesting to see this version—it would be nice to see someone other than Stallone with two successful franchises.
Just saw the movie – not too bad. Wasn't going to go because of the advanced speculation about political agenda, etc but it was worth the money. I still like Rathbone and Brett better but sometimes you go with what you can get. If they make a sequel, I'll probably go to it too.
My computer keeps detecting "malware" when I log on to bighollywood. This is the only time this ever happened.
…bearing no agenda other than pure holiday escapism
You just said the secret phrase…I'm in.
Every other reviewer has given the movie bad reviews but if Nolte gives it the okay then I will take a chance. So far he has not steered me wrong.
My previous reasons for abstaining from the movie centered on the casting choices. Downey is a solid actor and seems a decent guy but a little too young and playboyish to be the reclusive and methodical Holmes. Doyle's Holmes was a reserved Don who found much of life too mundane to suffer through without opium. He had no romantic interests except the one woman who had out-foxed him. Jude Law seems a poor choice for a Watson. Watson was a grizzled veteran of the British wars in Afghanistan and Law looks a little too pristine.
Unlike other reviewers I have no problem with a limited amount of action. Doyle's Holmes could handle himself in some difficult situations and Watson was always the heavy who carried a revolver and knew how to use it. The orignial Holmes was not an armchair detective in the vein of Nero Wolfe so I have no problem with the game being afoot.
Brad Pitt would be a horrible Professor Moriarty. I can not imagine a pretty boy like him as an evil mastermind. He could not muster enough malice to scare a kitten.
Liam Neeson or Clive Owen would both be a good Moriarty.
Not Pitt, nor DiCaprio either.
[...] the full article from “Big Hollywood (blog)” « London Adult Entertainment: Escort Sniezana’s secret double life: New investigation [...]
I just got back from seeing it. It wasn't bad, all around; I also found the plot hard to follow at times, and I picked up on some gay innuendo, but nothing terrible. I also don't think this version of Holmes was totally off kilter, as the original stories do mention his boxing and slovenly habits, though it obviously took some liberties. There are a lot of references to stories or phrases in the original canon, which will go over the head of those who haven't read it, but Nolte's right, this was escapism, pure and simple, and a good way to spend two hours of your free time.
[...] this link: REVIEW: Star Chemistry Lifts ‘Sherlock Holmes’ This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
One little slip, here, John. In the books, Holmes is both a boxing and singlestick champion, and fights multiple opponents on several occasions. The "action here" part is pretty canonical.
Go to HuffHo or Daily Kos and your computer will detect malcontents. Just sayin'….;-)
I always get a good chuckle out of comments on Holmes who assume he was accurately portrayed by Basil Rathbone. Nothing could be further from the truth. <SPOILERS>
I found 2 scenes in the movie that drove home the fact that the writer had actually read Doyle.
1. Holmes' propensity for subterfuge via makeup, fake noses, accents, etc. during the scene when he accosts Moriarty in his carriage. That entire scene could have been lifted from the books (though it wasn't).
2. The time they spent on the river with the riverman gave some clue to Holmes' contact with the riff-raff and underworld. Holmes was *not* an urbane gentleman who sat at home and waited for a case to appear. He cultivated contacts with the scum of the earth and learned their ways.
All in all, I thought it was a fine effort. They could have done a bit more to explain/show Holmes' ability to ferret out clues, but aside from the short-hand of him talking through a scene and them showing it in real-time afterwards I thought it was good enough.
I hope they try again. This freshman efforts deserves a second attempt.
cr
I didn't particularly care for the Action scenes but other than that it was pretty good and entertaining throughout.
Robert Downey Jr. is excellent as usual, Jude Law and Rachel McAdams are good as well, and the bad guy is pretty solid. It did confuse me a bit, but it wraps itself up well at the end, and there's allot of really clever bits of business throughout. Plus, it delivers quite a few intentional laughs so all in all, very enjoyable. I liked it way better than Avatar.
I'm no Sherlock scholar to be sure, but from what I remember Doyle's character was physical, but not what I would call a "ready action hero." This is Indiana Holmes.
What got lost in the eloquent performances of Basil Rathbone and Jeremy Brett was the horrific misfit quality that Conan Doyle explicitly applied to Holmes in his earlier print appearances. Sherlock Holmes was depicted as a man obsessed with becoming a walking encyclopedia of crime, to the extent that there were massive gaps in his education occasioned by his impatience for anything without immediate relevance to criminology. Not to mention that Doyle/Watson's first physical description of the man gives the impression that Holmes' hygiene leaves much to be desired — his monomania is such that you could easily believe he might forget to bathe, brush his teeth or shave regularly… In that respect, at least, Robert Downey's performance is faithful to some aspects of the character.
Holmes always struck me as the kind of guy who could instantly tell where you bought your cigarettes, but would have to leave little notes to himself all over his apartment like "MEMORANDUM: TAKE A BATH BEFORE BED"… and "MEMORANDUM: GO TO BED, YOU IDIOT".
I was not aware that Nicholas Meyers talked about Holmes in the Star Trek II DVD commentary! I am a huge fan of Nicholas Meyers, having absolutely loved "The Seven Percent Solution." Laurie R. King is another contemporary writer of Sherlock Holmes that I love.
This film very much embraces Sherlock Holmes canon, as well as some of its popular lore.
Liam Neeson as in Batman Begins would be a good one. Or perhaps a younger Sean Connery. Or Ian McKellen, Christopher Lee, or someone along those lines.
Rathbone's Holmes used subterfuge on occasion but your point is a good one. Who could forget the Baker Street Boys who always brought Holmes the word on the street and could run down errands for him.
If you are a fan of Sherlock Holmes don't bother with this movie, you will be disappointed. "Rush Hour IV" would have been a more appropriate title, even without Jackie Chan.
I liked this film very much – there was a lot of fun and charm in this movie, combined with witty reparte. The ending was a tad flat, but overall it is a good film. Downey rules.
Okay, maybe fingernails on chalkboard sparks. (Never having seen her to my knowledge, I went over to IMDB.. and you're right, no possible sparks.)
But J N does have me convinced this can be a fun bit of escapism. Thanks, John. I'll see it sometime soon.
Just saw it an hour ago, and it is good fun. They could have taken out one or two of the very loud fights, but otherwise it was great fun.
Not sure about the gay subtext; Law and Downey often look wistfully at each other as they ponder life apart, but that could be just a deep friendship and mutual dependence. If the writer of the screenplay says in an interview that the gay subtext was deliberate it wouldn't surprise me, or bother me.
Good movie, go see it.
Downey went through a serious rough patch in life, but has emerged as a kind of middle aged acting prodigy. Everything he touches really does turn to gold now. Iron Man, Tropic Thunder, and now Sherlock Holmes. He even had a cameo at the end of The Incredible Hulk, which portends even more awesomeness. Iron Man II is in post, Iron Man III is in development, as is Poe, which is intriguing and could be very good. I'm really happy to see this, because I've been a fan since Weird Science and The Pickup Artist, but he really hasn't had much good since his role in Natural Born Killers. We're within a few years of the same age, so he's an inspiration.
Don't often disagree with Nolte, but the only saving graces in this film were: Robert Downey, Jr., a surprising Jude Law (I thought he was done for), the woman who played Mary (interesting enough that I thought she might be the villain), no Bush Bashing and no "Liberal Tell". That's it. Nothing else. If there was a story, it was so convoluted and poorly written, I didn't get it. Maybe I missed something important when I dozed off. Or perhaps it was the time my mind wandered and I wondered if I'd won the lottery. I built a garage next door (having bought the property), so maybe I missed out a lot. I did see a lot of things blown up, a man catch on fire and blaze away on the screen. I saw Holmes do some fisticuffs and a saw a very boring actress (McAdams) trying to not get lost in so much real talent (including Mary). I am a dyed in the wool Downey fan. All I can think is just how dismal this film would have been without him. That said, I'm betting it's better than "Avatar".
I'm planning to see this, simply because I like what the previews are showing me.
My attitude is that they've simply stolen the Sherlock Holmes name, and created their own character, who looks entertaining.
I wont pay to see this trash. I' m sick and tired of slobs. There's no excuse for it. I'll take Rathbone and Nigel Bruce over these to deficients any time.
What is available for those who want escapism from Hollywood's never ending nightmare?
Even before "Iron Man" he was in "Zodiac". Not the main part, alas, but a memorable one and a very good movie in my opinion.
""Ritchie’s slovenly Holmes is a long way from Basil Rathbone’s, the actor who played the resident of 221 B Baker Street in 14 films over half as many years starting in 1939, and he’s even further from Doyle’s. The mannered, sophisticated detective is now a borderline recluse who’s utterly dysfunctional when not preoccupied with a case, a glib ladies man and ready action hero who knows how to use his fists""
According to this reviewer:
http://therapsheet.blogspot.com/2009/07/rediscove...
This Holmes is closer to Doyle's original than others.
I like Ritchie´s gangster movies (the ones not having Madonna in them) even though they are sometimes crude and incoherent, for the same reason I like some Bollywood movies. Because he his not a pretentious git and has the will to entertain. Sometimes that goes a long way.
Ever hear of The Notebook (regarded as one of the sexiest movies in recent years, though it's not my cup of cider), people?
Don't forget about Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (one of my favorites from this decade), where Downey's "comeback" really got underway!
Ouch!! That's a very thought provoking post, but it's got some very very scary parts too:
http://www.cinematical.com/2008/07/02/sacha-baron...
I think it's one thing to extrapolate from what Conan Doyle wrote, and another to "re-imagine". Holmes, slovenly? The Holmes who made do in a stone hut upon the moors and still had linen as fresh and his chin as smooth as if he were in Baker Street. Watson comments upon Holmes "catlike" love of personal cleanliness. His habitation was often in a state of disorder, but he was always neatly groomed, unless in disguise.
And the best Watson ever – certainly the most Canonical – was David Burke, the first Watson in the Jeremy Brett series. I suspect this is what "Young Sherlock Holmes" was – "Sherlock Holmes and the Temple of Doom", with precious little Holmes. But likely great fun.
I get so tired of people looking for gay subtext. Unfortunately we've been programed to look askance at any male friendships. Men should be allowed good honest friendships with men. We certainly see plenty of women friendship movies that don't have homosexual overtones, or subtext.
Books? Maybe that actual Sherlock Holmes novels? Old TV and Movies about the character? If you really have the ability, how about write, produce and direct your own movies? Creativity isn't controlled by Hollywood unless you don't know any better.
"Snatch" was a good movie. This is only the second Ritchie movie I've seen, so he's 50-50.
He is going to play Edgar Allan Poe? Hopefully in a biopic because Robert Downey Jr. was born to play that part. He lived through some of what killed the writer and he could easily look like him.
I had reservations about this film. The early billing of a "modern Holmes" disturbed me. And Downey — while an extremely talented actor — really doesn't look much like the way Holmes is described in the stories.
But the film is great fun and entertainment. I'm really glad I saw it.
'he is not a pretentious git and has the will to entertain'
You've not seen Revolver, I take it?
No, I have seen Lock, Stock…, Snatch and RocknRolla. Those were fun. I missed Revolver. So it´s not good? Of course sometimes having "the will" may not be enough.
"and bearing no agenda other than pure holiday escapism"
That's what I like to hear, John. I have always loved Downey's acting prowess and was always sad to see him fall. Glad to see he's back and hopefully it's here to stay. He's just one of those actors, like back in the day, that is just so naturally good, that they can't do anything but bring goodness to whatever work they do.
Looking forward to catching this next weekend!
Nah, he'd just get frowsier and frowsier, until Mrs. Hudson threw up her hands in despair and called Watson to smack some sense into him. I swear, Holmes must pay her well above market rates because he has got to be the worst tenant ever, but she never evicted him.
I think that this was an accurate representation of Holmes; albeit early Holmes. It seemed like the characterization of Holmes had been lifted from "A Study in Scarlet", particularly the first few chapters. Holmes is noted as a 'skilled boxer' and extremely eccentric with so little interest in the outside world that he doesn't even know the Earth orbits the sun, and experiments on himself and the dog. I thoroughly enjoyed the film, and thought they did a good job 'justifying' the changes that they had to make for the film. It was extremely excellent!
No, he was a practitioner of the martial art of "Baritsu," and frequently in the books he thrashes scoundrels or clonks them with the butt of his revolver. And he took that fall off Reichenbach Falls that would have killed a normal person. Holmes can bring it when he has to, but a gentleman shouldn't have to.
One thing I hope from the film: speaking for Holmes nitpickers everywhere I hope those who never read them will pick the original stories up and take them for a spin.
I wouldn't really call it a 'modern' take. In many ways Downey _is_ close to the way Holmes acts in _some_ of the stories, I just wish we'd seen more of the cerebral Holmes than just the kicking & punching.
Mine did that a few times too a couple days ago. It's doing it because of the stats counter on the page. It stopped once I told my computer the site was safe.
But if you look back at Rathbone's Holmes, he really treats Watson quite terribly throughout the series. Brett's Holmes is fairly nasty to everyone in early episodes. and needs Watson to continually remind him not to be such a d*ck when he's interviewing clients. I think he captured Doyle's Holmes: a smart guy with zero people skills. Downey does his best to give him a bit more of a likeable personality, I just didn't love his take. In all versions, the actor playing Holmes has got to show _some_ decency, or else why would Watson stay friends with him?
As described, Robert Downey Jr's Holmes is to the Holmes of Arthur Conan Doyle what Albert Broccoli's James Bond is to the Bond of Ian Fleming. It's like you get the tacky third sequel before the Oscar-nominated first film…but then you never get the good one. Action, sex, profanity, violence, CGI – all that kind of stuff – should be used like spices when you're cooking, to bring out the inherent 'flavor' of the plot. Instead, Hollywood uses them like that orange stuff they pour all over everything at cheap Chinese restaurants. OK, it's palatable enough I guess, but it makes everything taste pretty much the same. C'mon, Hollywood, if your only mission is to give folks cheap thrills, stop making movies and start building roller coasters.
Very much agree with your points Cremes; I found it very true to the original by Doyle. I think that the commenter's that don't – don't know the original, they know the Basil Rathbone movies. BIG difference! I enjoyed the movie and hope they make at least one more.
I think you're being a bit harsh. It may not be to Holmes geeks absolute tastes, but it's far from a trashy film. Just remember it's a Guy Ritchie movie, not a Sherlock Holmes movie.
I liked the movie. What I didn't like was the previews. A remake of "Clash of the Titans"? "Come on!" I groaned audibly — and apparently expressing the sentiments of many of my fellow movie goers.
I dunno…the old "Clash" is fairly laughable now, with some _really_ bad acting and although I love & respect Harryhausen, the stop motion looks truly antique. I like Greek myths, I liked 300, I love cut dudes leaping around with swords…it could be fun. What looked awful was Nicolas Cage in "The Sorcerer's Apprentice." Nic must be taking anything to pay off that tax bill!
That's just my point, it sucked out loud in the 80's with Olivier (OLIVIER!!), what makes them thing they can make that turkey fly now?
As I posted below… according to this reviewer he was.
http://therapsheet.blogspot.com/2009/07/rediscove...
I saw it and loved it. Robert Downey is terrific as usual.
Revolver was his attempt to be the mockney David Lynch, and was thoroughly wretched. That's why I flagged up your description of him as not being 'pretentious', because he has previous in that department.
Lock, Stock and Snatch are both perfectly decent bits of light nonsense, so although I don't rate him and the match wouldn't have occurred to me, he's probably the right guy for the job with this one. The Sherlock Holmes were never intended to be anything other than fun, populist trash, so it's a good fit, really.
"and bearing no agenda other than pure holiday escapism"
That's what I like to hear, John. I have always loved Downey's acting prowess and was always sad to see him fall. Glad to see he's back and hopefully it's here to stay. He's just one of those actors, like back in the day, that is just so naturally good, that they can't do anything but bring goodness to whatever work they do.
Looking forward to catching this next weekend!
According to his biographer, Holmes's payments to Mrs. Hudson were "princely".
Yah, I'm with you there. The Mr. asked on the way out, "So when does Holmes come in?"
Loved it! People who are complaining that it's not Sherlock Holmes probably think "It's elementary, dear Watson" is actually in the books. For once they didn't portray Holmes as a stuffy old man and Watson has a fat idiot. This movie gave dimensions to the characters and life. In the books, Holmes was eccentric, smart, slightly smug, and a complete mess when he didn't have a case. Watson was a soldier, a great doctor, sometimes a reluctant sidekick but really did love Holmes. Only people who read the books could see the small references to Holmes drug habits and Watson quiet disapproval.
Though the movie had a little too much action in it it can be fogiven because the movie was a lot of fun to watch. I think people should not base their idea of Sherlock Holmes on a politically correct movie made way back when and read ALL the stories. Maybe they'll see the Sir Conan had a lot of controversial stuff in his books as all great writers do.
Gary Oldman, please and thank yo.
It's been a long long time since I READ Sherlock Holmes… and I've never watched any movies or television adaptations. I DID read it, though, when I was a kid. I loved it. And was scandalized! I thought the books were scandalous! As an adult I read a certain amount of "period" novels, mostly romances, but the idea of Victorian (or whatever) England having a rough an tumble side doesn't even upend those romantic dress-up books. How could it possibly upend gothic mysteries?
But maybe it's because I've never *watched* Sherlock Holmes that I saw the trailers for this and was thrilled by them.
As my daughter said…. the man was an opium addict, after all.
Someone mentioned elsewhere…. in the BOOKS… the big showdown with Moriarty was a fist fight.
I think that the movies sanitized Holmes somewhat. But certainly men at that time were supposed to have certain skills, including the physical. My romances always talk about the men's clubs (but only hint at the *naughty* ones) and invariably Gentleman Jackson's where well bred men trained in boxing.
I was thrilled to see the trailer with a Holmes who one could actually imagine visiting an opium den (which wouldn't have been outrageous at the time, even if excess was frowned upon if the gentle-ladies were forced to take notice.)
Thanks for the warning. I will stick with the real David Lynch.
"Guy Richie’s re-invention of the Sherlock Holmes film has, at it’s core, a great idea: let’s re-examine the way Doyle might have written about the exact same character in a more permissive, action-oriented era. All the elements are there[.]”
Grotesque. It's a pity the heirs of Arthur Doyle can't sue. The Progressive/post-modern mindset pollutes everything it touches.
Thousands of pre-1965 films. I could send you a list of 50 to start with, each of which – even the unknown, ordinary ones – is better than all but 1 or 2 of the best films of the past 40 years.
I'd sure like to try creating romantic sparks with Rachel McAdams.
Anything in Holmes mind such as "trivia" had no place and he purposefully sought to keep out information that did not deal directly and completely with deductive reasoning. After 3 seconds of commercials I deduced that they had turned him in to Batman.
I've always liked the character of Irene Adler, or as Holmes refers to her as "The Woman". She is an American stage actress from New Jersey, and the only woman to foil Holmes. Read "A Scandal in Bohemia" for her story.
As for the movie, I was hoping for a frontal nude of Rachel McAdams. But I enjoyed the movie nonetheless.
I'm guessing they haven't.
Yeah, i think the search for gay subtext does nothing but damage perfectly good stories and relationships–and not just in fiction, but in real life as well. Knock it off, guys. There is no secret homosexuality in every man, okay?
HAH! Really? He sound rather like 'Basil of Bakers Street' from 'The Great Mouse Detective'–the animated Disney 'homage' to Holmes.
I've never seen it, but there is no reason an animated film couldn't be "true" to the source material. I'm afraid I don't understand your point.
I think McAdams was miscast. Never for one minute did I believe her to be a true foil to Holmes. She may be written true to the Irene Adler character, but it didn't show up on the screen. A slightly older actress would have been more believable.
Other that that, I enjoyed the film. I'm more anxious for the obvious sequel and WHO is playing Moriarty since his role is not credited on IMDB.
Based on the article I want to see it. Of course I was already decided in spite of the rumors I heard; also if Holmes was blasphemed at least I could still have a good time if Downey means anything! Also an older movie called Young Sherlock Holmes means quite a good deal to me though a lot of others were less impressed with it from what I remember, and I wonder if the DVD was ever released. Still I thank God (literally) for having made Robert Downey, Jr.. a political conservative. Not that it matters or anything. And I appreciate anyone who cares enough about Sherlock to want another movie, explosions or otherwise. Conan Doyle himself was a slick character also: from reading I vaguely recall an incident wherein he made total @$$e$ of the evolution folks around that time, but I remember so little of it except for something about a buried monkey skeleton. The author was rumored to have stayed in the old Houdini mansion in Laurel Canyon, as they were acquainted prior to parting ways less than amicably, and reportedly involving their differences in regard to spiritualism. However I was also informed most of it was folklore but who knows for sure. The same ones suggested Houdini himself never once stayed in the Houdini mansion, so it's hard to tell. At least the possibility of Doyle having once visited Hollywood is fascinating enough. How could Holmes' creator be any less fascinating than the creation himself?
Glad to hear it is good. Based on the trailer it looked awful. Also good to see Downey keeping the string of good films coming and welcome back, Jude Law!
Having had the pleasure of seeing him in Hamlet on Broadway and getting his autograph – all I can say is the acting was outstanding and the way this guy treated the fans waiting for autographs and to take his picture should be an example to all those celebrities who need to remember who butters their bread. Friendly, engaging and making assurances that he signed all the Playbills handed up to him – he could not have been more gracious.
I thought the movie was a hoot! The chemistry between Holmes and Watson was superb. There's no political agenda; no "culture/social" agenda (the "homosexual" theme hinted at by some is akin to the Fellowship's love for one another in the Lord of the Rings books, in my opinion – nothing more). What a refreshing film in that regard! I loved Holmes' fight scenes. All in all, it's just a fun movie. It reminds me of the good times I used to have going to the theater. Can't wait for a sequel!
Possible spoiler…
It would be nice if Hollywood/movie/tv folks could finally come to grips with the fact that the last book of the Bible is "Revelation" not "Revelations." You'd think a learned person such as Holmes would know that. Thanks!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation
Maybe if we ignore it it will go away…
(I think we can all agree that is truly horrifying)
Hey, I liked the old movie. It was fun entertainment. Not everything has to be Shakespeare to be good. It needed an update, although I worry that today's writers will mess up even a bad story such as this one.
I liked Jude Law until he started making outrageously left political movies. Maybe that was all that was available for him to play in Hollywood?
Young Sherlock Holmes was released on DVD. I got it soon after it wasavailable, as I have very fond memories of it from my younger years.
Irene Adler shows up? Really?
What was the justification for that? "We needed a woman"?
When you consider the Mystery genre today you see a clear bifurcation between the "cozy" and the "hardboiled" detective. The "cozy" detective is typified by Miss Marple, a very cerebral character who reasons everything out over tea in her drawing room. The "hardboiled" detective is typified by Mike Hammer who plunges into the case with a hot gat and two fists of iron.
Sherlock Holmes was created BEFORE these categories were established. The canon includes Holmes' swordplay and pugilistics. We don't notice, because it doesn't fit. Rathbone and Brett's renditions of the character were done after the cozy/harboiled divide, and they show the detective as a violin-playing logician.
Rendering Holmes as a synthesis of cozy and hardboiled detective is surprisingly consistent with the canon. I'll see tonight how well it works for myself.
Me and the wife thought it was a great movie. My impression of Holmes came from the few British television shows shown on public television as opposed to the few stories I read as a youth and can't remember the details, so it appeared as a re-imaging to me until I researched Doyle's character and found the movie to be close portrayal.
The plot was simply Man vs. Man, the Villian's motives personal. I found the story to be refreshing and interesting and I was glad that elements of the plot were revealed to be not as they seemed. It's a mystery that seeks the logical answers. And the occult was a subculture for that time period. Had me wondering about Aleister Crowley.
Plus, no corporation was impugned, no "green" message in sight, no ideology shoved down throats. That's worth seeing the movie.
"The mannered, sophisticated detective is now a borderline recluse who’s utterly dysfunctional when not preoccupied with a case"
Well, Holmes DID end up a coke addict at one point.
Agreed! Saw "Holmes" just a few hours ago and enjoyed it thoroughly, but the previews – AARGH! Awful stuff! Not one of the bunch seemed worth checking out!
I very much enjoyed this, and wanted to point out that at least in my opinion (and I have read and re-read all 56 short stories and the 4 novels by Doyle) this was not at all a dramatic departure from Holmes as Doyle originally wrote him. In many respects it was much closer than any of the other theatrical versions before it. Some of the complaints that Guy Ritchie's Holmes is too much of an action hero ignore the fact that the original Holmes in Doyle's fiction was also an accomplished fighter and practiced in the martial disciplines. There are several fight scenes in the books in which it is demonstrated he is indeed an unparalleled physical fighter, and he fights in exactly the methodical way which he is portrayed as fighting in the movie. The other criticism was the romance with Irene, and from the criticisms I read before seeing the movie I was half expecting Holmes to be jumping into bed with woman after woman, as well as hot and heavy petting and kissing. But there was nothing like this in the movie. Although the romance between Irene and Holmes in the movie was a lot less subtle than that portrayed in the novels, again there was no kissing or lovemaking and it wasn't that far off from the original literary fiction.
Holmes was slovenly and despondant in the novels in between cases, I thought that was portrayed pretty closely to the original as well. They didn't mention the opium/heroin addiction that the fictional Holmes had, but Downey's Holmes certainly looked in a similar state. Also there was a jealousy Holmes had in the novels when Watson got married and a bit of contempt towards Watson's wife, again there is nothing homosexual in it, but the movie was right on the mark in portraying the selfishness of Holmes and jealousy of losing his best friend and companion to a woman.
Regardless, I am an ardent Sherlock Holmes fan and this was a hell of a good movie, and great fun to watch. The interplay between Holmes and Watson was fantastic, and I especially liked the fact that archenemy Professor Moriarty made an appearance (I'm hoping for a sequal, and with the movie doing very well at the box office, I think there's a very good chance we'll get it).
For the idiots claiming this movie is some kind of slap in the face of the original characters or that Guy Ritchie has blasphemed the original Sherlock Holmes… well, every time I read one of those comments it makes me chuckle as in my opinion the people posting with such righteous indignation have obviously never read the source material.
100% agree – Gary Oldman is simply the greatest actor who ever lived. He can play any part; the man is a chameleon, and he would make an excellent Professor Moriarty.
I didn't know Downey was a conservative. That shouldn't matter at all, but it's interesting and makes me like him even more. Also, Young Sherlock Holmes was great, it is definitely available on dvd and does stand up pretty well over time.
She is used as a manipulative tool/weapon against Holmes by Moriarty. Yes, this was a bit Hollywood and less-than-subtle, but it was forgivable in the context of the movie. The only negative to the show was that Rachel McAdams just wasn't good enough to really sell the idea that Irene was actually intelligent enough to outfox Holmes. Everything else I thought was pretty close to perfect, but if t he movie had one fatal flaw, it would have been Rachel McAdams and her not-nearly-good-enough portrayal of Irene Sadler.
You must be logged in to post a comment.