Sherlock Holmes is the eighth movie I've seen in theaters this year, which is probably the most I've ever seen in one year in my entire adult life. I freely admit that I dashed out to see this one on opening day because of my eye for the talented and attractive Robert Downey, Jr., in the title role. I'm also a moderate Sherlock Holmes fan, in the sense of having read and enjoyed all the stories more than once, but not the rabid sort of fan that's going to obsess on all the details. I've paid enough attention to be aware that the typical Basil Rathbone-style movie treatment with Holmes as an older guy in a deerstalker cap is a rather limited view of a character, who, if you go by information given in the stories, was a drug-addicted manic-depressive with substantial martial arts skills (swordfighting, wrestling, professional-level boxing, and "baritsu"), a total slob who shoots up his apartment walls when bored -- that scene is in the movie -- along with shooting up cocaine, and who was in his twenties or thirties during most of the cases. I was already aware from the trailers and advance publicity that this was going to be a more lively Holmes than usual, and I was rather curious to see the results.
Overall: I was pleased by Downey as Holmes and Jude Law as Watson and thought the overall concept of the character as a man of both brains and action was quite acceptable. But I did have some problems with the film.
The good stuff:
I thought Downey's characterization of him was fabulous: brilliant, but utterly self-centered and given to obnoxious one-upmanship. His observation skills are both a gift and a burden; in one scene in a restaurant he's so distracted by all the chatter and clatter around him that it feels almost physically painful. He can't ever shut out information unless he's distracting himself: with his violin (shown), with his drug use (not shown), with getting beaten up in the boxing ring (shown). This makes perfect sense to me; I have similar problems, though not to the same degree. One review I read said he was deliberately portrayed as a sort of Toulouse-Lautrec figure, a Bohemian artist; I could see it.
I also liked Law as Watson: not as fast a thinker, but not remotely stupid; competent rather than bumbling; bluntly practical; and possessed of all the social skills that Holmes lacks. The two of them bicker like long-term friends who have memorized all their half-serious, half-teasing banter. And Law looked quite sharp in Watson's moustache and military uniform (finally, someone remembers that Watson is a combat veteran!) While I've seen the jokes about the nature of their relationship, Holmes' negative reaction to Watson's relationship with Mary doesn't read to me as sexual jealousy so much as an exercise in immaturity and ego: he wants to be as important to Watson as he is to himself. (Kelly Reilly as Mary did a good job with a small part and had some very nice costuming.) When Holmes manages to express his gratitude to Watson for his reliablity, you can see that he's conscious that he's not actually a very good friend most of the time and is grateful to Watson for putting up with him.
The scenery is amazing: late nineteenth-century London in all its grubby glory. And the smaller parts like Lestrade and the poor constable ("My wife's a chambermaid") who has to deal with Holmes are little comic gems. Mark Strong as Lord Blackwood makes a nicely menacing villain. He overdoes it, but it's proper to the role.
The bad stuff:
As noted, I'm entirely happy for Holmes to be experienced at various forms of combat. And it was interesting to see his intellect applied to analyzing an opponent's moves beforehand. Once. Less so when repeated, however, and overall, I thought the fight scenes took up way too much of the movie. I was getting bored with them by the end. And the leap from the window...no. I blame the director for this stuff; it's like he doesn't trust his material, that he has to jazz it up with extra violence, not to mention the scene where Holmes is handcuffed naked to a bed. (I'll admit, that addition didn't bother me too much. Mmm.)
I find I like Irene Adler more as a reference than an actual presence. Rachel McAdams is too young and almost too pretty for the role; it works at first, but later it's hard to take her seriously, especially when she starts taking her clothes off and her hair down. She doesn't really show the strength or intellectual heft to be the legendary woman who can outwit Holmes, especially since she's not an independent agent in the film. Acting under orders undercuts all her cleverness; she's a pretty puppet. And watching Holmes flirt with her is just painful.
There was one major element which was a problem for me for most of the movie, but I can't discuss it without completely spoiling the plot. So I'll just say that in the end, it wasn't a problem, much to my relief. I did find the mystery plot not as substantial as I'd have liked to see. But I liked the classic intellectual preening of the wrapup, with Holmes spelling out all of the things that I, just like Watson, had missed earlier on. I think a second viewing to catch all those bits will be rewarding.
Summary:
If you fetishize the classic portrayal of Holmes as a dry intellectual in a deerstalker, this movie will make you absolutely crazy. If you're open to a more unusual depiction and/or have a taste for a nineteenth-century setting with lots of action, it's imperfect, but a lot of fun. I don't know that they can sustain it for an entire series, though, and they're obviously setting up for a sequel at the end.
We're going to see it sometime this week, looking forward to it :) Sounds like the good mainly outweighs the bad.
Posted by: AJ | December 29, 2009 at 03:01 PM
I think this version of Holmes was based on a recent graphic novel. The 'problems' may have originated there. That being said, I haven't seen the movie yet, but I'm not a purist, so I expect I'll have similar reactions. I've seen so many film versions of Holmes & Watson that one more won't bother me, but I do have a certain fondness for Nichol Williamson's interpretation.
Posted by: Serge | December 29, 2009 at 05:07 PM
I agree, Rachel McAdams wasn't strong enough to carry a believable Irene Adler. I was also well pleased by the rational resolution of the major plot element, although I pretty much expected it; such things are NEVER genuine in the Holmesverse.
I would have liked not to have been distracted by minor anachronisms/poorly handled nuances, though. A "daily woman" might have been married, but NEVER a chambermaid! And so on.
Posted by: Rikibeth | December 29, 2009 at 08:03 PM
I saw the movie last night and felt pretty much the same way as both of you, except that I found some of the anachronisms to be anything but minor. For example, did the people of 1894 really refer to someone as 'psychologically' deranged?
Posted by: Serge | January 02, 2010 at 09:54 AM
I saw the movie yesterday as well and you put into words most of my same opinions about the characters and the over-done fist fights. I actually liked a lot about Rachel McAdams' Irene Adler, though she is more of an alternate-world version then the canon Irene. Holmes/Downey was great and brought out aspects of Holmes that have been under-played in prior renditions (though I still think Jeromy Brett's versions where the most like the books). With Irene Adler wearing bustle dresses, this placed the film earlier in Holmes' career
I was worried that Guy Richie would modernize things too much, but I was impressed with the rendering of Victorian London in all its grit. I would see this again and get the DVD too. Loved the drapping on Irene's dresses too!
Posted by: Susan | January 02, 2010 at 01:49 PM
PS The above is from SusanT (another Susan)
Posted by: SusanT | January 02, 2010 at 02:04 PM
SusanT... With Irene Adler wearing bustle dresses, this placed the film earlier
My understanding is that bustles were out of fashion by 1885. Does this then mean that Irene was wearing a bustle circa 1894 because she liked them and fashion be damned? Or was the story set circa 1885 and it took 9 years to finish building the Tower Bridge?
Posted by: Serge | January 02, 2010 at 03:19 PM
I think that any bustle-based anachronisms can be forgiven. I am of course completely biased because I was drooling over the bustled dresses and the adorable coats slit in the back to accommodate said bustles.
Rachel McAdams did seem a bit young and almost too vapid to be an accomplished lady criminal. I never really felt that she was anywhere near Holmes' equal in intelligence or ingenuity throughout the film.
Posted by: AJ | January 02, 2010 at 11:26 PM
AJ... We're supposed to assume all that on the basis of her character being called Irene Adler, but McAdams never successfully conveys that. A betetr casting choice would have been Gabrielle Anwar.
What's this I hear about your being biased, re bustles?
I am shocked. Shocked!
Posted by: Serge | January 03, 2010 at 10:08 AM
Slioghtly off topic, but not that much... Before Sherlock, we saw the coming attraction for RDJ's Iron Man 2. It bugs me, in that Stark seems to have reverted to his immature self. It's not as if he has to pretend he's an immature jerk since he told the whole world about his alter ego.
Posted by: Serge | January 05, 2010 at 02:01 PM
I don't think it's a pretense. I think he is an immature jerk, not to mention an alcoholic. Even being successful and a hero doesn't prevent him from being an immature jerk.
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | January 05, 2010 at 02:27 PM
True, Susan, but it feels like what growth he went thru is gone. Mind you, I am basing that on a coming attraction, and we know how misleading those can be. Well, we shall see in a few months.
Posted by: Serge | January 05, 2010 at 02:49 PM
I know, my bustle bias just came out of nowhere...
As for Iron Man 2, I really think that's supposed to be Stark's personality. There's some improvement from where he started at in the first movie, but he's still wealthy, brilliant, and now he's a super hero, too. All that feeds his ego. Besides, I don't think the movie would be nearly as much fun if he was straight-laced and serious. That's Batman's territory.
Posted by: AJ | January 05, 2010 at 08:33 PM
AJ... I guess what bugged me about the coming attraction is the depiction of women, aside from Pepper. But, heck, if neither you nor Susan were offended by that, then I won't be.
Posted by: Serge | January 05, 2010 at 08:57 PM
AJ... if he was straight-laced and serious. That's Batman's territory
Do you know what Green Arrow's nickname for Batman is?
'Chuckles'.
Posted by: Serge | January 05, 2010 at 09:00 PM
Serge, you mean the dancing bimbos in the Iron Man bikinis?
Posted by: AJ | January 06, 2010 at 01:00 AM
AJ... Yes, them. Say, did the ad show the Black Widow?
Posted by: Serge | January 06, 2010 at 07:01 AM
I think it might have... I seem to recall seeing some woman who was neither Pepper nor a bikini-clad Iron Girl dancer.
Posted by: AJ | January 06, 2010 at 10:37 PM
AJ... I just looked it up on YouTube, and yes, the Widow does appear.
Posted by: Serge | January 07, 2010 at 12:15 AM
Dragging it back to Sherlock Holmes:
We are considering theming our 1880s Bustle Ball (scheduled for 3/27) as a Sherlock Holmes event. I don't want to turn it totally fantasy-land, but attaching ourselves to the movie's success could potentially draw in more people. So now I'm pondering how to add Holmesian touches without tipping to too far away from it being a historical event.
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | January 10, 2010 at 08:48 AM
By the way, on the dating: Tower Bridge was started in 1886 and completed in 1894. Did the movie give an explicit date at any point? The bridge clearly wasn't completed then, so it's not a huge fudge to have it slightly more complete in 1888 or so than it in fact was. And bustles were quite prominent in 1886-1888. I think it was 1889 when they shrank abruptly.
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | January 10, 2010 at 08:53 AM
Susan... I don't think the movie ever pinned its date down, aside from that weird reference to America's Civil War. The Bridge looks fairly advanced, in the movie, which is why I thought it might be set closer to 1894 than to the days of the Bustle. Of course, I don't know how quickly those engineering projects went up in those days, even without our modern safety mesures.
Posted by: Serge | January 10, 2010 at 09:25 AM
I was amused by this article in the NYTimes, by the way. It acknowledges that the stereotypical Holmes is as much a creation of movies as of the original stories, though it feels the movie went too far the other way.
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | January 11, 2010 at 07:26 AM
I rather liked Basil Rathbone as Holmes, but what drove me nuts was their setting the stories during the Second World War, and having Holmes fight Nazi spies and the likes.
Posted by: Serge | January 11, 2010 at 12:15 PM
I think it's a mark of what a classic character Holmes is that he can be played around with that way. Shakespeare and Jane Austen works have the same elasticity.
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | January 11, 2010 at 12:28 PM
True, Susan, but part of Holmes's attraction is the setting - for me anyway. I mean, his methods come across as ahead of their time, when in the Victorian Era. By the 1940s, not as much.
As for works that are strong enough to make it into other settings... True also, I rather liked 2002's TV miniseries "King of Texas", with Patrick Stewart as rancher Lear, and Marcia Gay Harden as the one daughter who truly loves him.
Posted by: Serge | January 11, 2010 at 01:14 PM
I enjoyed Ran which was Akira Kurosawa's feudal Japanese version of King Lear. He did another one -- I want to say it was MacBeth, but it was not very good at all, IMO.
Holmes is best in the Victorian era because of the bustle skirts. WWII-era fashions just aren't as enjoyable.
Posted by: AJ | January 11, 2010 at 04:25 PM
AJ... I think that Castle of Blood was Kurosawa's take on MacBeth. By the way, Yojimbo was his version of Dashiel Hammett's Red Harvest and eventually became A Fistful of Dollars.
Posted by: Serge | January 11, 2010 at 04:31 PM
Castle of Blood is in fact the one I'm thinking of! Thanks, Serge. I didn't know that Yojimbo was based on Red Harvest. It also eventually became Last Man Standing which takes place in the Southwest (AZ, I think) in the hmmm... 30s? and stars Bruce Willis. Chris and I enjoyed that one.
The last time Chris ran a samurai-themed roleplaying game, he assigned some Kurosawa films and other Japanese films as homework, and you got extra experience points if you watched them. Still didn't stop people from playing their characters like they were from the more over-the-top samurai anime, but at least he tried.
Posted by: AJ | January 11, 2010 at 05:08 PM
AJ... you got extra experience points if you watched them
That reminds me of an interview with James Coburn, who was in The Magnificent Seven. When he heard that Seven Samurai was being remade as a western, he was one of the few people who wound in the cast who had already seen the original, and he had made it clear that he wanted to play the part of the World's Greatest Swordsman.
Posted by: Serge | January 11, 2010 at 05:22 PM
Speakign of MacBeth... It was the very conscious basis for the Outer Limits episode The Bellero Shield. And The Tempest was made into a fantasy movie set in the Mississippi Delta during the Civil War, and of course as Forbidden Planet.
Posted by: Serge | January 11, 2010 at 05:27 PM
Red Harvest also inspired the Coen Brothers Miller's Crossing (I thought it was inspired by A Fistful of Dollars when i first saw it)
Posted by: Neil W | January 12, 2010 at 12:49 PM
I went to see 'Sherlock Holmes' this evening. I enjoyed it a lot.
It helped that, at least to my eye, the writers clearly knew their stuff, so that when there were differences from Arthur Conan Doyle's version, it wasn't just because they didn't know any better. (In that vein, I liked the running joke about Holmes testing things on the dog. That could only have come from somebody familiar with the novels.)
Posted by: Paul A. | January 16, 2010 at 11:29 AM
Turner Classic Movies showed 1959's Hound of the Baskervilles. I rather liked Peter Cushing as Holmes. I wonder why Hammer never made more of those movies.
Posted by: Serge | January 25, 2010 at 10:05 PM
I just read that the director of Sherlock Holmes has been told by the studio that his top priority from now on is a sequel.
Posted by: Serge | January 27, 2010 at 03:43 PM
Not exactly a surprise; they were obviously setting up for one and hoping to make it another franchise series.
Posted by: Susan de Guardiola | January 27, 2010 at 04:32 PM