Review: Sherlock Holmes

Sherlock Holmes

OPENING: 12/25/2009

STUDIO: Warner Bros.

RUN TIME: 128 min

ACCOMPLICES:
Trailer, Official Site

The Charge
Nothing Escapes Him.

Opening Statement
There’s been a lot of talk about just how much director Guy Ritchie has altered the famous fictional detective Sherlock Holmes for the sake of pleasing modern ADD-riddled audiences. Granted, the character isn’t entirely true to his literary roots, but then that’s actually been the case with quite a lot of his cinematic incarnations (including the beloved Basil Rathbone films). This is not your grandfather’s Sherlock Holmes film — in fact, one might even argue it isn’t a Sherlock Holmes film at all — but it is an entertaining romp.

Facts of the Case
This time around, Holmes (Robert Downey, Jr.) is in a rather disheveled state. His longtime assistant, Dr. Watson (Jude Law), is about to be married, which means Watson will no longer be around to accompany him on crime-solving adventures. Holmes responds to this in a surprisingly childish manner, not-so-subtly insulting Watson’s fiancee at every possible opportunity and retreating into a terrible state of depression. Holmes starts to perk up, when he hears the recently-executed Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) has seemingly risen from the dead in order to engage in further acts of devious behavior. Everyone at Scotland Yard is positively baffled, and the idea of solving such a challenging case stimulates Holmes. Dragging Watson along one last time (or is it?), Holmes determines to figure just how Lord Blackwood was able to escape death’s clutches.

The Evidence
When I first saw the trailer for b>Sherlock Holmes, I couldn’t help but let loose a sigh of disappointment. Yes, let’s take another iconic character, give him a post-modern spin, and put him in a standard-issue CGI-dominated blockbuster. That sounds like a delightful idea (insert dripping sarcasm). Fortunately, the final product is a better than I expected. Sure, it’s often a typical CGI-dominated blockbuster, but Robert Downey, Jr. ensures that the character remains a distinct individual, despite the film’s attempts to turn him into a Victorian-era Jason Bourne.

There are a lot of things about this Holmes that might seem unfamiliar. We’ve heard he was a boxer, but here he seems on par with Muhammad Ali. We’ve heard he had fondness for opium, but not that he was both a junkie and an alcoholic. We’ve heard he was a messy slop with a tendency to dress badly and smell worse… well, no, that’s actually a strange new addition. However, the things we love best about Holmes are left intact: his casual delight in spelling out everything he knows about a person as soon as they enter a room; his general sense of superiority to those around him; and his simultaneous pleasure/relief at finding something that can put his considerable mental powers to work. Downey accentuates Holmes’ snobbery, which could have come across as particularly obnoxious, if not for the savvy inclusion of a child-like vulnerability buried within the character. It’s a terrific and quite original performance, owing nothing to anything other than Downey’s imagination.

Ritchie is best-known for his convoluted gangster films — Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, Snatch, RocknRolla — which have a way of twisting this way and that until a cathartic third act explains everything in entertaining detail. His overactive style may be a bit much for a Holmes story, but a quick consideration of his storytelling tendencies reveals why he was a respectable choice for this film. For me, one of the great pleasures of the Holmes stories has always been that moment towards the end in which Holmes cheerfully explains how he came to his spot-on conclusion, putting everyone else in the room (both innocent and guilty) to some sort of mental shame. Ritchie knows how supremely satisfying such moments can be, twisting the plot tighter and tighter until finally allowing it to unravel, spilling all of its secrets in the form of a patented Holmes monologues. What joy!

Alas, not all of the film is quite so satisfying. I found my attention beginning to drift, as the movie started losing focus and veering a bit too far off course. I didn’t particularly care for Rachel McAdams as Irene Adler. McAdams is fine, but any Holmes fan will know that Ms. Adler is someone Holmes regards reverently as The Woman. What we get instead is the usual politically correct composite female stereotype: strong, lovely, can fight every bit as well as the boys, smart as Holmes, and doesn’t seem to have much dimension beyond these external attributes. The usually-excellent Mark Strong doesn’t get enough to do as Lord Blackwood. And, while Jude Law’s Watson is generally appealing, make no mistake: this is Downey’s show.

Closing Statement
While fans of Conan Doyle’s stories — and previous cinematic incarnations of Holmes, for that matter — may protest the wild action-fest that is Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes, I found it enjoyable. However, I have no intent of putting up any great defense of it. The film isn’t great art and it’s only moderately good entertainment. Still, if you’re looking to have a good time at the movies, you could certainly do worse.

The Verdict
7/10

• “”>