Movie Review: Sherlock Holmes
Saturday, December 26, 2009
It’s probably a safe bet that most people know who Sherlock Holmes is. The character with a deerstalker hat has been a fixture of popular culture in several countries for more than a century. There have been countless films* of his exploits, some from the Conan Doyle books, others more suitable to current events, as when he fought the Nazis on film during the 1940s. Now we have director Guy Ritchie’s taken on the character.
If you like your Holmes all logic, no laughter and all brains, no brawn, Sherlock Holmes v. 2009 is probably not for you. Still very intelligent, this Holmes is also a brawler, funny, messy, physical and, as played by Robert Downey, Jr., is very attractive as opposed to, say, Basil Rathbone in those old black-and-white films. And, there’s not a deerstalker in sight.
Dr. Watson here is Jude Law who, unlike Nigel Bruce in the aforementioned movies, is also all-man and can be pretty funny. Downey and Law play off each other very well. That the bond between — the genuine affection that, here at times, makes them seem like an old married couple — is well-played and they’re fun to watch.
A new take on Watson (Jude Law, left)
and Holmes (Robert Downey, Jr.)
Photo courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures
Because this is a Guy Ritchie film (my favorite of all of his, by the way) there’s nothing subtle about it — lots of action, lots of brawling, and the bad guys are overwhelming in either size or sinisterness. The chief bad guy here is Lord Blackwood (Mark Stevens) who, though executed for several murders, returns from the grave to continue to wreak havoc on London — very gray and dirty here — and, ultimately, the world. Inspector Lestrade (Eddie Marsan, unrecognizable as the actor who played John Houseman in Me and Orson Welles) is part of the action, too, and, of course, there’s a love interest — Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) to spice up Holmes’ life and the story.
Downey and Law are fun to watch here and the supporting cast is fine. But, is this good detective film? Not really. But, then, it’s not intended to be. It’s clearly intended to be an action movie putting familiar characters in a new situation.
And, speaking of familiar characters, there’s a good chance there will be a sequel that will likely feature Holmes’ arch-nemesis Dr. Moriarty. If it’s anything like this, it’ll be a fun way to pass a couple of hours.
[•This weekend Turner Classic Movies (TCM) is showing several vintage Holmes films, including one starring an actor named Ian Fleming. No, not that Ian Fleming. All veddy British and fun to watch.]
(3 votes, average: 4.67 out of 5)
Loading ...
Although the deerstalker & the Meerschaum pipe, are indeed, missing — the rest of the movie is quite fun. Fans of the CSI TV series will find Holmes’s deductive reasoning techniques somewhat familiar and the staging of the look of the film is really amazing. I found my attention wandering a bit during the middle parts of the film but over-all, I’d give this movie an A- The four principal actors were very entertaining to watch and the film does a good job of setting up future episodes. A nice movie franchise has launched.
Some of the sight gags led me to laugh out-loud, and the story moves along at a reasonable clip.
Mark
I was a huge Sherlock Holmes fan as a teenager. I read every story written but watched only a handful of the movies which I thought were poorly done. I wrote my own review of this most recent movie at:
http://wrightlawnv.blogspot.com/2009/12/scientist-crime-fighter-dispels.html