(Long Island, N.Y.) Sherlock Holmes, the famous fictional detective whose adventures were transcribed by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (starting in 1887) in the form of 4 novels and 56 short stories, has been the subject of countless media adaptations- films, television shows, and even a cartoon entitled “Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century” (seriously- go look on YouTube). Now everyone’s favorite gumshoe has been dusted off by director Guy Ritchie (AKA the former Mr. Madonna) for a new generation of film-goers with Iron Man himself, the talented Robert Downey Jr., in the title role.
Overall, it’s a fun ride that…um…er… Wait a second. I’m going to break from my usual format here, because I’m having a problem…and I think it might be writer’s block. It’s a problem I’ve never had writing a review before here at Long Island Exchange, so please…bear with me.
To be honest, I AM having a hard time writing about this movie, and I’m not 100% sure why. I mean, it was a solid flick…I’d even go so far as to call it “very good.” But despite that fact, the film just isn’t inspiring me to write about it. Now, I’ve seen movies so bad that I wanted to kill myself and movies so good that I’ve wanted to send tacos to the entire cast and production team, and when it came time to write their respective reviews, the words always flowed like cheap malt liquor on one of my dates. Yet Sherlock Holmes has me stuck in neutral, so to speak, and I can’t think of a decent reason at all for this. Perhaps if I just ramble about whatever comes to mind regarding the movie, it’ll help me place things in perspective…
Well, first of all, the twitchy Robert Downey Jr. certainly brings the goods here, presenting a take on Holmes that differs from the stereotypical stiff upper-lipped Englishman clad in a deerstalker hat and cloak. Instead, Downey concentrates more on Holmes’ eccentricities, such as his anti-social personality and bohemian lifestyle, often ignored in previous adaptations of Doyle’s work. I personally found this refreshing, and I suppose it also serves to make Holmes a bit more “cool” to the youngsters, but it thankfully never comes across as obvious pandering- at least, until he is revealed to be UFC-style fighter kicking butt to pay the rent in-between cases. Now, while Holmes’ prowess in fisticuffs is touched upon in the books (yes, I’ve actually read some), I found this aspect of the film to have an akward, tacked-on feeling, as if to please the kids in the Mixed Martial Arts crowd. However, I’m suprised to say, I actually enjoyed the fights and how Holmes would plot them out in his head before successfully enacting his strategy. I mean, it worked within the context of this “new” Sherlock Holmes, so I guess I can forgive this odd little inaccuracy.
Conveniently forgotten from the books (although very subtly hinted at here and there) is his drug use, although this omission I can understand- depicting Holmes taking cocaine breaks between visiting crime scenes might make him seem a tad less believable as a crime-fighter. But the Holmes of Doyle’s novels (as well as Downey’s performance) was a great detective not in spite of his faults and vices, but BECAUSE of them. That being the case, I’m all in favor of showing all the man’s warts and character flaws. And while Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes comes closer than any to doing so, there are still lines it won’t cross.
The film is scored well by Hans Zimmer (in fact, the music is easily one of its high points), shot expertly, and accurately conveys the grit and grime of Victorian-era London (despite the romantic view some have of it, the city of that time was a really, really dirty place). The movie’s pace is brisk, the dialogue and back-and-forth between Holmes and his loyal assistant, Dr. Watson (Jude Law), is both witty and biting, and every actor that is not British manages a convincing British accent (in the case of Downey, his previous work on the 1992 biopic Chaplin more than likely served him well here).
Even the plot, which surprisingly is not based on any of Doyle’s stories, is somewhat interesting. A bloke named Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), who would probably be way into Scandinavian Black Metal if he were alive today, has been running around London conducting horrific human sacrifices. Holmes and Watson arrive at Blackwood’s latest offering to his pagan god and apprehend the maniac before he can kill again. Blackwood is put to death for his crimes, but soon rises from his grave and continues his murder spree, all the while displaying powers that can only be called supernatural. The subsequent appearance of Holmes’ love interest and only person to ever outwit him, Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams), along with her shadowy and mysterious employer (a certain “Professor” that Doyle fans might be aware of…) only causes to complicate things further. Oh, and let’s not forget Dr. Watson’s impending marriage to Mary Morstan (Kelly Reilly), which is threatening to break up his long-standing partnership with Holmes. Poor Sherlock…the man has problems. Can even his legendary intellectual prowess and powers of observation, deductive reasoning and forensic skills overcome all the obstacles laid before him?
Hmm…I think I’ve got it. Sherlock Holmes IS a good, charming movie, but on some base level it’s just not engaging enough to be all that memorable. It might be the fact that no one has any real back-story- the movie just starts off with every relationship already in place, relying on the audience to have a personal familiarity with all the characters in order to get involved. It might be the abundance of unconvincing CG that makes up much of the backdrop of London (man, I miss the days when they built actual sets for movies…). It might even be the contrived way that Holmes sometimes puts two and two together- I know the guy is a genius and all, but he makes some on-the-money conclusions based on basically no evidence or first-hand accounts…it’s kinda hard to buy that. Heck, it could even just be the constant brawls and widespread destruction of property that Holmes and Watson get into in every other scene, which is ill-fitting for what’s supposed to be a mystery-based period piece.
Overall, my problem with Sherlock Holmes is that some of the intelligence of Doyle’s works has been stripped away in favor of numerous action scenes (which REALLY ramp up in the climax), but it’s obvious that this was the only way to engage modern ADD-afflicted audiences. If Guy Ritchie had done a straight translation of one of the original Holmes novels I’m sure it would have been quite engrossing, but I hardly would see the slower pace and more thoughtful story structure packing theaters with rabid crowds. So, as it is, Sherlock Holmes is indeed a fun, humorous, and exciting movie, but missing that little something that made the super-sleuth of the novels special. The ending of the film perfectly sets itself up for a sequel, but despite my misgivings about this installment, I find myself very much looking forward to its eventual release. And when a movie does that, I guess it’s done its job, and done it pretty well.
And hey, I’ve done my job too! I guess that writer’s block is gone now. I bet you all were worried, huh?
