« Review: ''Nine'' | Main | The 25 best movies of the decade 2000-2009 »

Review: ''Sherlock Holmes''

Poster

Not even Sherlock Holmes could make much sense out of the overplotted, murky mess that is Sherlock Holmes, although Arthur Conan Doyle's legendarily brainy detective would probably never buy a ticket to a movie as elephant-footed as this one (a Hitchcock picture or maybe Chinatown would have been more his speed).

This new reimagining of Sherlock Holmes, which was directed by Guy Ritchie (Snatch, RocknRolla) and produced by Joel Silver (The Matrix, Lethal Weapon), was made for people who have neither the patience nor the attentiveness that made the detective so formidable. The setting may be old London (rendered impressively grimy and bustling), but the mood is all smash-pow-bang - it's Fight Club time on Baker Street.

The sort of giant-budget blockbuster (like Wild Wild West and Godzilla) that bears the distinct scars and stitches of too many studio-imposed suggestions and ideas, Sherlock Holmes renders what should have been a captivating Victorian-era mystery with quasi-supernatural undertones (like the excellent Dan Simmons novel Drood) close to unintelligible. Right from the requisite opening action setpiece, Ritchie paces every scene at the same furious pitch, so the movie starts out in fourth gear and never downshifts. That may be fine for those who found Speed Racer fun and exciting. Others may be wondering what, exactly, martial arts and bullet-time photography are doing in the middle of a Sherlock Holmes picture.

Photo_04_hires

Those anachronisms are the point, of course: The film aims to bring a dusty literary hero to hip, contemporary life. But why are these high-concept movies almost invariably so little fun to watch? The only real entertainment in Sherlock Holmes comes not from Ritchie's elaborate action sequences or the outrageous stuntwork but from a much more old-fashioned source: the performances by Robert Downey Jr. as Holmes and Jude Law as his trusty assistant Watson.

Downey, still channeling the super-powered charisma he brought to Iron Man (how did this actor ever fall off the radar?), turns the detective into a rascally hero who drinks too much, flirts too much, enjoys a bit of bare-knuckle fighting from time to time and is still smarter and more observant than anyone in the room. Downey relishes the opportunity to gnaw on a British accent - at times, he lays it on so thick you literally can't understand what he's saying - but the actor is clearly having a good time, and he's the sort of performer with the gift to share that fun with the audience.

Photo_02_hires

Working opposite Downey also frees something in Law, who turns Dr. Watson into a veritable superhero (or at least a respectable sidekick). Although he often comes across as a studied, self-conscious actor, Law is loose and energetic here and more than holds his own in his constant banter with Downey (I'd be curious to know how much of their dialogue was improvised). Although a subplot hinges on Watson's engagement to a young lady (Kelly Reilly) and Holmes falls for a client (Rachel McAdams) who has hired him to find "a missing midget'' - a case that leads to all sorts of demonic evildoing - Holmes and Watson bicker and argue like an old married couple and fight off their enemies like Batman and Robin.

Sherlock Holmes is a bloated, enormous mess, and I'm pretty sure the entire last half-hour exists mainly to set up the sequel, but the actors make it lively and watchable anyway, as if they simply ignored all the mayhem around them on the set and decided to just have a good time. Good idea, fellas.

Sherlock Holmes opens in theaters on Friday, Dec. 25.

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Vincent

You are killing me by destroying the pre-release anticipation that I sometimes cultivate for many of these huge hollywood blockbusters. Most recently, you did it for Avatar (beautiful to look at, but what a mess) and now you're doing it with Sherlock Holmes. Sure, you prejudice me to some degree, but to the extent that I can view things objectively after reading your posts, you are usually right. Oh well. If only more complicated French films with ambiguous or absolutely unhappy endings could be made (and exported here), I would be a happy, happy man.

Blah

Rene you're the only critic who spoke poorly of Avatar, that's a FACT. What you've authored on Avatar was pompous and attempted to feed your inflated ego. Avatar was never meant to win best screenplay, instead its objective was to have a decent story and spectacular visuals - something its succeeded in doing.

I can guarantee you that absolutely NOBODY will be trying to answer your question as to "what, exactly, martial arts and bullet-time photography are doing in the middle of a Sherlock Holmes picture." Moviegoers take flicks as they are.

Your reviews are terribly inconsistent, and contradict one another. How can you pose the previous question about this movie, and not pose a similarly turgid question about "Ingenious Basterds", a movie you ironically gave FOUR STARS. How about asking "how, exactly, can the cinema's projectionist lock the entrance doors - with iron rods mind you - without even rendering a wink from Nazi security?"

Enough with these irrelevant questions. There is nothing thought provoking about Hollywood blockbusters. We simply look forward to isolating ourselves from the reality that lies outside the theater's doors for a couple of hours.

Rene Rodriguez

Vincent: Sorry about dashing those expectations. But it makes it all the sweeter when a really good blockbuster comes along, no?

Rene Rodriguez

Dear Blah Blah Blah:

I am not sure what you are so worked up about.

"Rene you're the only critic who spoke poorly of Avatar, that's a FACT."

No it's not. Look here: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/avatar/

And for the record, I did not dislike "Avatar." I just thought there were things about it that could have been a lot better, like the script.

"Your reviews are terribly inconsistent, and contradict one another."

Actually, scientists would beg to differ with you. Look here!

http://miamiherald.typepad.com/reeling/2009/11/scientists-conclude-i-am-the-most-reliable-and-trustworthy-movie-critic-in-the-entire-universe.html

"How about asking "how, exactly, can the cinema's projectionist lock the entrance doors - with iron rods mind you - without even rendering a wink from Nazi security?"

That's easy: She snuck around them when they weren't looking!

"There is nothing thought provoking about Hollywood blockbusters."

I'll say.

"We simply look forward to isolating ourselves from the reality that lies outside the theater's doors for a couple of hours."

I could not agree with you more. I'd rather just not fall asleep while sitting in the theater. That, I can do for free at home.


Count LF Chodkiewicz Chudzikiewicz

As someone who READS Sir Arthur Conan Doyle as well as has the various movies of his Sherlock Holmes stories and novelettes, the movie sounds dreadful. One point, you can never "UPDATE" a classic! Although "classic" is defined as "timeless", it exists in a time and place and the interactions of the characters are tied to their time and place. "Casablanca", "The Scarlet Letter", Alfred Lord Tennyson's poems, even the surroundings of a great painting or piece of architect if tampered with detract from their glory. "Up dating" Shakespeare or Conan Doyle is rubbish schlock.

B.  Edelson

Wait .. has anyone really read Doyle, ...or just seen the OLD movies?
If not, at least read about Holmes before criticizing the portrayal . [Try Wikepedia.]

Holmes was an amateur boxer, knew Japanese martial arts , excellent with hand guns , and practiced fencing, among other physical attributes.

William Read

As a viewer of the last British TV Sherlock Holmes series, starring the late Jeremy Brett as Holmes, I had low expectations for this new film, launched here in the UK on 26 December. I await with interest the opinions of UK film critics of the film, and to see if they share the views expressed in this review.

Scott Monty

You ask what martial arts are doing in a Sherlock Holmes film; in fact, it's lifted from the original stories. Holmes knew baritsu (actually Bartitsu), a form of Japanese martial arts. See http://www.google.com/books?id=JvwNAAAAYAAJ&as_brr=1&pg=PA11#v=onepage&q=%22anxious%20to%20revenge%20himself%22&f=false

In addition, Holmes was known to be an expert in single stick and boxing. Doyle himself wrote that.

Scott Monty, BSI
Member, the Baker Street Irregulars
http://bakerstreetblog.com
http://ihearofsherlock.com

Jo Manning

Upper class British men have a long tradition of studying boxing. In the Regency period, a gym in London run by a former boxer called Gentleman Jackson was a favorite spot for genteel fisticuffs. Not unusual for Holmes to have been a skilled boxer. Did not know about the martial arts training, though!

Phil Seo

As a long time fan of the old Sherlock Holmes stories (and someone who has never seen any other portrayal of the character), I have to say that it's true that Holmes was an excellent boxer, single stick fighter, fencer, and was in very good shape. In addition, Watson, the narrator of Holmes's stories, repeatedly states that the stories he chose were the ones that most exemplified the power of Holmes's deductive reasoning, and that he specifically excluded stories of a grander scale, of greater excitement, and of a more mysterious nature. From the sound of it, this movie could very well fit into the mythos of Sherlock Holmes. It's just not the sort of Holmes story that has been previously explored.

R

Blah = owned.

Coors Light

R = Rene Rodriguez

Capt.Equinox

Sorry guys, I was spoiled by Basil Rathbone. Downey in the trailers looks like he may be able to pull it off; but the Rathbone/Bruce offerings were able to be engaging at half the length and without the non-stop action being described here and in other reviews. Therefore, I will wait for Redbox and save the other 20 bucks for a nice steak.

SIDONIE

SORRY RENE DEAR BUT I LIKED AVATAR AND SHERLOCK HOLMES, BOTH TOOK ME TO A DIFFERENT PLANE OF LIFE FOR JUST A FEW HOURS AND IT FELT GOOD. BOTH ARE VISUALLY GORGEOUS TO LOOK AT AND SHOW A WORLD WE NOT KNOW, WHO CARES IF IT'S REAL OR NOT, WHO CARES IF IT'S TRUE OR NOT, THE FEAST IS IN THE MAKING OF AND RENDERING OF WHAT A WRITER AND A DIRECTOR WANTED, CHANNELED BY STUNNING ACTORS WHOSE JOBS WERE ONLY TO MAKE US DREAM A LITTLE. HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU!

Michael

I read the books and I've seen the new movie. If you think about the books and the movie as a different lens into the same character, it makes much more sense. The books sometimes allude to some of the characteristics we see in the movie, and now we see them through different eyes. I think it was a great modern take, stressed different character attributes (without completely eliminating the old ones), and quite enjoyable. I hope there will be a sequel.

soft

I was disapointed watching Sherlock Holmes, the story line reminded me of something for a 12 year old.

irene adler

HI SOFT!
YOU MUST HAVE HAD THE MIND OF A 3O YR OLD WHEN YOU WERE A 12 YR OLD! TOTALLY REMARKABLE!OOPS THAT WAS FOR THE MOVIE.

CPA Firm Efficiency

Sherlock Holmes is my favorite stories during my school days. Even now I am very eager to watch television serials or movies based on Sherlock Holmes.

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Copyright | About The Miami Herald | Advertise