Sherlock Holmes
(December 2009)
Is a predictable detective story that we all know, and may have seen several versions of already really worth seeing again (or for the first time) in 2010? Yes.
The latest take on Sherlock Holmes is directed by Guy Ritchie (RocknRolla, Snatch) and set in 1891 London, England—complete with a 221b Baker St.. The twist that makes this particular version currently relevant and interesting is that the “bad guys” aren't necessarily out for normal 'bad guy' things, they're all about using Fear (capital “F”) deceit, and conformity as weapons, and as a means of control over England's parliament and citizens. They give a solid nod to current global politics and their historical contexts. The driving motive on the evil side is power, and reclaiming the fledgling United States as a rightful colony.
This version features a giant ax-wielding henchman and midgets (excuse me, dwarfs) one of which is, very predictably, in a coffin. The new number one bad guy is a black magic murderer named Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), Holmes (Robert Downey, Jr.) is a frumpy, near miss genius with a knack for boxing and offending people, Dr. Watson (Jude Law) is a fastidious man of action with a secretly maternal spirit and a spending problem.
The movie opens with a tedious, over-done chase scene. The most difficult thing about watching the movie might just be its slow motion, hyper-styled, talked through fight scenes. The only redeeming quality they posses is that Holmes narrates his train of through, and it becomes clear that even his fighting strategy is a methodical scientific experiment. Once the opening yawn-fest is over, things pick up with a hilarious wit-swapping between Holmes and Watson. Nimble banter between the pair is at least 75% of what makes the movie a joy to sit through. It doesn't take a detective to deduce that there is something of a bro-mance between the leading men. Holmes is profoundly upset that Watson is planning to get married and break-up the mystery-solving partnership.
The females portrayed in Sherlock Holmes are woeful, they hung on the movie like a damp, heavy tent. The two scenes between Watson and his fiance Mary (Kelly Reilly) were sparse, dry and completely unnecessary. I did not believe for a moment that they really care about each other, and their relationship did not develop enough over the course of the movie to provide any evidence one way or the other. Holmes nemesis, Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) had promise as a brilliant femme fatale, but as the movie progressed she seemed flat.
If you're looking for a straightforward murder mystery in which the good guy will absolutely prevail; if you're looking for a second hand thrill where you can be certain of coming out unaffected; if you're looking to enjoy someone's company and a few laughs at a smart date movie, then Sherlock Holmes will certainly help pass a winter afternoon, but don't bother if you want a particularly significant, moving experience.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I hate to disagree but I feel that the slow motion shots are not only well done in terms of cinematography but not overdone at all only being used twice. In fact, the one thing that the group I watched the movie in could agree on in the entire film was that this effect was not overdone.
ReplyDeleteSpot on, though, on your Kelly Reily observation; worst part of the movie for me.
My gripes are both many and just, as a long time Holmes reader. 1. Holmes is fastidious in the extreme. 2. Holmes is not only a respected and known genius, but patronized by royalty and has a brother who secretly runs the British government behind the scenes. 3. Fear and deceit were certainly weapons of Moriarty in the real stories. My list can continue, but siffice to say I plan to give it all a miss as a bad mistake. More post-post modern failure to update a subject which needs no updating by introducing 21st century sexuality and CGI to what was once an interesting character and set of stories...
ReplyDeleteI like your style a lot. I'm glad that you brought up the relevance to modern day, though I'm curious about your last paragraph. I never got the sense that that would be how you would end the article. I would have liked to have read more about why you didn't find the film to be incredibly meaningful, especially given your very apt points about the villains using Fear, and other culturally relevant issues today. That said, I think that this film is good for all of the things you said it is.
ReplyDelete