Review: Sherlock Holmes

[3113]

Meaning the new movie with Robert Downey, jr.

I didn't love it. I didn't hate it. I didn't find it offensive, but I didn't find it worthy of enthusiasm either. Which is sad, because I do think there are things right with the film.

Downey isn't the greatest Holmes that ever was, but he's a sympathetic Holmes, fun and eccentric and you like him (though I'm sure Holmes experts will argue that he's not very Holmesian or not true enough to the character--and they're right!). Jude Law, likewise, is a sympathetic, and very intelligent and shrewd Watson. There is a lot of action, but I didn't mind that--though sometimes the action/fighting sequences went on way too long.

The two together have a lot of fun banter--in fact, banter is what the movie does best. It's very verbally clever. Meanwhile, London feels London-y and Victorian-ish, and the director does have a clever trick for showing the audience how Holmes thinks.

For all that, the story just "eh." I mean very "eh." This is because they unwisely went for a big-bad-change-the-world type caper that Holmes has to stop rather than a small case that he has to figure out. And into this convoluted caper they poured every mystery and flashy trick they could imagine, leaving it very cluttered--also feeling a little like there's deus ex machina explanations rather than realistic ones. Another big problem.

You see, when you read or watch a Sherlock Holmes story, you want the explanation to be clever but realistic and simple. Like, the person made prints by walking on stilts with over-sized shoes. You don't want every other explanation to be "They used this rare chemical that does x, and that rare chemical to do y...." It's a might convent for the bad guy to have this or that rare flower from Turkey. The audience has to say, "Gosh, how clever, why didn't I think of that?" Not, "Maybe I should have majored in chemistry..."

I wish I could tell you all to rush out and see it but...no. Wait till the holidays are over, you've got a free afternoon, nothing else to do, and discounted prices at the theater.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Yes!

Sherlock Holmes is a lateral thinker NOT a logical thinker, and lateral thinking is what produces clever discoveries. So the movie fails if Holmes works out the solution based on knowledge rather than re-arranging the pieces of the puzzle. Watson is supposed to be the logical member of the team NOT Holmes.

 

[Guest]

.......

You see, when you read or watch a Sherlock Holmes story, you want the explanation to be clever but realistic and simple. Like, the person made prints by walking on stilts with over-sized shoes. You don't want every other explanation to be "They used this rare chemical that does x, and that rare chemical to do y...." It's a might convent for the bad guy to have this or that rare flower from Turkey. The audience has to say, "Gosh, how clever, why didn't I think of that?" Not, "Maybe I should have majored in chemistry..."

I wish I could tell you all to rush out and see it but...no. Wait till the holidays are over, you've got a free afternoon, nothing else to do, and discounted prices at the theater.

After that, I think I will rent it when it comes out. My TV is big enough for me to feel like I am in a (very small) theater, and the drinks are cheaper with better food.

Netflix for ME!

 

[Liar]

You see, when you read or watch a Sherlock Holmes story, you want the explanation to be clever but realistic and simple. Like, the person made prints by walking on stilts with over-sized shoes. You don't want every other explanation to be "They used this rare chemical that does x, and that rare chemical to do y...." It's a might convent for the bad guy to have this or that rare flower from Turkey. The audience has to say, "Gosh, how clever, why didn't I think of that?" Not, "Maybe I should have majored in chemistry..."

It's the CSI syndrome. It was a fun schtick for a while, and it appealed to the geek in many of us. But good crime solving and mystery is much better when the audience is slapped in the face with an Occam's razor that everyone can realte to, instead of given a lecture on the mating habits of dung beetles in order to connect the dots.

 

[3113]

It's the CSI syndrome. It was a fun schtick for a while, and it appealed to the geek in many of us. But good crime solving and mystery is much better when the audience is slapped in the face with an Occam's razor that everyone can realte to, instead of given a lecture on the mating habits of dung beetles in order to connect the dots.

Quite right! There were some very CSI elements to this. So I guess it's Holmes CSI in regards to solving the mystery.

 

[trysail]

Jeremey Brett's portrayal of Holmes in Grenada Television's 1984-1994 productions (split into four series: The Adventures of ..., The Return of ..., The Case-Book of... and The Memoirs of... ) is absolutely SPECTACULAR. I'd love to know if the production earned a financial return because the quality of the productions is palpable in terms of sets, costumes, locations and props. It is obvious that little expense was saved in filming. Brett's performance and this production set a high water mark that will not be easily eclipsed by subsequent Holmes efforts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Brett

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Sherlock_Holmes_(TV_series)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Return_of_Sherlock_Holmes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case-Book_of_Sherlock_Holmes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Memoirs_of_Sherlock_Holmes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Sherlock_Holmes_(TV_series)

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Jeremey Brett's portrayal of Holmes in Grenada Television's 1984-1994 productions (split into four series: The Adventures of ..., The Return of ..., The Case-Book of... and The Memoirs of... ) is absolutely SPECTACULAR. I'd love to know if the production earned a financial return because the quality of the productions is palpable in terms of sets, costumes, locations and props. It is obvious that little expense was saved in filming. Brett's performance and this production set a high water mark that will not be easily eclipsed by subsequent Holmes efforts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Brett

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Sherlock_Holmes_(TV_series)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Return_of_Sherlock_Holmes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case-Book_of_Sherlock_Holmes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Memoirs_of_Sherlock_Holmes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Sherlock_Holmes_(TV_series)

I am in complete agreement. Jeremy Brett was the definitive Sherlock Holmes for this or any other generation. His sudden, premature death before the entire Holmes cycle could be completed was a tragedy to aficionados of the genre. Any other actor wishing to play Holmes will either study Brett's portrayal or fail. Downey has failed, either because he did not study Brett or because the screenwriter/director are idiots and set him up for failure. Holmes was capable of action when required but his essential appeal is intellectual. Trying to make him into a hero for the action movie demographic is a truly bad choice, except possibly from a fiduciary standpoint. But then, whenever Hollywood does not make a bad decision I am very pleasantly surprised. This film is what I expect.

 

[VeritasMaximus]

Oh well, you've gotta figure that since it was Guy Ritchie who directed the film it's not going to be exactly the most authentic approach to representing Holmes. Ritchie is a bang-bang, shoot-em-up and do it all really fast kind of director, so I don't think I'll be seeing this one.

My personal favorite of all the cinematic approaches to the character is "Dr. Bell and Mr. Doyle," starring the wonderfully witty Ian Richardson.

 

[tolyk]

As a person who has never really been a Holmes fan, I quite enjoyed the fast paced action feel of the movie. I enjoyed the "magic" aspect, as a fan of fantasy, and then when it was all spelled out how the magic was achieved, I didn't feel dumb for not guessing it.

I intentionally try to shut my brain off during movies I'm seeing for the first time. I don't try to anticipate what's about to happen (except with Horror movies, I just can't not predict a horror movie. Today's Horror genre is entirely too predictable) so I just sit back and enjoy the movie. I found the portrayal of Sherlock by Downey quite enjoyable.

You're right about the fight scenes though, a bit over the top. I did enjoy his thought processes during the fight though.

 

[CharleyH]

Meaning the new movie with Robert Downey, jr.

I didn't love it. I didn't hate it. I didn't find it offensive, but I didn't find it worthy of enthusiasm either. Which is sad, because I do think there are things right with the film.

Downey isn't the greatest Holmes that ever was, but he's a sympathetic Holmes, fun and eccentric and you like him (though I'm sure Holmes experts will argue that he's not very Holmesian or not true enough to the character--and they're right!). Jude Law, likewise, is a sympathetic, and very intelligent and shrewd Watson. There is a lot of action, but I didn't mind that--though sometimes the action/fighting sequences went on way too long.

The two together have a lot of fun banter--in fact, banter is what the movie does best. It's very verbally clever. Meanwhile, London feels London-y and Victorian-ish, and the director does have a clever trick for showing the audience how Holmes thinks.

For all that, the story just "eh." I mean very "eh." This is because they unwisely went for a big-bad-change-the-world type caper that Holmes has to stop rather than a small case that he has to figure out. And into this convoluted caper they poured every mystery and flashy trick they could imagine, leaving it very cluttered--also feeling a little like there's deus ex machina explanations rather than realistic ones. Another big problem.

You see, when you read or watch a Sherlock Holmes story, you want the explanation to be clever but realistic and simple. Like, the person made prints by walking on stilts with over-sized shoes. You don't want every other explanation to be "They used this rare chemical that does x, and that rare chemical to do y...." It's a might convent for the bad guy to have this or that rare flower from Turkey. The audience has to say, "Gosh, how clever, why didn't I think of that?" Not, "Maybe I should have majored in chemistry..."

I wish I could tell you all to rush out and see it but...no. Wait till the holidays are over, you've got a free afternoon, nothing else to do, and discounted prices at the theater.

I went into this movie expecting good, fresh popcorn (it was so good I had to hit Lauren's hand for dipping and whisper, 'you should have gotten your own!). The story was typical, I really wasn't expecting more than that, but I was impressed with the interpretations of Holmes and Watson as done by Downey and Law.

I LOVED that Watson wasn't just a dude following Holmes like a puppy. I adored that Holmes was an addict and Watson was always there to pick up the pieces when he was high. LOVED the interaction between the two of them. I didn't expect a good mystery (I don't think I've seen a good mystery since 'Murder on the Orient Express') and maybe that's why I just sat back, watched the film, enjoyed the characters and the humour and went out of the theatre saying ... yep, it was worth €4.50.

 

[3113]

Downey has failed

Um, no, he hasn't "failed" not unless YOU expected him to be Brett or Brett-like in his portrayal. I didn't go in there expecting that and I think anyone who does go into this movie expecting that is downright stupid.

Downey is an interpretation of Holmes--and there's been plenty of them in the past. Some that fans like and forgive the liberties taken, some that fans hate and don't forgive the liberties taken. But every fan pretty much knew way ahead of time that this wasn't going to be straight-from-the-book-Basil-Rathbone-oriented Sherlock Holmes.

So there is no "failure." An actor takes parts. He does those parts to the best of his ability according to the screenplay, director and such. He either succeeds or fails to bring that character to life given that screenplay. I think he brought THIS Sherlock Holmes to life quite successfully. Just because he didn't bring YOUR Sherlock Holmes to life instead doesn't make what he did a failure.

As for the movie, the one thing British actors have wisely learned is that their acting can be good and successful even if the movie is a failure. I do think this movie is a failure, but I wouldn't pin that on Downey who, along with Jude Law, carried the movie along as much as it could be carried. I blame the screenwriters and Director for the movie's failure.

 

[TE999]

I think I'll wait until the book comes out.

ps: Jeremy Brett is/was Holmes. I'm guessin' Arthur Conan Doyle would have approved of him wholeheartedly.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

I dunno that I would cut an actor quite so much slack, 3. Admittedly that even Downy and Judd have to eat and if their lifestyle gets away from their income then taking any turkey of a part that comes along is understandable. However, they should at least do their homework. Playing Holmes as a roughneck drug addict is about like attempting to play Lear as a basso buffe. The character's personality is so well defined in the literature that there has to be a very good explanation for why you've made him different. Laurie King does this superbly in The Beekeeper's Apprentice series. I don't see such an explanation in the film.

So, if by 'success' you choose to mean that they turned out performances that are appealing in spite of the idiocy of the screenwriters and director, then perhaps the actors have succeeded--even though the characters fail.

It's a 14-30 male demographic flick---again.

 

[BlackShanglan]

I had the staggeringly bizarre coincidence of having just read about rhododendron (and oleander) toxins being transmitted through honey the night before I watched the movie. I felt as if I'd been singled out to have the plot somewhat simplified for me.

I quite liked the movie. The chemical explanations do get a bit arcane, but I liked that they'd clearly done their homework and made them as accurate as possible, and that they'd quite neatly caught the sense of wonderment and fear that a Victorian might have felt at what is, to us, a very everyday sort of technological device. I also liked the way Ritchie incorporated a variety of real life turn-of-the-century foibles like secret arcane societies and the Jack the Ripper killings.

Best of all, I found the Holmes-Watson relationship excellent. I especially like the attack of Victorian reserve that comes over them following Watson's close brush with death. They're cuttingly witty in the face of danger, but affection merits the most awkward of pauses. It's of a piece with Holmes's nicely gauged attacks of manners and reserve in the presence of Irene Adler; I felt that Ritchie had done a good job off trying to capture some of the spirit of the age and some of the humanity of the characters with some lapses into good behavior at telling moments.

Good music, as well, and some nice choices in visuals. Even the credits were interesting. And this is all from a die-hard Holmes fan. It's true that some liberties are taken, for example with the backgrounds and characters of Ms. Adler and the soon-to-be Ms. Watson, but I say all to the good; where factual truth to the canon was let slip, it was nearly always to the advantage of the emotional and personal truth of the characters.

I do think 3113 has a good point on the size of the caper; my favorite Holmes stories have always been the cases that start and/or end small personal.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Hugh Laurie woulda made an excellent Sherlock Holmes.

 

[Boota]

I'm interested in seeing this because it does look different. If it's not a different take I see no point in making or watching a movie on Sherlock Holmes. Maybe I'll like it, maybe not. To see Robert Downey Jr. doing impressions of people who played Sherlock Holmes in the past would be a complete waste of time. He's too good at what he does not to let him roll with it.

 

[BlackShanglan]

Playing Holmes as a roughneck drug addict is about like attempting to play Lear as a basso buffe. The character's personality is so well defined in the literature that there has to be a very good explanation for why you've made him different.

I have to disagree with this. Holmes's manners were never good - that scene of him blasting the initials "V. R." (for Victoria Regina) into the wall of their living quarters is taken directly from the original works, as is his skill at bare-knuckle boxing and his carefree examination of deadly chemical compounds in the dining room. Indeed, I was surprised that they didn't more specifically include his use of cocaine until I recalled that they were aiming for a family audience. Watson remarks more than once on Holmes's trips into the most disreputable parts of the city and his ability to melt instantly into the raffish backdrop. I saw nothing in the movie that didn't make sense when placed side by side with the books; Watson is, after all, an ex-military man, so his skill in fighting is logical as well.

But if one does care to see the Holmes of this movie as more rough-edged than the books entirely suggest, there is actually an explanation built right into the movie. Near the movie's end, we see movers carrying Watson's belongings into his new home. One of them asks where to put a large trunk of books and papers, which he shows to Watson and Mary. Mary asks about the papers and clearly indicates to the viewers that these are the notes Watson will eventually turn into his memoirs of Holmes, i.e. the novels and short stories in which Holmes appears. That positions this movie and its events before the Holmes books and in a sort of unedited-by-Watson, real-life scenario; we are seeing the raw truth, which Watson will later gently edit to make his own role more modest and Holmes's lapses more gentle. In fact, we see in the movie exactly the sort of raw material that a middle-class Victorian man with some sense of tact and decorum would turn into Watson's stories (in other words, the Holmes canon).

Quite a neat little trick, when you think of it.

 

[Pure]

thanks!

3113 and shanglan and other posters.

i think i will definitely see this version!

 

[BlackShanglan]

I'm interested in seeing this because it does look different. If it's not a different take I see no point in making or watching a movie on Sherlock Holmes. Maybe I'll like it, maybe not. To see Robert Downey Jr. doing impressions of people who played Sherlock Holmes in the past would be a complete waste of time. He's too good at what he does not to let him roll with it.

I've got to agree with you here. I love Brett's work; I just love it enough that I don't want to watch someone else trying to imitate it. A bad imitation would be agonizing, and a good imitation merely "eh - seen it before." The real joy of seeing someone new and gifted in a role is seeing what he will make of it. When acting is very good, it's like a brilliant work of literary insight as well.

I felt much the same about the Depp "Sweeny Todd." Of course it was impossible not to compare him to others I'd seen in the role, but the real joy was seeing what he did to make it his own. Certainly he's by far the best at conveying what about the character made Mrs. Lovett remember him for a decade and a half.

Now ... here's my wish, although I'm sure I won't get it. Wouldn't Alan Rickman make a wonderful Moriarty?

 

[cloudy]

Now ... here's my wish, although I'm sure I won't get it. Wouldn't Alan Rickman make a wonderful Moriarty?

He would be perfect! Rickman does evil/smart better than anyone else I've ever seen.

(I'm very much looking forward to seeing Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter)

 

[3113]

Now ... here's my wish, although I'm sure I won't get it. Wouldn't Alan Rickman make a wonderful Moriarty?

He would but after playing Snape for so long, perhaps he's a bit weary of the nefarious-professor role?

 

[BlackShanglan]

He would but after playing Snape for so long, perhaps he's a bit weary of the nefarious-professor role?

True, true, but at least he could break out of a whisper. He must be dying to do that. *laugh*

 

[glynndah]

He would but after playing Snape for so long, perhaps he's a bit weary of the nefarious-professor role?

True, true, but at least he could break out of a whisper. He must be dying to do that. *laugh*

And wash his hair, too. I'm getting really tired of that Snape slime.

 

[Loring2]

Hey good thinking

Hugh Laurie woulda made an excellent Sherlock Holmes.

By Jove I believe you've struck it Johnson. Even looks a bit like Brett and e's a Brit bloke too
good go guvenor

 

[3113]

By Jove I believe you've struck it Johnson. Even looks a bit like Brett and e's a Brit bloke too
good go guvenor

Hugh Laurie already is Sherlock Holmes in case you hadn't noticed The show is called "House" rather than "Holmes" but an incarnation of Sherlock Holmes is what he is in that show and has always been--obviously and unapologetically so (House = Homes = Holmes. Get it?). It'd be redundant in the extreme for him to play Holmes after his role as House.