Ryan McNeil
When one thinks of the legend that is Sherlock Holmes, what comes to mind? Probably hunting caps, magnifying glasses, and cries of “Elementary!”, no? Well, if that’s you’re impression of the legendary sleuth, then lordy are you ever in for a surprise. These days, Holmes is a bare-knuckle boxer, a master of disguise, and an action hero…and none of that is a bad thing.
We are dropped into a ritual killing, one that is narrowly averted by private detective Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downie Jr) and Dr. Watson (Jude Law). The evil mastermind at work is Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), and for his misdeeds he is sentenced to death by hanging. Ever the worthy adversary, it would appear as though it will take more than a trip to the gallows to stop Blackwood. Indeed three days after his execution, his tomb has been broken open, and now sits empty.
Holmes and Watson begrudgingly follow the case, I say begrudgingly because both seem to have other things on their minds. Watson is in the process of branching off on his own and marrying Mary Morstan (Kelly Reilly). Holmes meanwhile tries to keep it together as he is called upon by Miss Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams); a young turtledove with whom he has a history. Specifically, she has conned/manipulated/royally screwed hiom twice already in the past.
Regardless, justice must be done. Thus Holmes and Watson work to solve the case which sets them squarely against a secret society in London’s upper class. Together they try to prevent more murders at Blackwood’s hand…but how can they bring him to justice, when they’re led to believe that he’salready dead?
While nobody will be mentioning this in the same breath as Guy Ritchie’s biggest films, it’s still a welcome sight to see the Brit director bringing us worthy offerings. With SHERLOCK HOLMES, he manages to rise above ‘hired gun’ status, but doesn’t give the movie the sort of vision he’s capable of. Ask yourself, how much would you pay to watch Holmes and Watson trying to work their way through the world of LOCK STOCK or SNATCH? Then again, he’s already signed on for the sequel, so perhaps it will serve as the good copy to this movie’s rough draft.
What makes the movie work best is the relationship between Holmes and Watson, and the chemistry Downey and Law display. They have taken the partnership in a different direction, one more befitting of an old married couple than of crimestopping brilliance. It’s a great touch – so much so that the case often feels like a distraction. Many a time I felt myself antsy at scenes designed to explain scientific CSI work. I wanted them to be over quickly so law and Downey could start bickering over who loaned who a shirt.
Then again, squabbles over testing anaesthetics may be swell, but it’s hard to argue with many of the suspense scenes in the movie. Purists might argue, but I enjoyed watching Holmes perform feats of daring-do. Specifically, I think of scenes that feature duels on the under-construction London Bridge, or narrow escapes from slaughterhouse boobie traps. Were it not for these well-executed and tense moments, the whole movie might have only felt like a very special episode of “CSI: London”.
I went into SHERLOCK HOLMES with very high hopes. To be clear, I enjoyed it, and do recommend it…but yet I couldn’t shake the feeling that it was lacking something. Reflecting on it these last few days, it has dawned on me – the film doesn’t allow itself to have any fun. None of the three principle actors come out to play in ways that they have in the past, despite the faintest of teases from scene to scene. The movie succeeds despite its stick-in-the-mud nature, but I can’t help but wonder “what might have been”…
I'm going out to see SH this weekend, but I'm not sold on how much I'll enjoy it. Though I prefer my Holmes the old school way I do highly look forward to seeing RDJ and Law (whose been way underused recently) go at it.
Excellent review. I felt the exact same way about the movie. Guy Ritchie doesn't allow the film to breathe. Well, at least there is a lot of things to improve on in the sequel 🙂
I thought we were going to see this one together.
Thanks for waiting!
@ Univarn… Sorta seems strange that Law is underused, given that just a few years back he was in every third film released.
@ Castor… He just needs to let them come out and play. It'll all be alright.
@ Cheshire… My bad – I got crossed up. I owe ya one.
Really good review. I threw mine together quickly as it was that busy end of year time and I had seen two films in a day and wanted to get my thoughts on paper quickly.
Whilst Snatch and Lock Stock…. were great films in their day they (especially Lock Stock) are showing their age a little and in the nearly ten years that followed Snatch Guy Ritchie really lost his way. Of his other movies I didn’t see Swept Away (who did?), Revolver was incoherent, esoteric crap. RocknRolla was pretty good but a safe return to his “cockney geezer” roots that can’t stand up to the solid filmmaking of Layer Cake that he turned down.
You say in the review: “While nobody will be mentioning this in the same breath as Guy Ritchie's biggest films” in terms of budget and revenue it is by far his biggest film and certainly his best since Snatch. I think the confines of the period setting, source material and being a 'hired gun' director actually help him creatively in the same way the limited budget helped him on Lock Stock. The same thing happened to Spike Lee with Summer of Sam and Inside Man at times when he was struggling creatively.
Not sure if you have seen it but this is my review:
http://fandangogroovers.wordpress.com/2009/12/29/elementary/
Written before the sequel was announced! My only fear is after the sequel we will get a change of director (and possibly) cast to cash in on an origin story.
I certainly didn't hate it, but it seemed slight for a studio tentpole and I didn't care for the soft-focus, 1.85:1 photography, either. 1:85 for blockbusters doesn't work for me at all.
I thought Hans Zimmer's score was the beating heart of the whole film, though, it was wonderful.
I know you already got one of these, but what the hell, I nominated you for a Kreativ Blogger award anyway. Your site rocks, what can I say? Well done, good sir.
@ No. 6… I kinda struggled with writing that one, so I'm glad you like. I haven't seen LOCK STOCK in a while, but watched SNATCH few weeks back and have to say that from my Canadian perspective, it holds up pretty darned well!
You're right – When I mentioned Ritchie's "biggest films", i should have said "Best received"…specifically his first two. Indeed it is his most financially successful – and let's hope that's a sign that studios will hand him the reigns a bit more often!
hadn't read your review yet (nothing personal, if I'm gonna see it, I wait until after I've written mine), but will give it a look very soon – thanks for the link!
@ Chase… OK, now you have my attention. Explain to me your aspect ratio preferenec, because I don't think that's something I've paid much attention to in the past.
@ Aiden… Already commented back on your blog, but indeed, thanks again.
Hated it. I thought the movie was too dark (in the sense there wasn´t light enough to me see clearly what was happening), the story was confusing and uninteresting, characters were not captvating.
In short, a really bad movie that I´d recommend to people I don´t like (like Natalia Floripes).
I think I'd have liked this more if Jude was Sherlock. Not that I've seen it yet, but this could have worked well as a subtle thriller than an action whatever which is what it looks like. I'll see what happens.
Lock Stock…was very good the first time I saw it. I think it warrants a rewatch…if only I can find it.
I liked your review and think I would have to agree that there was a little something missing. It was still enjoyable and I look forward to the next. There were lots of good elements too. By the way, the fight is on, the under construction, Tower Bridge not London Bridge. Thats the next bridge down.
When one thinks of the legend that is Sherlock Holmes, what comes to mind? Probably hunting caps, magnifying glasses, and cries of "Elementary!", no? Well, if that's you're impression of the legendary sleuth, then lordy are you ever in for a surprise. These days, Holmes is a bare-knuckle boxer, a master of disguise, and an action hero…and none of that is a bad thing.
Someone had pointed out in a LIVE JOURNAL blog that all of those elements were present in many of the Sherlock Holmes novels. Strange that they did not appear in previous Holmes movies.
My only problem with this movie was the beginning. I never understood why those girls were being murdered. If the movie did explain, they didn't make it clear. Other than that, I loved it.
@ Piroca… Whatever.
@ Andrew… I actually liked Downey and Law in the parts they were given. A Law Holmes would have changed the rhythm a bit too much.
Why can't you find LOCK STOCK?
@ Escole… Thanks for the correction – I'll edit the review shortly.
@ Rush… I got a small smile at the fact that you left this comment in three different places, but still – thanks for reading.
As for the girls, they were being murdered as a sacrifice in a secret society ritual that we weren't meant to understand.
The style of Ritchie didn't quite fit the original source material, but still made for a great viewing.