Den of Geek

Sherlock Holmes review

Simon Brew


Robert Downey Jr turns Sherlock Holmes into an action hero in Guy Ritchie’s new take on the famous character…

Published on Dec 16, 2009

Given that Sherlock Holmes is about the most filmed literary character of all time, it was always going to be a bit of a struggle to find too many new angles for a modern day fresh blockbuster movie to explore. And thus Warner Bros took a chance. It cast Robert Downey Jr in front of the camera, and put Guy Ritchie behind it. It's fair to say that it wins one gamble, and struggles more with the other.

The first half of the film is where it's at its weakest. Opening - if you discount the brief but fun cobblestone credits - with Sherlock Holmes being chased through the streets of London, we soon arrive at a fight scene that makes your heart fall through the floor instantly. Fast edits? Yep. Exaggerated bursts of speed? Yep. The general feeling that you're watching a videogame play out? You better believe it. For Ritchie spends much of the early part of the film priming Holmes as an action movie hero before he can get down to the true detective work.

This is not a wise move. We get a couple of scenes where Holmes explains in detail how he's going to take down his assailant, which he then does, before this whole idea is left alone for the second half of the film. If you're wondering what the point of such fighting segments was, you're not alone. It's as if Ritchie decided to chuck as much testosterone at the screen in the first half as he could, before someone had a quiet word in his ear. It feels like historical Fight Club at one point.

Fortunately, in time the plot comes along to jolly things along. Here, we meet Lord Blackthorn, who is hung and pronounced dead by Jude Law's Doctor Watson. Only shortly after, he's then reported as seen walking around alive and well, and his tomb doesn't quite contain what it should. Is this witchcraft? The occult? That's for Holmes and Watson to work out, and the film eventually allows them to do so. And after a fairly flat first half, things splutter into life perfectly well.

The masterstroke here, of course, is casting Robert Downey Jr in the title role. He makes much of his surprisingly slight dialogue, in a script that's quite low on humour and heavy on babble. He's aided in the film, of course, by Watson, but not helped particularly by Jude Law, whose character is rarely given much to do. Crucially, it never really feels like a double act at work, either, and not much convincing explanation is provided as to why Watson continues to follow Holmes round like a lap dog.

Rachel McAdams as Irene Adler doesn't fare much better. She disappears for most of the film, flitting in as Holmes' former love interest before turning up mainly for the final act.

That proves to be a wise move, too, as it's in the second half when Sherlock Holmes settles down and finally starts to enjoy itself. When Guy Ritchie focuses his camera on simply telling a detective story wrapped around solid action sequences (one of which the creators of Saw would be well advised to photocopy, and another, in a ship yard, is genuinely brilliant), the film pulls itself into three star territory.

Inevitably, the clues to the bigger mystery are contained within, but when Downey Jr is finally allowed to get down to solving the case, the potential of this new Holmes is unleashed. Even then, you have to offset a surprisingly underwritten villain (played perfectly well by Mark Strong), who has to battle to keep your attention when a greater foe is regularly hinted at.

It's a bit of a scattergun film. It asks you to sit through very modern moments of cinematic style before finally slowing things down to allow you to enjoy what you came for.

Ritchie, to be fair, pulls off a few strong moments, but rarely feels like the ideal choice to helm the material. His directorial style is way too showy at times, and while he's a director of talent, he's not a perfect match for good chunks of the picture.

Sherlock Holmes, nonetheless, is a sumptuous and clearly expensive production, with many scenes brimming with extras and glistening with detail. But it's inevitably its lead actor who drags it by the coat tails into a decent night out at the pictures. There's a natural charm and sense of fun to Robert Downey Jr that fits the role of Sherlock Holmes like a glove, able to switch on the serious when he needs to crack various facets of the case, while always remembering to gently have some fun with the proceedings.

As you might expect, the last few minutes are spent busily teasing a sequel, which wouldn't, in hindsight, be too bad a prospect. But for a Sherlock Holmes 2 to work, Guy Ritchie could use showing a bit more belief in the written material, and Jude Law and Rachel McAdams really need something more to do.

Above all, though, they need to get Downey Jr back. He's the best reason to watch this film, and you suspect he'll be the best reason to watch the next one too.

A bit more of a focus on the detective work wouldn't hurt, either....

3 stars

 

Tags

Users Comments

Re: Sherlock Holmes review
Posted By mugwump 1 December 17, 2009 07:56:45 AM

Sounds like a Guy Ritchie film, i.e. basically rubbish. But then saved from being a right Christmas turkey by RDJ, who is the coolest guy around nowadays.

Re: Sherlock Holmes review
Posted By hristinho18 1 January 1, 2010 09:57:34 PM

Agreeing with much of this review, I still enjoyed this movie. I enjoy most Ritchie films- barring his one with "The Missus" and Revolver was more miss than hit- but this doesnt really feel like a Ritchie movie for most of the time. Breaking the mould that film and TV has set for Sherlock Holmes over the last 90 years takes some time. No deerstalker worn by a retiree-age Holmes, no fat bumbling Watson... but this was never in the original stories at all. Holmes is a brilliant and resourceful man, who can kick the shit out of anyone stupid enough to have a go. This movie gives us that Holmes, if a little patchily. Like Iron Man, RDJ lets us love an preconceived-but redfined- character, with charm and wit and vulnerability- establishing that rare situation where despite the greenscreen and slo-mo and exploding of expensive Victorian London sets, you want to see sequels for the character and the actor playing him. Bring on Holmes 2.

Re: Sherlock Holmes review
Posted By Potterhead13 1 December 22, 2011 07:14:01 PM

The villain's called BlackWOOD, not Blackthorn

Re: Sherlock Holmes review
Posted By DoctorWhoGirl 1 January 21, 2012 11:53:32 PM

Not the best Sherlock Holmes addaptation ever, but certainly worth watching. Once you deduct the overly showy action sequences and rather bad use of Adlers charecter, it' really rather splendid.
Post a Comment
Security Code* Get another image
 
 
Sherlock Holmes poster

Sherlock Holmes

Untitled Document

Follow Den of Geek on

Related Articles

SEARCH

Coke Zero
Advertisement