Sherlock Holmes (2009)

[cinemabon]

For many years, I have enjoyed watching Robert Downey, Jr. mature on the screen from an impetuous youth to a fine mature consumate actor. Like Streep and others, I find his facials subtle and his take in scenes valuable to drive plot forward. He is always a joy to watch, for me that is. Yet, he is far from being probable as London's most famous consulting detective, Sherlock Holmes, a man of distinction, of particular habits (or lack thereof), and not the rough ungainly person we see here. Nor would Holmes seek out a boxing match as a way to make money for his friend Watson and use martial arts moves not discovered in the west until after World War II.

That said, this new "Sherlock Holmes" directed by ex-Mr. Madonna, Guy Ritchie, is an adventurous romp through London of the 1890's. While the sets and costumes are so good, they deserve Oscar consideration (along with Hans Zimmers' score), the film's plot and characterizations are far removed from the gentlemanly nature of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's fictional character. This Holmes lives in squallor, dresses like a street thug, and yet still retains that unique singular quality that makes him so brilliant, his powers of deduction. However, Holmes lived in an upper class world while able to mix at times with the underclasses through diguise. Not this Holmes, he wears clothes that do not fit and exhibits horrible manners, something an Englishman of his class and in that era would never do.

The plot is a mess of very bad writing. The setting pits a perverted and evil English Lord against Holmes, who must try to uncover the Lord's cultish plot to subvert London's masses and (what? Oh, no!) take over the world. That aspect of the plot is horrible and detracts from the rest of the film. In a series of rather interesting retakes, Ritchie uses shots of slow motion action with Downey speaking in a voice over as to how he will solve various puzzles. This works well for a film whose basis is one of action and not substance. However, in the Doyle novels, Holmes does most of his reasoning in his room quietly smoking a pipe, not brawling with street thugs and using Watson as his kung fu side kick - highly improbable, eh Watson?

But when the team of five writers throws in Irena Addler as a previous Holmes' lover and gives her martial arts powers, too, the film transcends the novels and stretches the limits of credulity for this fan. For I have read and re-read and re-read the stories many times, have all of their incarnations, and love everything that is Sherlock Holmes. Doyle would have sued if he saw this mess. So I put my prejudices aside and tried to look at the movie from an action point of view... and still could not abide by its premise, that Holmes is a superhuman both physically and mentally. In the novels, he knew his physical limitations, and often employed others to do his "brute" thinking for him. However, Robert Downy, Jr's character does it all... too much to be real. I like the sets, the costumes, the music and Downy. The rest, well, is not good. Recommended only for those who wish superficial escapism. Otherwise, it stinks.

[Chris Knipp]

http://imagizer.imageshack.us/v2/640x480q90/536/SVs28Z.jpg
ROBERT DOWNEY JR. AND JUDE LAW IN SHERLOCK HOLMES:
EVERYTHING MATTERS BUT CHARACTER, THEME, AND STORY

Guy Ritchie: Sherlock Holmes (2009)

Review by Chris Knipp

Not bad, for a travesty

On the one hand turning Arthur Conan Doyle's cerebral Victorian detective into a scruffy action hero is a terrible idea (and formally speaking, a travesty). On the other hand, Robert Downey, Jr. and Jude Law (as Holmes and Watson) are (however dubious the conception) excellent in their roles, and this is the most coherent, as well as the most expensive, film the ham-handedly hip British director Guy Ritchie, perhaps most famous as Madonna's ex, has ever done.

Having been steeped in Sherlock Holmes stories as a youth, I can recognize all the many trappings, characters, and ideas of the originals that are carried over into this Christmas Day blockbuster, while finding none of the original atmosphere and personalities here at all. Partly my sense of outrage is due to reading at least a very large chunk of an old but richly satisfying Complete Sherlock Holmes, a thick volume on tissue-thin India paper. Partly it's due to seeing various previous Holmes incarnations on film, which go back over a century. The preeminent incarnation was undoubtedly Basil Rathbone's tall, deep-voiced, long-faced version, with the big meerschaum pipe (now taken over by Tarantino's juicy Nazi villain Col. Landa), the tweeds, the cape-like overcoat, the deerstalker hat, and the traditional lines, of which "Elementary, my dear Watson" is the most famous. Above all it was the voice, rich, resonant, elegantly West End English, utterly authoritative. Robert Downey Jr.'s staccato delivery is witty. It's not always quite audible. He's thrown away the deerstalker and the meerschaum for a straight black pipe and a bowler. And that's fine because he doesn't seem anything like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Holmes. Downey Jr. likes to toss off his lines; sometimes they fall before we've caught them. He's bright and quick witted and his motormouthed manner has always been above all suited to keeping the ball rolling. He does that fine here, and he and Jude Law play off each other with excellent chemistry. It's all a lark. And a very well-tooled disaster. Because somehow the action of this actioner doesn't matter. The villain isn't really scary, the danger doesn't feel dangerous, the suspense isn't suspenseful. It's fast and skillful and complicated and loud and sometimes in its overly-dark processed way rather beautiful (like female interests Rachel McAdams and Kelly Reilly), but it doesn't grab you.

It's okay to design a modern Sherlock Holmes, I guess. But if you do, why steep your movie in Victorian atmosphere? Ritchie's costly film, rich in CGI and spectacular action set pieces, is set in the grimiest of 19th century Londons, with an elegantly slovenly Sherlock Holmes to match. Every moment and every scene is designed to tell us this is Sherlock Holmes, but every moment of every scene has elements in it to tell us that Sherlock Holmes is absolutely what this is not.

Traditionally Holmes is the quintessential intellectual sleuth. You've got that here. Robert Downey Jr's Holmes is a keen observer of detail; he can tell just by scrutinizing her person that Watson's fiancee has had a previous failed engagement -- much to her annoyance, and pointlessly; Watson already knew this. Holmes is also a clever inventor -- like his evil adversary, Lord Blackwood. (This individual is played by Mark Strong, who is the villain in two movies opening this week, this and Young Victoria, where he is the evil Lord Conroy. Is England short on villain material nowadays, or were all the other candidates working on a new political satire with Armando Iannucci and Peter Capaldi?)

Anyway, the trouble with Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes, which looks like it's set up for a sequel, judging by the way Holmes' perennial opponent Professor Moriarity is mentioned at the end, is not that anything whatsoever is left out. It's that nothing is left out, and on top of all the traditional trappings (slightly distorted, like turning the deerstalker into a bowler), too much is added, of a very distracting and inappropriate nature. All the details of 221B Baker Street and of Holmes and Watson, now locked into an amped-up love-hate relationship that needs a fiancée to save the pair from Brokeback Mountain overtones, are dutifully, if not lovingly, preserved, along with the rationcination and the battles of wits with a fiendishly malevolent opponent, only this has been plugged into an action movie matrix, with Holmes additionally transformed into a martial arts master skilled at bruising organs and smashing bones, and with this comes all the loud noise and speeded up and slowed down CGI-assisted footage and hypertrophied musical background complete with bangs and thumps. It's about like the way the disco team of Walter Murphy and the Big Apple Band redid Beethoven's Fifth Symphony as the bouncy dance tune called "A Fifth of Beethoven."

All this is great for action blockbuster fans. Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes is a relief from the ponderous over-signifying of the genre. This is a lark, though sometimes a brutal one. But mostly as A.O. Scott says this movie Sherlock has "loutish, laddish cool", and the movie is "a series of "poses and stunts" that are "intermittently diverting." But supposing you're a lover of Beethoven: how much will you get out of Walter Murphy and the Big Apple Band? Not a whole lot. And ultimately there's not a whole lot here, which, come to think of it, despite all the extra millions added in the production this time, has always been true of Guy Ritchie's movies. Some people aren't very good, and yet they keep getting promoted to better-paying jobs. But it's not that Ritchie has no talent, and certainly not true that he has no energy. But as somebody said, his trouble is he doesn't care about character, theme, or even storytelling; he only cares about being cool. Here, he doesn't care about the mystery. And that's the answer to the mystery of why this movie leaves you cold.

[tabuno]

I probably couldn't define the Title of this Post, it just sounds intellectually elegant. Not being a avid fan of Sherlock Holmes and never having read any of the stories, I came into this movie without the historical context of the literature and unlike MISSION IMPOSSIBLE (1996), the movie, which I detested when I compared it to the original television version but subsequently have been able to reconcile myself to experiencing the movie outside of the context of the original television series, perhaps I experienced this new version of SHERLOCK HOLMES as a movie experience in and of itself. Outside the few weaknesses such as the difficulty in understanding bits of the dialogue and some of the fight scenes being shot using a rather disconcerting photographic approach, this movie held an ominous, supernatural undertone that captured my occult senses in a way that no other Holmes movies or television episode has been able to. While not my favorite movie of the year, this movie makes my top ten list for its ability to immerse itself into a layered detailed and emotional riveting movie-going experience along with the elegant Holme's deduction logic what wraps up the movie in a fine fashion.

[Chris Knipp]

I am appalled at this opinion, though you're not by any means alone. It doesn't matter if you haven't read any of Conan Doyle; if you've seen other movies or TV versions of Holmes, you would know that the "action" and violent element is incongruous, but obviously of cynical box office value.

I'd agree with Salon.com's Stephanie Zacharek: "Entertaining in a glossy, mindless way." I can also understand a good friend (and veteran of movies in more ways than one; she grew up in the world of old Hollywood), who said it made her feel "battered."

At least I'm good you've found your way to the new, improved Filmleaf.

[tabuno]

I am appalled at this opinion, though you're not by any means alone. It doesn't matter if you haven't read any of Conan Doyle; if you've seen other movies or TV versions of Holmes, you would know that the "action" and violent element is incongruous, but obviously of cynical box office value.

I'd agree with Salon.com's Stephanie Zacharek: "Entertaining in a glossy, mindless way." I can also understand a good friend (and veteran of movies in more ways than one; she grew up in the world of old Hollywood), who said it made her feel "battered."

At least I'm good you've found your way to the new, improved Filmleaf.

Both Chris and Cinemabon go to great lengths to describe their own personal and perhaps extensive association and connection with the source material and literary background of Sherlock Holmes. In discussing the new manifestation of Sherlock Holmes, they don't seem to be successful in separating their judgmental observations of the current manifestation of the new movie from its source material and instead of focusing on the merits of the new movie on its own. Of course the issue of adherence to source material in adaptations is among one of the most hotly debated cinematic issues. Yet, if one considers the new version as "inspired" by Sir Conan Doyle, then the movie might be viewed in terms of its thematic impact that goes beyond the ominous occult horror genre this film projected over and above that of the famous Hounds of Baskerville episode of earlier Sherlock Holme fame. The new Downey, Jr. persona also provides Mr. Holmes with a character in some ways more appealing and inviting to the general public instead of the more remote and elitist version of traditional casting of this famed character. There is much to like both visually, musically, and substantively in this new, updated version.

[Chris Knipp]

Maybe Sure, yeah, if it was a really good movie. But it isn't.

[cinemabon]

I'm sorry, Tab, but what you are asserting makes no sense. How can you relate to a Sherlock Holmes film, or its derivative, unless you had some understanding or background about Holmes? This isn't some character like Santa Claus whose interpretation changes. Doyle specifically laid out everything "Holmes" in his novels. Almost every single adaptation has tried to be faithful to those works. This is the first Holmes, and I have seen every single film, tv show, and play in this regard, whose character lives in squallor, dresses like a ruffian, and goes about London fighting in Kung-fu style. It's not only absurd, its laughable. I said at the outstart that I like Robert Downy, Jr. I even like Jude Law. What I don't like is what Ritchie did to the Holmes character. The setting is perfect. The costumes very realistic. The score is great. Even the plot isn't that bad. But Holmes does not karate chop his way through difficulties. As a comparison, you'd have to take away Santa's belly, give him a black beard, smoke cigars, and... Oh, they tried that already...

[Chris Knipp]

Bad Santa.

Ha! Maybe instead of "Sherlock Holmes," they should have called this one "Bad Sherlock." It's true, we know a great deal about Sherlock Holmes from what Sir Arthur Conan Doyle showed us. Dramatizations have varied in details, but the essentials of the man's lifestyle, personal history, and manner have had to be faithfully followed. One thing he isn't is a man who solves problems with king fu and fisticuffs. It's not really even a matter of debate. Everybody likes Downey Jr and Jude Law -- in other movies (and Jude Law even played Hamlet recently in London and New York -- to generally positive reviews). Whether this is a good plot is more uncertain. Otherwise you have stated the case very well and I completely agree. Actually, going by the trailers, I was expecting worse, but I was still bored silly. Rex Reed's review (http://www.observer.com/2009/culture/sir-arthur-conan-doyle-must-be-turning-over-his-grave) tells the story: "Sir Arthur Conan Doyle must be turning over in his grave."

[Michuk]

The actors played well, but their performances fit a different movie. Just as the film inside a film in Almodovar's "Broken Embraces", Richie's "Sherlock Holmes" seems like it's been cut by someone hostile to the director. It's a mess. And it's boring. And the dialogue is out of place most of the time (I laughed a fe times during the screening). And instead of the mystery, we focus on Holmes' fighting abilities. Only the cinematography (less) and the score (more) are up to the mark.

Here's another review, by Jeffrey from Filmaster: http://jeffreyvc.filmaster.com/review/sherlock-holmes-is-ambiguously-gay/

[Chris Knipp]

That's a good review by JeffreyVC, one of his best on Filmaster (http://filmaster.com/) so far, I think.
Perhaps Director Guy Ritchie or the three screenwriters and one executive behind the new Sherlock Holmes chose a gayer detective because they thought it might be the only way to get modern audiences interested in the 120-year-old character again. Indeed the play on the intimacy of the relationship is doubtless meant to be hip, but the main way the filmmakers sought to get contemporary theatergoers' attention obviously was the "action hero" add-on, which is much more pointless. The literary Sherlock-Watson relationship always was a kind of dominant-submission one, though playfully so. "Elementary, my dear Watson" is a ind of affectionate put down: "my dear," but by implication, "you've been rather stupid not to have seen this."

[cinemabon]

I found Jeffery's take as ambiguous as his assertions. Is he trying to say that because Ritchie focused on certain aspects of Holmes and Watson's behavior that it implied they might have sexual relations? The answer has always been a resounding YES! Several times this is implied, not only in the novels, but in films such as Billy Wilder's "The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes." However, if you carefully examine the facts (as Holmes would say) you would see that two bachelors living together at that time of 1880 was a very common occurrence and did not give rise to rumor when one of them had been married twice and the other never "dabbled" in homosexual behavior with other men. I think we can safely rule out that Holmes was gay or had any gay tendencies.

However, Jeffery also implies that Ritchie purposely inserted things like "eye make-up" and "looks" between the men to make this point of being ambiguous. I think Jeffery is reading too much into Ritchie's intentions. While by today's standard, or even by 1970's standards when Wilder made "Private Life..." one could assume such a relationship in hindsight. However, Doyle never even hinted anything of the kind, despite reading between the lines in certain novels to make certain assumptions (as I mentioned above). Perhaps this is a facination of a new generation or perhaps this is the new kung-fu Holmes, who not only karate chops his way across London, but also has dirty trysts with dirty men in his dirty apartment in the filthy sqallor called "Sherlock Holmes" the movie.

[Chris Knipp]

Many have noted that there is a homoerotic undercurrent (not "sexual relations," a crude misreading of Jefferey's remarkrs), largely humorous no doubt, between the two sleuths in the Ritchie version. I didn't notice it really, and you'd think I would, but it's been frequently noted, so it's perceived. Obviously there is no suggestion of such an undercurrent in Conan Doyle, the very idea is out of the question and not at issue here and it is not necessary to cite the innocence of Victorian bachelor flat-sharing (which can only give rise to the suspicion: was it always so innocent?). Jefferey seems to have a legitimate point, not too difficult to grasp, that adding this bit of titillation, too clearly perceived by many to be nonexistent, is another way that the filmmakers of this new version jazzed up the old familiar relationship and detective tale. But again I repeat: maybe so, but that is minor compared to how they jazzed it up with the action-violence element they added, which makes far less sense. I think Jefferey has a legitimate point here. But I was only being charitable when I said this was one of his best reviews so far. I cannot agree with his favorable conclusions about this travesty, nor do I like the elements that have been added to the original stories, however contemporary they may be or however much they may "satisfy" audiences.

Another good point made by Jefferey is that Holmes was described in "The Sign of the Four" as having been a bare-knuckle champion long in the past. If that's correct, it provides a precedent for the way he's seen in the Ritchie film, but obviously fighting all the time is a violation of the character's original conception in every way.

[tabuno]

I judge a movie's qualities by the emotional and intellectual experience I felt and thought during a movie. By this measure, THE THING (1982), THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT (1999), and 1408 (2007) all struck me to my emotional core - I was immersed and transported into each of these movies. SHERLOCK HOLMES (2009) oozed and simmered with a background of haunting rational displacement as the occult and supernatural seemed emerge out of the movie and tested my logical mind until the end. This movie's ability to twist my mind in such a fashion regardless of its lack of integrity to its source material allows me to judge this movie as a dramatic thriller that met and exceeded my expectations. Whether or not such a basis for rating a movie is uneducated, anti-intellectual, or merely pedestrian and lower-class, it like objecting to whether or not one likes modern art of Pollack versus the classics of Da Vinci.

[Chris Knipp]

Whoa there! Is it a choice we have to make between Jackson Pollack and Leonardo da VincI?

I still think the new SHERLOCK HOLMES is a pretty crappy movie, though for Guy Ritchie it's not bad, considering, and he's made it into the big bucks league and snared two A-list actors for the job.

[cinemabon]

I am curious tab about the self-effacing... why would you assume one would need to be those things you listed to have a contrary point of view? I had a very visceral feeling with "Avatar" (a film that Chris and I disagree on) but many others did not. That is not to say one criticism is more correct than others. We back our arguments with reasoning... certainly that is an intellectual process. However, we enjoy something by the way we react - a gut reaction, such as laughter or tears. But when we write about film, art, or anything for that matter, we should be prepared to back up what we say with some sort of reason. We are creatures of reason. Our facilty to reason is what creates art. We can see the world, but to translate that into pigment on canvas, a motion picture film, or a story through words takes reason... otherwise, any computer or chimp could write a novel, paint a picture and photograph an event... but they can't. This site attracts people of differing levels of reason... some more educated than others. But as far as I can tell, no one judges another because they feel that person has less education and therefore their opinion unworthy.

[Chris Knipp]

I agree wholeheartedly with your post.

[cinemabon]

You always get the last word in... what the hell are you doing up so late on a Sunday night?

[Chris Knipp]

It's three hours earlier here.

[cinemabon]

When I said I had seen all incarnations, I was wrong. Just for laughs, go to this NY Times connection and enjoy!

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/sherlock-goes-daffy/

[tabuno]

With Sherlock Holmes, the movie, I have been struggling with the nebulous distinction between a movie's direct emotional and visceral impact during the movie going experience and the substantive and logical, rational basis for a movie's value and quality. I admit as a literary character, Sherlock HOlmes certainly has a long history and backstory for any movie to be considered a Sherlock Holme's movie. While viewing the most recent incarnation perhaps with perspective of the movie being "inspired" by, rather than being based on the extensive literature and movie history, this movie might be considered a credible action, mystery thriller devoid of any pretense to Sherlock Holmes or even perhaps deleting the proper name of Sherlock Holmes completey. Nevertheless, it's impossible to dismiss the character Sherlock Holmes completed from this movie and therefore, one falls back to having to decide whether this film is worthy to consider in the context of how this movie relates to the entire background of history and whether it might be deemed worthy of retaining the name Sherlock Holmes. Having read "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" and watching the adapted movie BLADERUNNER, one can get a sense of how different and even how philosophically at odds both pieces of art might be.

At the conclusion, however, I enjoyed Sherlock Holmes the movie, was entertained by it, felt there were some substantive moments if rather large divergences from literary authenticity. Sherlock Holmes as a "fictional character" it all becomes even more difficult to determine the limits of propriety to the classical source material and at what hope a movie hopelessly rapes and degrades the memory of a classical fictional character. The basic, elemental features of Mr. Holmes and his story seem to have been left intact, if not for many details, both historic or literary.