They crack you up … Robert Downey Jr as Holmes and Jude Law as Watson in Sherlock Holmes
Guy Ritchie’s take on Conan Doyle’s classic English sleuth is not exclusively of its problems: his protagonist does not very fit the action hero mould into which the much-maligned film-maker has squeezed him, and those who find Ritchie’s more laddish tendencies distasteful may be dismayed by the movie’s predilection for extreme violence. Nevertheless, the critics be in possession of just about bought Sherlock Holmes as every intermittently entertaining romp through a stylised Victorian London, thanks mainly to a barnstorming doing by Robert Downey Jr in the title role and its Dan Brown-lite storyline.
- Sherlock Holmes
- Production year: 2009
- Countries: Australia, Rest of the world, UK, USA
- Cert (UK): 12A
- Runtime: 128 mins
- Directors: Guy Ritchie
- Cast: Bronagh Gallagher, Eddie Marsan, Geraldine James, Hans Matheson, James Fox, Jude Law, Kelly Reilly, Mark Strong, Rachel McAdams, Robert Downey Jr., William Hope
- More in continuance this film
This Holmes is up against the villainous Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), an
apparently undying pseudo-fascist necromancer who plans to lead England on
a mission to reconquer America and eventually the world – presumably a
heinous plan cooked up to speed the pulses of our translatlantic cousins.
At the same time he must face up to the loss of his longtime confidant and
aide Dr Watson (a much-praised Jude Law), who is about to marry his amour
Mary Morstan (Kelly Reilly). Meanwhile, Holmes’s old flame Irene Adler
(Rachel McAdams) is also in town and seemingly uncovered to interfere a fool of our
hero.
“There are worse things than loutish, laddish cool, and as a series of
poses and stunts, Sherlock Holmes is intermittently diverting,” writes the
New York Times’ AO Scott.
“The visual style – a smoky, greasy, steam-punk rendering of Victorian London, full of soot and guts and bad teeth and period clothes – shows some undeniable flair. And so do the kinetic chases and scrapes that lead us through the incorporated town, as Holmes and his pal Watson scramble to unravel a complot to such a degree diabolical that it fails to be interesting. Best of all is the banter between Mr Downey and Mr Law, who is looser and more mischievous than he’s allowed himself to be in quite some time.”
“The less I thought about Sherlock Holmes, the more I liked Sherlock Holmes,” writes Roger Ebert in the Chicago Sun-Times. “Yet another classic hero has been fed into the f/x mill, emerging as a modern superman. Guy Ritchie’s film is filled with sensational sights, over-the-top characters and a without hope have a contest atop Tower Bridge, which is tranquil under construction. It’s likely to be enjoyed by the agency of today’sitting deed fans. But block bookings are not likely from the Baker Street Irregulars.”
“Ritchie’s period London is a sexy, murky and mucky variation on the
capital he’s continually called home,” writes Empire’s William Thomas. “Desaturated and seductive, it’s a brilliantly realised environment gay with possibility and loaded through landmarks because our heroes to lark in regard to on, right up to a terrific acme on a half-built Tower Bridge … [This is] a fun, action-packed reintroduction to Conan Doyle’s classic characters.”
Our own Peter Bradshaw, in whatever manner, is less of a mind to brush off Holmes’session deficiencies – nor those of its director – so lightly.
“It’s a souped-up Victorian crime romp with Holmes and Watson reinvented in the same manner with
wisecracking skirmish heroes, played by Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law – a
two-man coalition of moderately beautiful ordinary gentlemen,” he writes.
“As ever, Ritchie has some bareknuckle fighting in slow-motion interspersed
with very-quick-speeded-up-motion and there’s plenty of diddly-diddly Irish
folk music in the background. I fear producer Joel Silver may feel like
grabbing Ritchie and plunging with him down the Reichenbach Falls.”
For me, this was not so plenteous Sherlock Holmes as Sherlock Bond, complete with sneering villain who wants to take in excess the world, high-octane fight sequences and a theme-park view of 19th-century London that signally failed to convey the dirt and the horror.
I also disagree that Downey Jr saved the day. The actor is one of the most enjoyable presences in current cinema, but here seemed uncomfortable
in a role that required a quiet, contained charisma rather than the brash cheeky chappy bravado with a view to which he’s known and loved. Furthermore, the storyline felt Hollywoodised from origin to expiration: the shifts and turns were all played out in a way we’ve seen a million times before, complete with expository dialogue and last-minute declarations of affection in the face of imminent death. Ritchie can gratulate himself towards having successfully pulled off a movie that pushes everything the right studio buttons, and has clearly carved himself an unlikely career beyond his trademark (highly enjoyable) mockney romps. Yet he may have being slightly dismayed to discover that he is, to all intents and purposes, the new Brett Ratner.
What’s your view of Sherlock Holmes? Did Ritchie’s all-action take get your
pulse racing? Or did the whole thing have you pining for the more tempered
tone and pace maintained by the agency of past incarnations of the great detective?
