SHERLOCK HOLMES – Reviewed by Will

Well, gentle readers, now we must address ourselves to an examination of the latest cinematic incarnation of the eminent Sir Arthur Conan Doyle‘s famous prototypical super-sleuth. Did our director, Mr. Guy Ritchie, famous for his brawling British caper flicks (Snatch and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels among them), indeed run roughshod over one of literature’s great icons and, in the process, transfigure him into a drunken, brutish, womanizing lout? Did our lead player, Mr. Robert Downey Jr., in fact, summon aspects of the written character that had never before been revealed to celluloid? Should we ignore these questions and just enjoy Sherlock Holmes for what it is–a fun, brash, relatively smart action adventure? The answer to all three questions is probably…yes.

Ritchie’s film is based upon no specific original Holmes adventure, but has many of the familiar characters and elements. In addition to Sherlock & Dr. Watson, we have Mrs. Hudson, the landlady at 221B Baker St. (Geraldine James), Inspector Lestrade of Scotland Yard (Eddie Marsan), and Watson’s wife-to-be Mary Morstan (Kelly Reilly). We don’t meet the Baker Street Irregulars and Holmes’ smarter brother Mycroft is only briefly mentioned, but this is one of those movies, like Batman Begins, that patiently sets up its own sequel. The plotline is a tad convoluted the first time through–it involves a series of murders, a secret society clearly based on the Freemasons, and a British Lord (Mark Strong) who seems to possess supernatural powers. Holmes and Watson pummel their way through the mystery, which, not surprisingly, requires them to navigate a series of improbable action set pieces whilst pitted against improbably muscular henchmen.

There are those who would cry foul at such a rough-and-tumble Holmes, but Doyle’s detective was more than once described as an accomplished bare-knuckle boxer and a martial artist practiced in baritsu (Japanese wrestling). Fittingly, when Holmes resorts to physical violence in his film, his technique is dictated by keen observations about his adversary and how to exploit them. Immediately before his attack, the film slows down and we see, in almost gruesome detail, how each punch is calculated to disable his opponent. Then the film speeds up and we see the mayhem in real-time. It’s a clever device, characteristic of Ritchie’s often clever camerawork.

As for Downey’s overall interpretation of Holmes and his many quirks, he certainly doesn’t much remind us of Basil Rathbone or Jeremy Brett, who were more inclined towards Victorian reserve, so it may seem like he’s rewriting the character altogether. This isn’t entirely true–Doyle never missed an opportunity to revel in his detective’s unexpected eccentricities. For instance, in Holmes’ first adventure, “A Study In Scarlet”, he is surprised to hear that the earth revolves around the sun, then immediately dismisses the thought from his mind as useless, at least in the context of his work in the dirty streets of London. His living quarters at Baker Street are vividly described as a chaotic smoky mess–this in particular is very nicely realized in the film. Downey seems to be playing an Asperger’s case, which is probably a fair description for the iconic detective.

If there’s one mistake that Ritchie and Downey are making with Holmes, it’s an oft-repeated and mostly forgivable one: they want to figure out Sherlock Holmes and prove he’s as human as the rest of us. Much of the genuine appeal of the character comes from his remoteness, his inscrutability, making him a puzzle for the reader, not the author. Watson, who served as the chronicler of their adventures together, was more often perplexed by his friend’s habits than annoyed with them. Jude Law, who plays Watson in the film, is in many respects the closest to the written character he’s ever been–an educated tough guy for the ladies–but the way he regards Holmes seems to be lacking in real awe or respect. Instead he’s a bickering roommate. This characterization fits well with the rest of the script, which is actually very smart but focuses its wit on banter, not cold intellectual logic.

The other common desire that many feel is that Holmes should actually be a romantic or a womanizer. To that end the film uses Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams), a real character from the books who bested the great detective, imagining her as an old flame. Despite Doyle’s insistence that Holmes refused to be a sexual being–such pursuits would only cloud his mental computations–better directors than Ritchie (see Billy Wilder‘s Private Life of Sherlock Holmes) have tried to make him one. Downey’s certainly happy to play along–perhaps Tony Stark is the great-grandson of Irene and Sherlock. I don’t blame Hollywood for trying to force this on his character–they’re far from the first to do so. Indeed, Watson himself (i.e. Doyle) was accused by Holmes of over-romanticizing him.

But enough of this overwrought thesis. The real point is that I enjoyed Sherlock Holmes quite a bit once I warmed up to its rhythms. It has wit, personality and texture to spare. Downey and Law are a pleasure to watch together, and Victorian London has never been so gritty and funny at the same time. The game’s afoot. – [DVD] [Blu-Ray]

Action/Adventure/Crime/Mystery/Thriller

Rated PG-13

DVD Release Date: 3/30/10