Of all the reviews out there, I found myself agreeing the most with a guy named Matt Bronson of creativeloafing.com, who wrote that “Sherlock Holmes” was “not a great film by any stretch of the imagination” but granted that “director Guy Ritchie’s full-speed-ahead effort still qualifies as decent holiday-season fare.”
That’s about what it was: decent. Not spectacular. Not even fantastic. And for me, that was the problem. When you’re talking about a legendary character such as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s “Sherlock Holmes,” you should expect more.
Imagine a “Batman” that was not a big deal. A “Superman” that wasn’t a blockbuster. A “Spiderman” that had nothing new to say. A “Harry Potter” that didn’t fully engage us.
All too often these days, movie promoters are leveraging the name brand of a famous character or idea and then reinventing it for a young, dumb, dialed-down audience for the sake of a big first weekend, some pretty big follow up weeks, a decent worldwide sales goal, and some semi-automatic DVD and cable revenues. Unfortunately, that formula can sometimes mean we don’t get a new show that really says something new.
Robert Downey, Jr., has something that marketers understand. They’ve stuck by him throughout his own personal challenges, his rebound from which is an inspiration in itself. It would have been nice for a new generation to be introduced to the genius, the uniqueness, the humble confidence and fortitude of the original Sherlock. Or, perhaps all of the above with some added touches.
But Downey is either so smart for the show that he was too smart for me, or he was asked to dial it down to fit a marketing machismo that sells but doesn’t inspire. The original Sherlock has so much more to offer, and today’s generation of young people could use some of it. This one was, well, just “elementary.”
Perhaps that’ll come next time. After $62 million in its initial weekend, I’m guessing there’ll be another.
posted December 30, 2009 at 11:41 am
According to the entertainment news rumors, Brad Pitt will be signing for the next film – to play the infamous Moriarty.
I enjoyed the movie and thought they did a fine job with Holmes. He was not the addled drug addicted anti-hero of the Seven Percent Solution, nor was he Rathbone’s aloof rationalist. I think this new perspective on the 19th and early 20th century detective was well done. I expect the energy from this will translate to at least three films.
We are so atuned to state of the art scientific and technological advances that little trips back a century or so feel cramped or inhibited. But the producer (it aint all the director’s show ya know) had a good sense of the period and its limitations.
As much as I like this story and the way they stayed close to Conan Doyle’s perspective there are others I would like to see on film. I am especially intrigued by Laurie King’s Mary Russell / Shelock Holmes pairing, starting with “The Beekeeper’s Apprentice”. That would also make a great film – touching on religion/rational as well as May-December, mentor-student, themes.
posted December 30, 2009 at 11:41 am
According to the entertainment news rumors, Brad Pitt will be signing for the next film – to play the infamous Moriarty.
I enjoyed the movie and thought they did a fine job with Holmes. He was not the addled drug addicted anti-hero of the Seven Percent Solution, nor was he Rathbone’s aloof rationalist. I think this new perspective on the 19th and early 20th century detective was well done. I expect the energy from this will translate to at least three films.
We are so atuned to state of the art scientific and technological advances that little trips back a century or so feel cramped or inhibited. But the producer (it aint all the director’s show ya know) had a good sense of the period and its limitations.
As much as I like this story and the way they stayed close to Conan Doyle’s perspective there are others I would like to see on film. I am especially intrigued by Laurie King’s Mary Russell / Shelock Holmes pairing, starting with “The Beekeeper’s Apprentice”. That would also make a great film – touching on religion/rational as well as May-December, mentor-student, themes.
posted December 30, 2009 at 12:05 pm
I would agree with the second-rate nature of the plot – did Dan Brown need to make a few extra bucks before the Lost Symbol is translated to the big screen? I know the veneer of supernaturalism was supposed to be a foil for the hyper-rationalism of Holmes, but all I could think was “who cares?” But the fantastic chemistry between Watson and Holmes (one of the best screen romances I’ve seen in a while) and the vivid, lurid backdrop of a slightly unhinged Victorian London were enough to keep me engaged. I’m not sure Ritchie and Co. intended it, but the escalation of violence and the industrial scenery were both poignant commentary on the dangerous flip-side of rationalism run awry. And even though it was all a tease for the franchise they are clearly hoping to build, I have to say, I will come back just to see what the boys of Baker Street do with Moriarty. If you are interested, I blog my own review at http://themothchase.wordpress.com
–Kathryn
posted December 31, 2009 at 12:18 am
I thought Ritchie’s ninja, steampunk, Bondian Sherlock was just right for the 21st century http://paullevinson.blogspot.com/2009/12/ninja-sherlock-holmes.html
posted January 31, 2010 at 10:31 am
Yes, the story about Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) gives dynamics to action, no to thought this time. The movie contains as many FX as never before. The famous detective himself is a mix of House, M.D. and CSI agent. Too much fighting and too little sophisticated conversations between Holmes and Watson (Jud Law).
However, in my opinion, this movie is a transformation of XIX century detective fiction into the XXI century. The XX century had changed the very style of narration of adventures. Things which had been thrilling the reader in XIX century cannot affect the XXI century viewer in the same level. In order to reach the same highness of tension the radically different stylistic means.