Sherlock Holmes Review

[Westside Steve]

Sherlock Holmes

Warner Brothers

PG 13 134 min

 

 

OK, this is one of the season’s monsters of hype.

Like Superman or James Bond Sherlock Holmes is part of the fabric of our societal legend. For many of us, George Reeves, Sean Connery and Basil Rathbone are the faces and voices we associate with them, so guys including Christopher Reeve, Roger Moore and now Robert Downey Jr., will have a challenge to overcome.

As an aficionado of the Doyle books, this version of SHERLOCK HOLMES was a mixed bag.

Despite my misgivings I must admit Downey was up to the challenge. For all his off screen foibles he really is one of the best actors working today.

As Holmes he had the accent the intensity and the rapid-fire dialogue to create a perfectly believable master sleuth.

The sets and cinematography were first class as well, though they could have toned down the grit of 17th century London a tad.

On the downside I think director and Madonna boyfriend Guy Ritchie should be banned from directing anything more serious than a hip-hop video.

Assuming the actors did what they were asked to do the entire Holmes character was more an anti social lunatic than eccentric genius and Watson (Jude Law) a P-whipped whiner. Of course the main focus is or should be a carefully crafted plot complete with brilliantly deducted solution and not the constant Oscar and Felix bickering, fight scenes and action sequences.

Though the script probably had great promise at one time it came out of Ritchie’s meat grinder as a convoluted mess and a waste of a solid cast.

C-

WSS

 

Email westsidesteve@aol.com

[The Gipper]

A couple of things on this Steve:

 

1. The Gold standard of portrayals of Sherlock Holmes belongs to Jeremy Brett. Rathbone was great, and I would make him the Silver Standard, but Brett was the eponymous Holmes.

 

2. In that regard, the villain in this movie, Mark Strong, I believe would have very likely made a better Holmes than Downey. I didn't dislike Downey, but it is highly probable that if the two actors roles were reversed, and more was done with the Lord Blackwood role with Downey playing it, it would have been a much better movie. I personally would like to see Strong play the SH role. He looks far more like the Holmes prototype than Downey.

 

3. There obviously were going to be, and were, things in this movie that were sure to annoy a Holmes purist. To the non-aficianado they are things that they might proclaim "what's the big deal". But to the purist, you have to say "NO, that ain't right". (Just like Superman purists did to several matters in the Superman movies). Holmes was asexual, and though he had begrudging admiration for Irene Adler, and she had begrudging admiration for him, there was NO romantic involvement between them. Of course, this entire story was not part of the SH lexicon, but then neither were most of the Rathbone stories. Though Holmes would defend himself and was an excellent pugilist he would by no means put on a display like the one portrayed in that boxing match in this movie.

The biggest faux pas is the fact that in this movie, Watson introduces Mary Morston to him as his fiance. Of course we know that is completely bogus. Holmes meets Mary Morston when Miss Morston hires Holmes in The Sign of Four where SH introduces her to Watson. It isn't until after that case is solved that Watson and Morston become romantically involved.

 

4. Somewhere I think you used the term "frenetic". Yes, this script was far more "frenetic" and "physical" than a Sherlock Holmes story should be...., more fighting and shit blowing up, but I guess that is what is necessary to do a motion picture today. Otherwise I guess they would have relegated this to PBS.

[kshutchins]

A couple of things on this Steve:

 

1. The Gold standard of portrayals of Sherlock Holmes belongs to Jeremy Brett. Rathbone was great, and I would make him the Silver Standard, but Brett was the eponymous Holmes.

 

2. In that regard, the villain in this movie, Mark Strong, I believe would have very likely made a better Holmes than Downey. I didn't dislike Downey, but it is highly probable that if the two actors roles were reversed, and more was done with the Lord Blackwood role with Downey playing it, it would have been a much better movie. I personally would like to see Strong play the SH role. He looks far more like the Holmes prototype than Downey.

 

3. There obviously were going to be, and were, things in this movie that were sure to annoy a Holmes purist. To the non-aficianado they are things that they might proclaim "what's the big deal". But to the purist, you have to say "NO, that ain't right". (Just like Superman purists did to several matters in the Superman movies). Holmes was asexual, and though he had begrudging admiration for Irene Adler, and she had begrudging admiration for him, there was NO romantic involvement between them. Of course, this entire story was not part of the SH lexicon, but then neither were most of the Rathbone stories. Though Holmes would defend himself and was an excellent pugilist he would by no means put on a display like the one portrayed in that boxing match in this movie.

The biggest faux pas is the fact that in this movie, Watson introduces Mary Morston to him as his fiance. Of course we know that is completely bogus. Holmes meets Mary Morston when Miss Morston hires Holmes in The Sign of Four where SH introduces her to Watson. It isn't until after that case is solved that Watson and Morston become romantically involved.

 

4. Somewhere I think you used the term "frenetic". Yes, this script was far more "frenetic" and "physical" than a Sherlock Holmes story should be...., more fighting and shit blowing up, but I guess that is what is necessary to do a motion picture today. Otherwise I guess they would have relegated this to PBS.

 

I read an article that mentioned American movies are made for a global audience, hence the fact that they are more action driven than character or script driven, making them easier to translate. Personally, I'd be willing to sacrifice action for substance.

 

[The Gipper]

What I would actually like to see would be a loyal portrayal of "A Study in Scarlet" put on film. It would be an exciting story (in the normal Sherlock Holmes sense, not in the current Bing! Bang! Boom! movie sense). It would also be a very topical and controversial film as it would shake a lot of feathers in the Mormon Community...as that book essentially accuses the Mormon church of the late 1800s of organized, institutional kidnap and rape of women.)

[Mr. T]

I finally got around to watching it, rented the movie from the redbox. It was a lot better than I thought it was going to be.