‘Sherlock Holmes’: Alimentary waste
There are plenty of reasons to dislike Guy Ritchie’s post-modern take on “Sherlock Holmes,” but here’s the main one:
Unlike most heroes of American detective literature (Nero Wolfe being the rare exception), Arthur Conan Doyle’s storied detective is not and never has been an action hero. Not that he’s averse to a bit of rough-and-tumble in the name of self-defense – but Conan Doyle’s stories are singularly devoted to his creation’s remarkable deductive skills, not his ability to outfight giants or outrun fireballs.
If Ritchie, an intriguing film stylist, and producer Joel Silver (whose ham-handed fingerprints are all over this film) wanted to make a James Bond film set in Victorian times, why call him Sherlock Holmes? Why not Terlock Scones? Merlock Bones? Parkway Homes?
Elementary, dear reader: Because this is a shameless bid at transforming Holmes and partner Dr. Watson (played by Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law) into a franchise, a tentpole – and all of that other Hollywood jargon that means: “a character who can be relied upon to make more than $100 million per film at the box office for years to come.” After all, Harry Potter films won’t last forever. But Holmes could be the gift that keeps on giving.
Instead, this “Sherlock Holmes” belongs on a shelf next to the Will Smith “Wild Wild West”: a remake that seems more excreted than created. Ritchie’s “Sherlock Holmes” is too long, too generic (surprising, given Ritchie’s always inventive visual and story-telling style) and not nearly as clever as it seems to think. It’s yet another can-he-save-us-from-Doomsday plot, the kind James Bond was cutting his teeth on in movies 40-plus years ago.
At first, Richie seems to have found a way into Holmes’ thought process that translates visually and promises twists and turns to come. In the very first scene, while trying to infiltrate an occult-like tomb where human sacrifice is in the works (shades of “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom”), Holmes spots a villainous goon he knows he has to remove as an obstacle. So, in his mind, he runs through all the physical steps he will have to take – his actions and the equal-and-opposite reactions that will lay his opponent flat.
Ritchie renders each step in bone-crunching, flesh-kneading slo-mo, then has Holmes carry them out in real time. It’s a neat trick and one that promises intriguing variations as Holmes spots and interprets clues en route to solving (or stopping) the crime. It also portends a moment when Holmes’ future-vision fails him – when his plan goes wrong and he’s forced to think on his feet. But that never happens. That particular visual gimmick pops up twice, then never again.
Instead, Ritchie falls back on another device: the flashback of something we’ve already witnessed, seen from an angle that reveals new information, to explain Holmes’ various deductive leaps. In this context, it feels tired and unimaginative.
Or maybe it’s the case itself that seems so arbitrary and half-formed, as though Ritchie (and Silver – don’t forget Silver) cobbled the story together after first coming up with a list of cool action sequences: “Ooo, how about a fight under a ship in drydock, where the braces get kicked out so that Holmes is in danger of being crushed by the boat? How about a battle on top of the girders that will be London Bridge? And some explosions – big, fiery ones! And a guy spontaneously bursting into flames! Can we build a story around those?”
What story there is begins with Holmes capturing an evil British lord (Mark Strong), who seems to be an occultist with the devilish ability to place people under spells. Then Holmes is hired by former lover/nemesis Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams in a nothing role) to find a missing friend. But after Lord Blackwood is executed by hanging and then seems to return from the grave, Holmes finds himself chasing something much bigger.
Or so he thinks. In fact, the screenwriters (all three of them) jumble together all sorts of adventure-movie tropes – supernatural connections, foreign agents, corruption from within – to pad what should be a taut tale of impending doom. Most of it loops back to create the semblance of a case that can actually be explained by Holmes at the end. But there’s so much excess that it’s like trying to stuff five pounds of suet into a one-pound bag.
Meanwhile, Holmes has been transformed into a buff martial-arts expert with washboard abs. Ummm, OK, but what’s he doing participating in underground bare-knuckle bouts? Why is Watson addicted to gambling? Good questions all – which undoubtedly will be dealt with (or not) in the not-unexpected sequels.
Downey is as quirky and unconventional an actor as has ever played Conan Doyle’s detective – but he barely sounds British and seems to have dropped in from another movie. Law seems too callow by half to be the war-veteran physician. While the author’s Watson was never the dunderhead that Nigel Bruce portrayed in the Basil Rathbone films, Law’s Watson seems too modern for Victorian England – but then, so does Downey.
What’s the point of continuing? To coin a phrase, this movie is too big to fail, given the massive promotion campaign and commercial buy on TV. Millions of preteen boys who would never dream of reading an actual Sherlock Holmes book no doubt are lining up already to buy tickets.
And the dumbing down of the world in general continues.
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Unfortunately Guy Ritchie is a One Show Pony and i really question his ability and talent. Also I find myself getting irritated with Downey jr’s constant ‘Face Pulling’ in all his movies-They’re Not Funny!
December 22nd, 2009 at 1:55 pm
I was really looking forward to this film as I am a HUGE Sherlock Holmes fan. After reading your review I am very sad to know buying tickets to this will turn out to be a real dissapointment. Guess I will save my cash and wait for it to come out on DVD. Thanks for the heads up!
December 22nd, 2009 at 7:06 pm
thanks for saving me from a bad experience. I love Sherlock Holmes, but this is not Conan Doyle, more like Conan Duh!
December 22nd, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Actually, it’s a very enjoyable film, and I’ve been a Holmes fan since the mid-1970s. Yes, it takes liberties that might shock the faithful, but it’s action-packed, the acting is fun, and my wife and I thoroughly enjoyed it.
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:33 pm
This is a move made to make money on the insatiable demand for violence. An insult to Conan Doyle and to his wonderfully developed character of Sherlock Holmes. Bad enough movies trash current stories but must now trash old standbys.
December 22nd, 2009 at 10:04 pm
Really, if you’re a Holmes fan, don’t let this reviewer’s sourness on Ritchie keep you from this film. I don’t think he’s read much, if any, of the Holmes canon. If he had, he’d realize that Doyle’s Holmes is in good shape, is a formidable bare-knuckle fighter, a fencer, and even something of a martial arts expert (see The Empty House). These things are played to big effect in the movie, but that’s OK, I expect a little razzle-dazzle from the movies, otherwise I’d rent the PBS Jeremy Brett series and stay home. The movie hardly “trashes” the character or the much-loved stories. Let yourself go. You’ll enjoy it.
December 22nd, 2009 at 10:52 pm
I have every one of Basil Rathbone’s “Holmes” movies. To go to this trypish excretional remake and expect anything similar, one might as well roll up a wad of cash in a newspaper and set it on fire. It would be sacriligeous!
No thank you – Hollywood’s best nowadays is about as mediocre and as trashy as it can be. I’d rather buy or rent the good old DVD’s from yesteryear and, and at least for a few moments, feel as innocently entertained as I used to in front of Saturday morning cartoons!
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:17 am
When I saw the previews, I was hoping it would be more faithful to the books, which I enjoyed back in the 60′s as a kid. Robert Downey Jr. appears to have overcome his drug problem and has some good roles under his belt, and I’m sure he will do a stunning job acting in this movie, but, Sherlock Holmes is NOT an “action hero”. I liked the books because they made you THINK of the outcome of his cases, using reasoning & logic, not who can outgun the badguy.
I’ll wait until this one shows up on the 1 dollar DVD rental rack before plunking down 7-10 bucks to see it in a theatre.
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:46 am
Why waste time or money on this crap? There was a much loved interpetation of Sherlock on PBS. Jeremy Brett said, “There is a tremendous delicacy in preserving Holmes in other people’s imaginations because there are a million different ways of seeing him. You try not to interfere with anybody’s image.” Well, this movie tries to re-write the character of Holmes. If you think your character is better then holmes, then make up a new name for him. Holmes is Holmes. Give us a movie about him, starring him, not a Jame Bond wannabee.
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:56 am
The Basil Rathbone “Holmes” movies are execrable. Yeesh. And who but a simpleton would go to this movie expecting something similar to the Rathbone monstrosities? Lord, deliver us from Rathbone’s vile interpretation of the master.
I loved those Saturday morning cartoons too–no violence there, was there?
December 23rd, 2009 at 4:53 am
Sounds to me like I will not be going to the moving pictures, but will be out chasing a hound or two for fun.
December 23rd, 2009 at 4:55 am
I never listen to critics. I’ll go see the movie and then form my own opinion. Movies are supposed to take liberties. That is what makes them entertaining. If you want to follow books page by page, then please stay home and read. I’m appalled at the number of people that are incapable of thinking for themselves. The human condition is in a sad state.
December 23rd, 2009 at 5:33 am
While it’s true that Holmes could fight, rationcination was always his preferred mode of action. This film DID trash Doyle’s characters, especially Irene Adler, who should sue for defamation of character. She may have been an adventuress before marrying, but she was never a strumpet, and the idea that she’d work for Moriarty is simply ridiculous.
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:34 am
Too be honest, I was really looking forward to this until I saw the preview. What I saw wasn’t at all the Sherlock Holmes I knew from the books. It looked creative but with too much artistic licence taken. This review only reenforces my initial impression. I’ll wait for it to come out on DVD and perhaps watch it as an action flick while trying to mentally devorce it from the character created by Conan Doyle.
December 23rd, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Thank you Wallace, after such a nasty review it’s good to hear a more moderate view. I expect this to be an action movie, based on the ads. We’ll give it a chance.
December 23rd, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Mr. Wallace you must be part of the PR for the movie somehow, the way you’re defending it and attacking other posters’ opinions and even the classic interpretations of the character of S.H. As a long time fan of the character all it took was to see the trailer to realize what a gigantic piece of garbage this movie was going to be. I like the word used above: sacrilegeous-it fits the way i felt about what i saw. Sherlock Holmes oozes finesse, his words are his weapon and an ocassional self-defense fight with his cane. shirtless, sporting abs? underground fighting? pfftZ! it’s too laughable (if it weren’t so pathetic). i hope it tanks, i really do. and don’t even get me started on Jude Law as Dr. Watson.
December 23rd, 2009 at 3:28 pm
Well written review. I suspected as much. I have to agree with the dumbing down of America. A movie like Avatar is a box office success is also proof. Let’s beat up America! Big hit! Doyle is rolling around in his grave.
December 23rd, 2009 at 5:09 pm
How has Wallace seen it already since it is not out until Christmas day…unless he is perhaps part of a PR machine.
December 23rd, 2009 at 5:23 pm
Yeah, Gigi, if I were you, I’d give it a miss. You won’t enjoy yourself.
December 23rd, 2009 at 7:12 pm
Speaking of S.H. in all things classic- film buffs set your tivos on stun this weekend as Turner Classic Movies has a 24+ hour non stop Sherlock Holmes movies day. Oh i can’t wait.
December 23rd, 2009 at 8:39 pm
Sherlock Holmes an Action Film??? I read quite a few Holmes stories and books, and I think you should stay true to what has been a classic and timeless character and world created by Doyle. This should have been more of a ‘Usual Suspects’ type of murder mystery. heist movie. And you don’t exactly picture Jude Law as Watson, I mean, come on… All in all, when I heard about it I was excited… Then I saw the Commercial, and I was supremely disappointed. Hope they figure it out and re-make this one quick, the right way.
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:51 pm
Unfortunately this blatant mis-characterization for the sake of hype or wooing and wowing the younger generation and reinventing a character to the point of unrecognizable is also going to affect and disappoint new readers when they pick up the book, the Real Deal- and see that it truly truly had nothing to do with the movie. A disservice to all: old readers, new readers, but worst of all to the series’ author and frankly (ironically) a slap with the white glove. oh wait, it’s shirtless and gloveless punch, never mind! ;p Yes, i am bitter-ish because when I first heard that there was a new Holmes movie I was so excited, and although i winced at the casting i waited faithfully and anxiously to see the final product, it was in production for a while, so anticipation was building. pfftZ when I saw the commercial it was a big letdown: it had Nothing-Nothing to do with Holmes.
December 24th, 2009 at 1:34 am
Nothing, but nothing could top the canonical travesty of the Rathbone films, and look at what they did to Watson. Poor Nigel Bruce deserved better! Blame the writers. At the same time the actors were very good at what they did–and even today their acting stands apart and Bruce inspired Edward Hardwicke… Times change and so do interpretations…and I’m not saying RDJ’s version is good. I suspect it isn’t. The Granada or Russian series to me is as good as it CAN get. But when was the last time SH was in a theatre? I’m going, even if all I do is pick plot-holes.
December 24th, 2009 at 1:44 am
Jay, I saw the movie at a pre-screening on Monday night. A guy who my wife works with got free tix through some radio-station deal. I’ve never seen a movie before its release in my life, but there was a theater full of folks there. Anyway, I guess it was a publicity screening of sorts, for reviewers and such, but I’m not part of any “machine.”
I’ve just loved Holmes for years, and I enjoyed the movie. Saw this reviewer flaming it and thought I’d throw in my two cents. This movie will do nothing to change the stories, which I’ll continue to love. Loosen up, folks.
December 24th, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Sounds to me like the reviewer has an axe to grind. As is even stated in the review, previous Holmes films do not exactly follow the books. SO WHAT if this latest film version differs from the books? SO WHAT if Downey Jr and Law are not a traditional Holmes/Watson pairing? If you’re too stuffy and stubborn to see it, then don’t. Far more people than just ‘preteen boys’ will go see this film.
December 27th, 2009 at 8:54 pm
WTF is this? Holmes + Watson + explosions + ass kicking + more explosions + slow-motion ass-kicking explosions? A pox on you, Hollywood, and all your crappy “blockbusters!” This of course is by no means the first reinterpretation of Sherlock Holmes (cf., “The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes’ Smarter Brother” or “Without a Clue,” both of which I enjoyed, BTW ), but I don’t think I’m quite ready for a steampunk “action hero” Holmes with homoerotic overtones. Thanks, but no thanks. I definitely prefer the characterization by Basil Rathbone… or Jeremy Brett.
December 28th, 2009 at 6:41 am
Reviewer is half right. This IS a James Bond movie set in Victoria era, and I loved it. The story unfolds to the real plot and it’s imaginative and enjoyable. James Bond as a deductive protagonist. Great fun.
December 31st, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Jeremy Brett was the greatest portrayal of Sherlock Holmes. Wallace Fard is an idiot. These are two facts that can’t be debated.
If I were to go to the movies to see “Columbo” I don’t want to see Chuck Norris or Wil Smith or Viggio Mortenson or Hugh Jackman kicking bad guy butt. I want to see where Columbo gets his rain jacket. Where he bought his car. I am in love with the character, not the stories.
For the fans of Sherlock, we know he was a cold, distant person of keen intellect. Very much like House, MD. Jeremy Brett played him perfectly.
We would go see Sherlock Holmes (he is, after all, in the title?). This whole movie got made and I don’t think anyone even realized it—they forgot to put Sherlock Holmes into the movie.
January 4th, 2010 at 11:28 pm
I agree with this reviewer 100%. I suspected that this movie would be crap, but went because my boyfriend wanted to see it. Downey’s portrayal was incredibly annoying after about five minutes. Was I watching Sherlock Holmes or WWF? Six-pack abs? C’mon! The movie was poorly written, predictable, too long and very poorly cast. Personally, I’m tired of Downey’s smug, smart-ass personality and look forward to him and his mongo-sized ego eventually fading into the sunset. This is another shameless attempt at money grubbing by the likes of producers Joel Silver and Susan Downey. If they are that greedy, they should try producing porn since I hear that’s more lucrative, anyway. Shame on Hollywood for insulting our intelligence.
January 8th, 2010 at 4:51 am
Martin Winstead, you have slandered me, sir, and I DEMAND an apology! And until you have bothered to actually see the movie in question, please kindly spare us your foul gruntings. Go see the film, then return and give us your reactions. I daresay—no, I guarantee—you will come back to us a chastened, and a much entertained, man. Lay aside your hidebound preconceptions and embrace the new Holmes!
House MD is idiotic, by the way. A grumpy doctor! Who’s really British! But talks like an American! That’s entertainment! He was a much better Bertie Wooster.
January 11th, 2010 at 10:25 pm
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Basil Rathbone, and Nigel Bruce are twirling in their graves. What a mess.