You are currently viewing Notes On A Film: Sherlock Holmes

Notes On A Film: Sherlock Holmes

There is something so innately British to Sherlock Holmes, it always surprises me that the character is one of a handful of fictional creations known the world over. I love the well-written stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, but I am not someone who thinks that there is only one interpretation of Holmes. I grew up watching the Basil Rathbone films – they seemed to show them on BBC2 a lot – and Jeremy Brett will always be the definitive television Holmes to me, in looks and manner and temperament, but anything that keeps the stories alive is fine with me.

I was surprised that Guy Ritchie decided to direct the film – he’s always seem more interested in directing his own scripts, to varying degrees of success (Lock, Stock And Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch, good; Revolver, awful). However, working from someone else’s screenplay, he seems to loosen up and have a good time and show that he can direct a crowd-pleasing blockbuster, with occasional flourishes of his own.

The story seems to pick and choose various elements from the books, with different lines and elements being direct lifts from the whole range, and the storyline seems an obvious choice: having the rational Holmes investigating what looks like a supernatural villain. However, the point of this film is not to slavishly adapt century-old short stories; it is to create a modern action comedy franchise (albeit set in the past), something which it does very successfully (although it feels more like setting up the franchise than something in its own right). Taking the single reference to the martial art ‘baritsu’ in one of the stories and extrapolating it into Holmes as an action hero is a stretch but one that isn’t objectionable; also, having Watson as a physical companion (rather than the bumbling of Bruce Jones of the Rathbone films) is logical based on being a war veteran.

The film works best with the ‘buddy’ relationship at the heart of the story: Holmes (Robert Downey Jr in fine form, although his excellent English accent seems mewled and mumbled, which is very unlike any interpretation of Holmes I can imagine) and Watson (Jude Law in a solid and funny turn). The bickering, the closeness, the love for each other apparent in their banter – the two actors sell it really well, and the film buzzes along nicely when they are sharing screen time. The other actors do good jobs: Mark Strong is good as ever as the villain Lord Blackwood, Rachel Adams is fine as the femme fatale, and Kelly Reilly is good in an underwritten role as Watson’s fiancée who causes Holmes dismay in the breaking up of the Holmes–Watson relationship.

The narrative is quite straightforward, unusual for a Ritchie film, although it does have those lapses of logic that blockbuster films suffer from when trying to get through the plot (such as lack of damage to Watson after we see him caught in the middle of a huge, fiery explosion, or using the Holmes intellect as a patch-up excuse to cover any plot holes), but it can’t be denied that it’s a lot of fun. I don’t mind an action hero Sherlock Holmes, and I look forward to the sequel, where they can tell a full story without having to worry about all the set-up.

Rating: VID

[See here for my film rating system]

This Post Has 4 Comments

  1. DM Osbon

    Nicely put but would you consider it a title worthy of Bluray?

  2. David

    Well, as I don't have a Bluray player, probably not 🙂

    I would watch the film again on DVD, and wouldn't switch over if it came on television at a later date, but I don't know if I'd have it in my collection.

    Is that vague enough? 🙂

  3. DM Osbon

    Thanks. May just get it as it comes with digital copy.

    Great blog btw 😉

  4. David

    Thanks for the kind words, even if I don't think it's a great blog 🙂

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.