s prompted me to visit the cinema and to tell you the truth, I wish I'd never bothered. This isn't Sherlock Holmes - this is your typical, dumbed down action cinema. True enough, it's Ritchie's best film in a decade but then that's not saying much.There are some good points - the chemistry between the two stars for one thing and Downey's performance is spot on. In fact if this didn't carry the name Sherlock Holmes then I suspect there's a good comedy, action movie lurking here. However as it was I was horrified by the liberties taken with the character and worse, bored stiff. There's nothing here that we haven't seen here many times before.
Ritchie defends his changes to the Holmes universe by pointing to the fact that Conan Doyle mentioned in a few stories that Holmes knew martial arts, and was a man of action. That's as may be - but where in the Holmes canon does it say he was a scruffy, wisecracking Keith Richards wannabe with a six pack? The plot is tedious and over complicated in places, and much of the film only serves to carry us along to the next mindless action sequence. Boring.
I'm sorry but this is not Sherlock Holmes - as a buddy movie it works fine but in reality this owes more to the Lethal Weapon series than Conan Doyle. There are some good points - Downey is superb and his accent is spot on, Jude Law also does a damn good job and the pairing of these two actors is a plus in a convoluted, self conscious mess of a movie that is nothing bu
t an action flick with pop video visuals and a slim plot. I suspect that if your not a Sherlock Holmes fan and don't care that the canon has been ridden roughshod over, then you'll enjoy this film but if, on the other hand, you know the canon and love Holmes for the gentle, intellectual, Victorian charm, of the investigations then you're going to hate this one with a passion. Though, I must admit the visuals in the steam-punk influenced London of this movie are impressive.A lot of people seem to like this movie and the box office is impressive, so it seems inevitable there will be a sequel which is sad really. If they'd made a movie that remained faithful to Doyle and was paced in the correct Holmesian style, then the chances are it would be playing to empty cinemas, given the penchant for explosions these days. Me I'd like to toss Ritchie off the Reichenbach Falls."
I'm off to watch some Jeremy Brett or Basil Rathbone.
9 comments:
I'd determined not to see this one for all the reasons you mentioned. The trailers I've seen seem to confirm all my fears when I first heard this talked about.
I'm an admirer of Downey's work, but I've heard he's dropped hints of a homosexual relationship between Holmes and Watson(As Seinfeld said, "not that there's anything wrong with that!"), Such is not our two favorite characters though. That plot line will really set off fans of The world's greatest consulting detective.
I saw the film in December and enjoyed it greatly despite being a fan of the Basil Rathbone Holmes. I think it's horses for courses. Ignore the hype and accept it for what it is - a Guy Richie action romp - and it's fine (it helps if you like GR fims, of course). As for the homosexual innuendo, they even say Doris Day's Calamity Jane was a homage to girl on girl so what can we expect of a 21st Century flick?! It's just modern language, like having to say the F-word to get a laugh - not necessary but expected(?) to hit all the bases. My thoughts are just put it behind you, forget about it and when it comes on tele one wet afternoon in a couple of years time you might sit down, let it wash over you and wonder why it got your gander up in the first place. It's only a film and no-one can please all the people all the time. Change is inevitable. At least Holmes has been introduced a whole new generation. Is that a bad thing? :-)
Jo you make some good points but it's Sherlock Holmes - certain things define the character and to mess with that destroys the very essence of the character. There is no essence of Holmes in this flick. It is an enjoyable enough action flick I suppose but I went to see a Sherlock Holmes movie and I didn't get that. They've done the same thing with James Bond in my opinion. Maybe be I'm too much of a traditionalist but I'll stick with the real Sherlock Holmes.
It's all a bit Lock, Stock and Two Smokin' Sherlocks.
Sherlock Holmes has been a favourite of mine since my English teacher read the story to the class in my third year at secondary school. Since then I have avoided any dramatisations of the stories. My choice but then who can beat good stories coupled with imagination.
I've been a big fan of Conan Doyle and Holmes in particular for a long time and I found this iteration a refreshing interpretation--with plenty of Holmes in it for any fan, mild or obsessed.
If anything, at points, it's closer to Conan Doyle's writing than a goodly portion of the Rathbone/Bruce pairing. At least here Watson is no bumbler.
As far as interpreting and presenting Holmes closest to the manner in which he is presented by his creator, Jeremy Brett came closest. Superlative job of it, to be sure.
But I also think that nothing's sacred--we have the "canon" and have been given plenty of close calls over the years, why not enjoy a new spin? I did. Loved it, in fact. As much as I enjoy reading about Holmes battling Dracula, Holmes in comics, or married etc., in Laurie King's fine books.
And how 'bout "Lost in Austen," a flick that played fast and loose with sacred Jane, yet many Austen scholars loved it--because it offered yet a new way into the characters and book. And it attracted new readers to Jane's writing. "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies"? Wow. It's acted as a gateway drug to the Jane canon. Here's hoping the kids will want to check out where this Sherlock fella came from.
Back to my reading of Sherlock in Space....
Cheers,
Matt
MATT - As I say maybe I'm too traditionalist. But saying that I'm currently reading Sherlock Holmes, The War of the Worlds - hardly traditional. This film just didn't work for me at all. I've seen a lot of glowing reviews from huge sherlock Holmes fans, so I guess it'll divide opinions. But it would be great if it encourages interest in the original stories. But if someone with no previous knowledge of Holmes turns to the stories because of this film, then they'll be disappointed. I don't mind the updates - some of Rathbone's were set present day but at least the character of Holmes was correct. And I take your points on the bumbling Watson of old not being like the character in the canon, but that kind of dynamic worked with the characters.
I haven't seen the film - and won't. I haven't been to the movies since Terminator 2. We have a telly room and a damned big telly, but I won't be wasting money on the DVD either. I agree about Brett being the best Holmes ever. He stayed faithful to the portrait as painted by ACD. It's a bit like Christie lovers being horrified at what the writers did with Miss Marple when Geraldine McEwan played her. In the end you have to decide to watch and accept that it bears no resemblance to the story of the same name. To present Holmes and Watson as gay when Watson is obviously attracted to ladies with red hair, goes beyond ludicrous. It's as if Ritchie is trying to shock us with the concept of homosexuality. 30 years ago, perhaps, but this is 2010. If he wanted to stamp his mark on the film world, he could have kept to the spirit of the canon, which he obviously doesn't. And, what's worse, he won't give a toss about it. He has made hay at having hijacked the name of the most popular detective ever and is laughing all the way to the bank. It seems from descriptions and reviews I have heard that he has just gone for the occasional fact in the canon and played 'what if' with it. If he wanted to do that, why didn't he write a film of his own? Or does he just not have the imagination? Or perhaps he just wants the money he will get by gulling people into seeing the film under the impression that he has adhered to the canon? Why does it have to have a 'modern' angle? It isn't modern, it's Victorian. If he wanted modern, he could have done Lock Stock II, but, of course, that wouldn't make so much money for him, would it? Although, thinking about it, he has done 'modern', because it is quite the thing now to take a story that is perfectly good, rounded, logical and thrilling and spoil it completely.
Am I going to watch the film? No Way. Shame.Shame Guy Richie.
Gary is right. Guy Ritchie is media/market savvy alright, if he is anything. A Sherlock Holmes movie, if truly faithful to Conan Doyle, would surely have shown to empty halls. A scruffy, Fagin lookalike was, therefore, more likely to succeed, and it did!
I am sorry to have to quote the words of the great Anglophile, Nirad Chaudhuri who said in the 60s/70s, "today's generation of the British don't deserve their own history." And Arthur Conan Doyle and his canon is part of British history; in this case, history of literary fiction, just as is PG Wodehouse and his canon, particularly Jeeves & Bertie, Lord Emsworth and Psmith.
Incidentally, in the 70s/80s, a delegation of prominent citizens of Calcutta, including its Mayor, a world famous 'Life' magazine photographer, writers and film makers despatched a signed appeal to the Nobel committee complaining against the repeated non-inclusion of Wodehouse in the list if awardees. Ofcourse, their letter was acknowledged, but that is all.
Post a Comment