SHERLOCK HOLMES (2009)
***
Prior to its release, one didn’t have to dig deep to find reasons to prematurely dismiss Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes. For one, it’s directed by Guy Ritchie, once-promising director of Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch turned much-derided director of Swept Away and Revolver. For another, critics are quick to scrutinize the casting of an American as a European, or vice versa, and even more so when the character in question is one of prominent national note (and there are few more famous British literary characters than Sherlock Holmes). All anticipation, it seemed, rested on the acting prowess of Robert Downey Jr., and not just to simply pull off an accent: he would have to successfully resurrect a beloved literary character, and moreover, transcend the skills of a director known more for his excesses than his restraint.
How was there every any doubt? As the release of last year’s Tropic Thunder approached, critics were quick to point out the tastelessness and racism inherent in Downey’s “black-faced” character Kirk Lazarus - Downey expertly took this satirical portrayal all the way to an Oscar nomination. And this, months after turning one of the less popular Marvel heroes, Iron Man, into a bona fide cinematic franchise, scoring $585M worldwide, as well as an upcoming sequel. As Sherlock Holmes, Downey is an eccentric phenomenon. And no, the film does not completely live up to his fantastic performance, but let’s face it - most of us aren’t lining up to see Sherlock Holmes, but to see Robert Downey Jr. as Sherlock Holmes, and in typical form, he does not disappoint.
The story, then, is almost incidental - Syriana’s Mark Strong plays the nefarious Lord Blackwood, an affluent warlock who is caught mid-ritual in the film’s opening by Holmes and faithful sidekick Dr. Watson (played by Jude Law, knowingly not trying to upstage Downey, and delivering a fine performance). After Blackwood delivers a chilling warning to Holmes, the bodies start to pile up in increasingly supernatural fashion, and Holmes and Watson are on the case, accompanied off-and-on by Holmes’ former flame Irene Adler, a professional thief who is somehow connected to the strange string of murders. As Adler, Rachel McAdams is radiant as usual, displaying Adler as resourceful and cunning and a great match for Downey’s Holmes.
Though the mystery is of course solved (this is Holmes - that’s not a spoiler), and though we tag along while the clues are discovered, this is a film that cares less about being an effective procedural mystery-solving yarn than a comic display of Downey playing detective, as well as the jovial camaraderie between Watson and Holmes, perhaps the finest cinematic period bromance since Butch and Sundance. The fact that Holmes is figuring it out all along, but only lets us know what’d he’d been piecing together at the film’s climax, was a little bit of a letdown, but again, in a film that cared a bit more about our own crime-solving skills, the clues may have been a bit more obvious than a feather and a dusty bathtub. This isn’t a film constructed for fellow magnifying-glass enthusiasts - this is a modernist’s take, explosions and all, and a showcase for Downey fans. As such, it’s a very fun ride and a success. Fans of The Hound of the Baskervilles, on the other hand, will find themselves scratching their heads as to what Ritche and Downey have done to their beloved hero.
Comment:
