The new one. We finally get a good movie showing at the post theater, and Zach had to work. Just my luck. Not to be defeated, though, so off I went. Yup, the only girl there on her own at a movie on the Saturday before Valentine's. Oh, well - still had fun. Here are my thoughts on the newest Sherlock Holmes.
Plot: It's the familiar characters, but a new adventure, not one of Conan Doyle's original works. A recently hanged mass murderer is supposedly back from the dead and planning for mass destruction in London. Standard crazed villain trying to take over the world, with a good dose of magic and secret society activity thrown in.
To be honest, I went into this movie fearing the absolute worst. As I might have mentioned before, I love mysteries, particularly classics. I started reading Sherlock Holmes in 6th grade (the Red-Headed League was a short story in our English text, so that's how I remember). Started reading Agatha Christie at about the same time, come to think of it. So, as when Lord of the Rings was filmed, I had a combination of hope that they'd do a good job, and apprehension that someone in Hollywood was about to destroy childhood memories and beloved books. Guy Ritchie is a director I enjoy, but one more known for slick, flashy, edgy action films, and seeing him treat Holmes and Victorian London was something I was wary of. Add to that an American playing Holmes, even a talented one, and yes, I was worried.
But, thankfully, no need to be!
My biggest gripes were with the female characters, which yes, I do understand some liberties had to be taken for the sake of characterization, providing a love interest, and so forth. Doesn't mean I have to like it all! :)
Mary Morstan was the lady who married Watson, but she did not have to be introduced to Holmes as she had come into their acquaintance as a client (The Sign of Four). Her character in The Sign of Four was indeed a governess, as they mention here in the movie, but she was an orphan. Her mother had died when she was young, and her father's death was one of the events which started the investigation in The Sign of Four. So it did actually bother me when Watson kept fussing about missing "tea with his future in-laws."
Irene Adler is a good choice for Holmes' love interest, if they have to include one. I was pleased, though, that the relationship was all in the past, not a current thing for the characters. Had there been a big passionate kiss scene, I think I would have walked out of the theater right there! Still, Irene Adler was a strong female character in 'A Scandal in Bohemia,' one who can hold her own with Holmes, so she was a good character to use. I admit that, albeit reluctantly. And no, I had no objection to her being in men's clothing the second half of the movie, as it was stated in the short story that she was an actress and used to men's costuming.
The actresses for each did a decent job, considering the smaller roles they were given. Even Irene Adler is relatively a smaller role - in any Holmes story, the two characters that matter are Holmes and Watson. If you have a good pairing there, then the movie will work well.
Downey surprised me as Holmes. I liked him better than I expected. The manner and mannerisms and such fit well. He had the quick, high energy flow of speech and thought which I liked. One of those faster brains dealing with the slower minds around him. And yes, Holmes did sleep on the floor and fire shots into the wall (VR, like in the books - nice touch!) and feed things to Watson's dog, so all of that rang true. It really boils down to Downey doesn't look like Holmes. Despite his bohemian living quarters, Holmes was fastidious in his own appearance, so the disheveled Holmes was more than a bit out of place. And beyond that, the nose is wrong. I know it's silly, but Holmes is supposed to have a lean, hawk-like appearance, sharp nosed, that sort of thing. That's how he's described in the stories, and it's present in all interpretations of the character, going all the way back to Sidney Paget's drawings with the original publishing of the stories. Downey looks more hound dog than hawk. Little things, I know, but it was something I had to overcome to watch the movie and accept this Holmes.
On the other hand, Jude Law's Watson was a good take, and fit well with my mental image. This being earlier in the Holmes-Watson partnership, it makes sense that Watson is younger and more active. I like the interpretations of Watson as a stronger character in his own right too. Sometimes Watson is seen as a bungler, a hanger-on, or blind devoted follower to Holmes (think Nigel Bruce in the old Basil Rathbone Holmes pictures). But he's not - he is a doctor, has his own practice, has intelligence in his own fields. He is not Holmes, but he is not supposed to be on his level. Watson appreciates and learns from Holmes, but he is not an idiot. And I liked that they included Watson's injury, with the walking stick and limp, though they never really talked about it much in the movie. And the banter fit between the two - in the books, Holmes was always teasing Watson about his sensational take on their adventures and so forth, so seeing them quibble as they were living together worked well. And just as a fun bit of trivia, one of Jude Law's earliest roles was a small part in the Jeremy Brett version of "Shoscombe Old Place" :)
The camera work was definitely Guy Ritchie. The modern moving-about slick, 'cool' sort of style. You know what I mean. There were a few points where it really irritated me. The slow-motion explosion was slow-motion for a little too long. Was definitely thinking "alright, already, we get the point." And there was a fight scene early on that was hard to watch, jumping about a lot. I honestly don't know if it was the filming, though, or our sad little theater on post having trouble again.
There were some nice touches to the film making, too. I really liked the fight scenes at the beginning where he thinks through his whole attack, what moves he will use and how they will harm his opponent, even recovery time and lasting damages. And then he puts it all into action. Because Holmes really did box and study martial arts, so that suited the character just fine. I just liked it as a nice combination of Holmes' mental and physical activities. I was actually a little disappointed that they abandoned that technique after only 2 fights. Ritchie did play up the action, obviously, to appeal to a modern audience, but he did a good job overall in not making it totally incongruous with the existing characters and the world they live in. The Victorian London he filmed was a grimier one, but not bad. And I was so happy I nearly squealed in the theater when they introduced Baker Street - it was almost exactly the same shots as in the opening credits to the Granada Sherlock Holmes series (the Jeremy Brett version). Totally an Easter egg for the die-hard fans! Am such a dork...
Thinking of dorkiness, too, there were TONS of references for die-hards. Anyone else catch the dog's name is Gladstone, both the name of a Victorian Prime Minister and the type of bags doctors use? I had fun watching and trying to catch as many as I could :)
And it doesn't really count as a fan Easter egg, more like a open ending for a sequel, but Moriarty is mentioned. A sort of foreshadowing? Rather like the playing card at the end of Batman Begins. It's open for a sequel, or just open for those who appreciate the stories.
The music is great. Hans Zimmer, what else can you expect? And they included one of my favorite songs - The Rock Road to Dublin - in the boxing scene. So, I've been singing it all day...
To be honest, I went into this movie fearing the absolute worst. As I might have mentioned before, I love mysteries, particularly classics. I started reading Sherlock Holmes in 6th grade (the Red-Headed League was a short story in our English text, so that's how I remember). Started reading Agatha Christie at about the same time, come to think of it. So, as when Lord of the Rings was filmed, I had a combination of hope that they'd do a good job, and apprehension that someone in Hollywood was about to destroy childhood memories and beloved books. Guy Ritchie is a director I enjoy, but one more known for slick, flashy, edgy action films, and seeing him treat Holmes and Victorian London was something I was wary of. Add to that an American playing Holmes, even a talented one, and yes, I was worried.
But, thankfully, no need to be!
My biggest gripes were with the female characters, which yes, I do understand some liberties had to be taken for the sake of characterization, providing a love interest, and so forth. Doesn't mean I have to like it all! :)
Mary Morstan was the lady who married Watson, but she did not have to be introduced to Holmes as she had come into their acquaintance as a client (The Sign of Four). Her character in The Sign of Four was indeed a governess, as they mention here in the movie, but she was an orphan. Her mother had died when she was young, and her father's death was one of the events which started the investigation in The Sign of Four. So it did actually bother me when Watson kept fussing about missing "tea with his future in-laws."
Irene Adler is a good choice for Holmes' love interest, if they have to include one. I was pleased, though, that the relationship was all in the past, not a current thing for the characters. Had there been a big passionate kiss scene, I think I would have walked out of the theater right there! Still, Irene Adler was a strong female character in 'A Scandal in Bohemia,' one who can hold her own with Holmes, so she was a good character to use. I admit that, albeit reluctantly. And no, I had no objection to her being in men's clothing the second half of the movie, as it was stated in the short story that she was an actress and used to men's costuming.
The actresses for each did a decent job, considering the smaller roles they were given. Even Irene Adler is relatively a smaller role - in any Holmes story, the two characters that matter are Holmes and Watson. If you have a good pairing there, then the movie will work well.
Downey surprised me as Holmes. I liked him better than I expected. The manner and mannerisms and such fit well. He had the quick, high energy flow of speech and thought which I liked. One of those faster brains dealing with the slower minds around him. And yes, Holmes did sleep on the floor and fire shots into the wall (VR, like in the books - nice touch!) and feed things to Watson's dog, so all of that rang true. It really boils down to Downey doesn't look like Holmes. Despite his bohemian living quarters, Holmes was fastidious in his own appearance, so the disheveled Holmes was more than a bit out of place. And beyond that, the nose is wrong. I know it's silly, but Holmes is supposed to have a lean, hawk-like appearance, sharp nosed, that sort of thing. That's how he's described in the stories, and it's present in all interpretations of the character, going all the way back to Sidney Paget's drawings with the original publishing of the stories. Downey looks more hound dog than hawk. Little things, I know, but it was something I had to overcome to watch the movie and accept this Holmes.
On the other hand, Jude Law's Watson was a good take, and fit well with my mental image. This being earlier in the Holmes-Watson partnership, it makes sense that Watson is younger and more active. I like the interpretations of Watson as a stronger character in his own right too. Sometimes Watson is seen as a bungler, a hanger-on, or blind devoted follower to Holmes (think Nigel Bruce in the old Basil Rathbone Holmes pictures). But he's not - he is a doctor, has his own practice, has intelligence in his own fields. He is not Holmes, but he is not supposed to be on his level. Watson appreciates and learns from Holmes, but he is not an idiot. And I liked that they included Watson's injury, with the walking stick and limp, though they never really talked about it much in the movie. And the banter fit between the two - in the books, Holmes was always teasing Watson about his sensational take on their adventures and so forth, so seeing them quibble as they were living together worked well. And just as a fun bit of trivia, one of Jude Law's earliest roles was a small part in the Jeremy Brett version of "Shoscombe Old Place" :)
The camera work was definitely Guy Ritchie. The modern moving-about slick, 'cool' sort of style. You know what I mean. There were a few points where it really irritated me. The slow-motion explosion was slow-motion for a little too long. Was definitely thinking "alright, already, we get the point." And there was a fight scene early on that was hard to watch, jumping about a lot. I honestly don't know if it was the filming, though, or our sad little theater on post having trouble again.
There were some nice touches to the film making, too. I really liked the fight scenes at the beginning where he thinks through his whole attack, what moves he will use and how they will harm his opponent, even recovery time and lasting damages. And then he puts it all into action. Because Holmes really did box and study martial arts, so that suited the character just fine. I just liked it as a nice combination of Holmes' mental and physical activities. I was actually a little disappointed that they abandoned that technique after only 2 fights. Ritchie did play up the action, obviously, to appeal to a modern audience, but he did a good job overall in not making it totally incongruous with the existing characters and the world they live in. The Victorian London he filmed was a grimier one, but not bad. And I was so happy I nearly squealed in the theater when they introduced Baker Street - it was almost exactly the same shots as in the opening credits to the Granada Sherlock Holmes series (the Jeremy Brett version). Totally an Easter egg for the die-hard fans! Am such a dork...
Thinking of dorkiness, too, there were TONS of references for die-hards. Anyone else catch the dog's name is Gladstone, both the name of a Victorian Prime Minister and the type of bags doctors use? I had fun watching and trying to catch as many as I could :)
And it doesn't really count as a fan Easter egg, more like a open ending for a sequel, but Moriarty is mentioned. A sort of foreshadowing? Rather like the playing card at the end of Batman Begins. It's open for a sequel, or just open for those who appreciate the stories.
The music is great. Hans Zimmer, what else can you expect? And they included one of my favorite songs - The Rock Road to Dublin - in the boxing scene. So, I've been singing it all day...
Overall: 5 of 5. My gripes were ones that with additional viewings can be overlooked. The movie was fun, the banter fit the characters, there were some nice touches that I really enjoyed, and if it brings more people to enjoy the Conan Doyle canon, that's even better.
The following posters are included because (a) I like them, and (b) there's a spoiler discussion down below :)
The following posters are included because (a) I like them, and (b) there's a spoiler discussion down below :)
Two things down here in the SPOILERS section:
In the final fight scene, Irene runs off with the canisters and heads away from the Parliament through the sewers (the fight began underneath Parliament). She pops up in under a minute at Tower Bridge (under construction at the time). That's like 2 miles upriver! Yes, that honestly did distract me, because I remember that trip downriver from a boat ride during our last trip to London.
I was very pleased with the handling of the Magic elements. The story itself is at the more extreme end of the type of case Holmes dealt with, but how it was handled, that aspect of the plot was actually in sync with the Holmes stories. Lots of smoke and fear and distraction covering up for a simple scientific solution. Yes, the explanations for several of the deaths were kinda glossed over, but that wasn't the focus of the mystery. It wasn't the how but the how-to-stop-it, so to speak. The adventure overall reminded me very much of the Hound of the Baskervilles - lots of legend and fear and superstition, but all comes down to a very large trained dog and phosphorescent paint! So, yes, if they have to create a story, this one works well with the existing stories Conan Doyle had created.
I was very pleased with the handling of the Magic elements. The story itself is at the more extreme end of the type of case Holmes dealt with, but how it was handled, that aspect of the plot was actually in sync with the Holmes stories. Lots of smoke and fear and distraction covering up for a simple scientific solution. Yes, the explanations for several of the deaths were kinda glossed over, but that wasn't the focus of the mystery. It wasn't the how but the how-to-stop-it, so to speak. The adventure overall reminded me very much of the Hound of the Baskervilles - lots of legend and fear and superstition, but all comes down to a very large trained dog and phosphorescent paint! So, yes, if they have to create a story, this one works well with the existing stories Conan Doyle had created.
No comments:
Post a Comment