REVIEW: Sherlock Holmes is elementary

by on February 3, 2010 in Arts

MATT CHEETHAM
Arts Writer

Sherlock Holmes is an elementary film. It is neither a great nor a terrible movie — it is simply mediocre.

If you are a fan of the character and stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, you have been warned: this movie does not resemble the spirit of the original. In fact, if they had renamed the film Eccentric English Detective starring Robert Downey, Jr., it probably would have been much better and somewhat more enjoyable.

Aside from not resembling the spirit and tone of the original work, the movie is fairly typical action-adventure Hollywood fare.

The movie takes place in late 19th century London where Sherlock Holmes and his faithful sidekick are on the case to determine if Lord Blackwood has been resurrected from the dead after his recent execution. Since Blackwood’s demise, supernatural occurrences around London have convinced most people of his return, leading to both panic and fear.

Everyone is convinced, of course, except for Holmes and Watson who have surmised that there is a logical explanation and intend to get the answers they seek. Blackwood does turn out to be alive and his plan is a fairly typical action movie cliché: he wants to take over the world and amass power. Surprise, surprise. No clever cat and mouse games, no brainy deductions. Just two guys saving the world from a power-mad guy who wants to control it. Where have we seen this before?

A favourite scene of mine, which exemplifies this conformity well, is a scene where Sherlock Holmes is being chased by a large brute carrying a big hammer. While cornered, Sherlock reacts by picking up a smaller hammer nearby and throwing it at the man’s chest. This was fairly amusing but did not belong in a Sherlock Holmes film. It actually felt like something out of Pirates of the Caribbean but instead they substituted Captain Jack Sparrow with Sherlock Holmes because Johnny Depp was unavailable.

If you want to see this film, it’s probably best to not even think of it as Sherlock Holmes — just Robert Downey, Jr. with an accent solving a crime in Victorian-era London. But even then, it’s still not really a good movie, but rather a basic Hollywood action movie that has not only been beaten to death but also pulled out of its grave, had its clothes stolen and beaten some more.

There are, however, a few good things about the film. The acting for the most part is solid. Robert Downey, Jr. is quite good as Sherlock Holmes but let’s face it, Robert Downey, Jr. is good in everything. Downey, Jr. conveys a sense of eccentricity aligned with a genius intellect that is constantly bored. Jude Law is also solid as the trusty sidekick Dr. Watson. Law plays the role with both contempt and concern for his friend’s well-being, looking after him like a little brother.

The pair of actors make a wonderful team that should be replicated in a better movie. Also worth mentioning is Eddie Marsan who plays the disgruntled Inspector Lestrade of Scotland Yard. Marsan is good as a foil to Holmes but at the same time respectful of his strange methods and behaviour. Rachel McAdams also appears in the film as a love interest to Holmes but really doesn’t have much to add other than looking pretty.

Unless you absolutely love action movies, Robert Downey, Jr., or know nothing about Sherlock Holmes, it’s best to wait until you can see this on TV or at least for free, so you don’t have to kick yourself for being out $10.


Social Networking

Follow the Sheaf on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube.

  • Lee

    I am tired of bloggers kissing Downey’s ass. “Let’s face it, Robert Downey, Jr. is good in everything.” Good lord give me a break! The guy plays various versions of his screen persona these days, the trade-marked Downey mumbling smart aleck. It may be entertaining for a while, but good acting it isn’t.

  • Dude Skoodle

    Lee you are wrong- Downey is clearly a genius. The critic Matt Cheetham is mistaken too. I am very familiar with Conan Doyle and Downey’s Holmes is very true to the original. For example in the stories Holmes was a boxer and a fencer. He also fired his gun inside and was embroiled in action eg when the Cunninghams tried to throttle him in the Reigate Puzzle and in his fight to the death with Moriarty when they fell into the waterfall. Also the many mannerisms in the original are faithfully reproduced in the movie e.g. thoughtfully putting his fingertips together, closing his eyes and meditating. Also in the Doyle writing is Holme’s scruffiness as shown in the movie and the racing horse-drawn carriages. What I myself am tired of is people who haven’t closely read the original saying this movie is not like the original. Its a bit like everybody becoming a shot-put and rowing expert when the Olympics are on. The movie isn’t faithful to what many perceive as the original Holmes through half-remembered Basil Rathbone impressions from half forgotten movies. Holmes never had a deer hunters hat; nor does Downey. RDJ has clearly researched the hell out of this part. Its a pity that some critics and bloggers who don’t bother to check the original written text, couldn’t do some research themselves before attacking this remarkable actor. They make erroneous deductions. This was a very fine movie and since Conan Dole mostly had Sherlock in short stories one has to allow movie makers some license to unify the film by concocting a coherent story plot that makes sense in a modern movie.

  • ben

    that is completely unfounded. if someone were to have done "proper research" they would have looked at the "half remembered Basil Rathbone." Conan Doyle painted a good enough picture of sherlock holmes that Rathbone simply read what everyone else read. things were pretty simple at the time, so there wasn't the need for interpretation. Also, what I always got from the original pieces was that even though holmes knew how to fight, he only did so in order to help an investigation. the same reason he did opium, and the same reason he did kooky experiments. Downy played a slob, and, if I hadn't known any better, I would have called him a drunk. there's a reason bloggers and critics attack his acting, and its not because everyone's a complete moron. also, its completely possible to have the same mannerisms, but that doesn't mean that he's the same character, or does it for the same reason. any actor knows that… actually most people know that in general. also, the acting wasn't the only issue. certain visual things like the meditating seemed wrong. The reader's never knew how sherlock holmes thought until after the fact. Also, one glaringly obvious "not original moment" is Irene Addler. she was supposed to be the only girl who ever outsmarted Holmes. its exactly like cheetham said. they only added rachel mcadams to look pretty. The movie could have been written better, less actiony, and even truer to the original than it already isn't. besides: the study in scarlet, the hounds of baskerville, the mysterious 4 (not quite sure on that one), and one other. 4 novels done for sherlock holmes. the very first story with holmes in it was a novel, not a short story. why on earth did the director HAVE to combine so many different story aspects? it just didn't work.

    • Stetson

      I absolutely agree with Ben. If anyone wants to know anything about Sherlock Holmes, pick up a book. It will do wonders for you.

  • ben

    that is completely unfounded. if someone were to have done "proper research" they would have looked at the "half remembered Basil Rathbone." Conan Doyle painted a good enough picture of sherlock holmes that Rathbone simply read what everyone else read. things were pretty simple at the time, so there wasn't the need for interpretation. Also, what I always got from the original pieces was that even though holmes knew how to fight, he only did so in order to help an investigation. the same reason he did opium, and the same reason he did kooky experiments. Downy played a slob, and, if I hadn't known any better, I would have called him a drunk. there's a reason bloggers and critics attack his acting, and its not because everyone's a complete moron. also, its completely possible to have the same mannerisms, but that doesn't mean that he's the same character, or does it for the same reason. any actor knows that… actually most people know that in general. also, the acting wasn't the only issue. certain visual things like the meditating seemed wrong. The reader's never knew how sherlock holmes thought until after the fact. Also, one glaringly obvious "not original moment" is Irene Addler. she was supposed to be the only girl who ever outsmarted Holmes. its exactly like cheetham said. they only added rachel mcadams to look pretty. The movie could have been written better, less actiony, and even truer to the original than it already isn't. besides: the study in scarlet, the hounds of baskerville, the mysterious 4 (not quite sure on that one), and one other. 4 novels done for sherlock holmes. the very first story with holmes in it was a novel, not a short story. why on earth did the director HAVE to combine so many different story aspects? it just didn't work.