Sherlock Holmes

Guy Ritchie has not so much given us some sort of “updated Sherlock” as brought out some of the most interesting aspects of the character's century-long development.

Sherlock Holmes

Director: Guy Ritchie
Release Date: 2010-03-30

When the new Sherlock Holmes film first appeared, I heard a number of complaints, some from random movie-goers and some from film critics, that Guy Ritchie hadn’t given them “the real Sherlock Holmes”.

Ritchie deserves a break here. I think its possible that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s stories are so infrequently read that film has been able to use the character fairly elastically. I would guess that the average moviegoer only knows that Holmes wears a deerstalker hat (known to much of the world as a “Sherlock Holmes hat”), smokes a pipe and solves crimes using a razor-keen rationality.

There’s no deerstalker in Guy Ritchie’s 2009 Sherlock Holmes and Robert Downey Jr. does not sit in an overstuffed armchair, puffing away on his pipe, solving crimes. Bloodied knuckles and chases through a weirdly lit Victorian London are his preferred crime-fighting method, though he brings his famed cerebral dexterity to each of these activities. This disappointed some moviegoers, as did the personal quirkiness bordering on autism that Downey brought to the role.

In fact, Ritchie borrowed very heavily from the Holmes canon to create his version of the Baker Street sleuth, including the bare-knuckle fight scene that has garnered so much attention. Holmes’ personal quirks are not only very much a part of the written canon but appear frequently in film and television portrayals. Jeremy Brett, the actor who portrayed Holmes for the UK TV serial The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes in the '80s, famously invested the character with his own manic-depressive tendencies.

And the deerstalker hat? It actually first appeared in an early film version of the famous detective.

Guy Ritchie has not so much given us some sort of “updated Sherlock” as brought out some of the most interesting aspects of the character's century-long development. Although in many respects a flawed film, Robert Downey Jr. as Holmes and Jude Law as Dr. Watson perfectly realize their characters in a fashion that stays with you long after your first viewing.

Downy and Law play off one another perfectly, making this anything but Victorian era buddy movie. The rather explicit homoerotic undertones of their interactions are only a small, if notable, part of their complicated friendship. A dash of Butch and Sundance plus a bit of Lethal Weapon makes them one of the best male couples I’ve ever seen on film.

Sherlock Homes further benefits from an excellent cinematography and set design that creates an 1890s London cityscape that owes something to history and something to steampunk. Dingy markets and stylishly grungy streets make for a perfect Holmsian environment. The Blu-Ray edition of this film allows you to revel in Victorian London that at times feels neo-realistic. The occasional steampunk gadget adds texture to, rather than betrays, this truly inspired vision.

Unfortunately, the dynamic duo of Downey and Law set against the great look of this film clashes dramatically with some very serious shortcomings. The introduction of Rachel McAdams as “Irene Adler, a femme fatale that serves as Holmes’s love interest," feels like an effort to tamp down the homoerotic undertones of the Holmes-Watson relationship. Shoehorned into a story where she doesn’t belong, her scenes add absolutely nothing to the narrative and, at times, cause the pacing to grind to a halt. Ironically McAdams (best known to audiences from Ryan Goslings The Notebook) turned down the role of Vesper Lynd in the Martin Campbell Bond films because she wanted to be involved in projects other than big budget action movies.

Bond films actually haunt the telling of this story in a number of ways, and Ritchie has suggested that he wanted his Holmes to be a kind of Victorian James Bond. This comes out in the plotting where we are given villain “Lord Blackwood” (Mark Strong who appears in Revolver) that aspires to super-criminal status along the lines of Dr. No.

Strong does the best he can with a rather boring character and the increasingly bizarre plotting of Sherlock Holmes. Viewers with a bit of awareness of the Holmes canon will be left wondering why the first film in this series didn’t pit Holmes against is arch-nemesis, Professor Moriarty, who is introduced at the very end of the film in a ham-fisted sequel set-up.

Efforts to turn Holmes into a fin-de siècle Bond falter further in the messy narrative. A good James Bond film also has a complex and, at times, byzantine plot. We enjoy the hell out the car chases while not always being certain why they are happening. By the time the credits role, we see symmetry in the plot points of international criminals, conspiracies and betrayals.

No such luck with Ritchie’s Holmes. The action remains rather random. At the end, as Ritchie serves us up some warmed over Dan Brown with a conspiracy involving the masons, satanic worship among the British nobility and a plot to rule the world by killing British parliamentarians. Or something.

The last hour of Sherlock Holmes makes you wish that Ritchie had not turned to the Bond film for inspiration but rather to his own early work. Before he made tedious action films with absurd kabalistic subtexts (Revolver) and disastrous turkeys starring his ex-wife Madonna (Swept Away) Ritchie made some of the best crime films in genre history. Snatch and Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels are two of the finest representations of gritty criminal underworlds ever filmed, perfectly balancing violence and humor with a careful study of male friendship.

Sherlock Holmes could have included all of these elements and did include some of them. Recreating the criminal underworld of the late 19th century as he did for late 20th century London, Ritchie could have reintroduced us to this famous, but misunderstood character while also reacquainting us with his own slumbering genius. He missed both opportunities here.

Pitch perfect performances by Downey and Law along with the great look of this film make it well worth your time, despite its serious failings. The Blu-Ray edition comes packed with goodies that not only allow you to explore the making of this effort, but how the Holmes mythos conforms and contrasts to what Ritchie finally put on screen.

In addition to excellent documentary material that goes beyond simple "making of' featurettes in the extras, we also get the Maximum Movie Mode that Warner now frequently includes with its major Blu-Ray releases. This allows us to watch the film with onscreen inserts that show storyboards and provide commentary from cast and crew. This update of the director’s commentary gives the sense of watching the film with the director as he details why he made the decision he did.

The latter feature clarifies the likely set of responses to this film. At points, you want to applaud as you listen to Ritchie describe how he filmed action sequences, something he does better than just about anybody in the business. When it comes to casting and narrative style, however, you just want to turn to him and ask what the hell he was thinking. The best Guy Ritchie film in years should have been better than this.


So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.