![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.nekosmuse.com\/sherlockholmes\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2\/2020\/04\/pipe.png\")
<\/p>\n\n\n\nSherlock Holmes: Robert Downey Jr.
Dr. Watson: Jude Law
Year: 2009
Case: Original<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Rating: <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Robert Downey Jr. as Sherlock Holmes<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n I am so completely torn on what to think of Downey\u2019s Holmes. On the one hand, I was thoroughly entertained by Downey. On the other; this is not Sherlock Holmes. At least, this is not my Sherlock Holmes (and I suspect a good number of Sherlockians would agree with me). A dishevelled, at times drunken, combative, and petulant Sherlock Holmes is so far removed from the Sherlock Holmes of Canon that I had a hard time reconciling the character. The problem, of course, is in the writing (and perhaps directing), not in Downey\u2019s acting. In fact, given a good script, I think Downey could own the role. And I\u2019m saying this as a Downey novice (i.e. I was quite ambivalent regarding him as an actor prior to seeing this film). He impressed me, and made me like the character, even though I couldn\u2019t recognize him as \u201cthe\u201d Sherlock Holmes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Oh, he has many of Sherlock\u2019s qualities. He is clever (though not as brilliant as the Holmes of Canon), he is charming, he is manic, at times quite mad, and he can certainly kick criminal ass, but he lacks the polish I think most Sherlockians were hoping for. Where is the subtlety of Canon\u2019s Holmes? Where is the catlike, well-groomed gentleman of Canon, who silently raged at the injustices of the world, all while systematically rooting them out and sending their perpetrators to gaol?<\/p>\n\n\n\n That is not to say that I disliked this interpretation of Holmes. He did not ring true \u2013was not entirely credible as Sherlock Holmes\u2013 but he was interesting. I liked Holmes\u2019 vulnerability in this adaptation, something I think the Holmes of Canon worked very hard to suppress. I liked, too, his complete inability to take care of himself (i.e. leaving the stove on, having Watson force him out of the house), something I think Watson glossed over in Canon, but was none-the-less a true aspect of Holmes\u2019 character.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Addendum: The characterization in this film grows on you with multiple viewings. The above analysis portrays my first impression, but as you\u2019ll see in my second review, my opinion on Downey\u2019s Holmes quickly changed. I am now quite enamoured.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Jude Law as Doctor Watson<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n It is both the characterization of Doctor Watson, and Jude Law\u2019s portrayal of Holmes\u2019 most intimate friend and companion, which elevates this film to a four pipe rating. Those who have been reading my reviews will likely know that I am, above and beyond all things, a Watson fangirl. As such, any adaptation which presents a strong, capable, intelligent, and useful Watson will earn my admiration. Law\u2019s Watson is all of these things.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This is the Watson of Canon. This is the Watson who keeps Holmes in check, puts Holmes in his place, and yet, still marvels and excites over every little thing that Holmes does. This is the Watson who tends the dying and sick on Tuesdays, then turns around and kicks ass on Wednesdays. This is the Watson who jumps at the chance to solve a mystery, and solves it, even if he needs a little help getting from his observations to his conclusion. This Watson is the Watson I fell in love with, and for that I will always be grateful to this adaptation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rachel McAdams as Irene Adler<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n I know a lot of people were not impressed by the Canon changes for Adler\u2019s character, but I have to say, turning her into a criminal dramatically improved my interest in the character. I have never been an Adler fan, and do not share the majority Sherlockian view that Adler was somehow the heroine of the Sherlock Holmes stories. To begin with, she is a misunderstood character. She blackmails a king, because he will not marry her, and then changes her mind, because she finds the love of a better man. It boggles my mind to know she is considered a feminist icon. The whole of her story resolves around men. She is a testament to Doyle\u2019s occasional bouts of misogyny. Oh why, oh why, Watson, could you not have written Violet Smith as The Woman? If any woman deserves Sherlock\u2019s admiration and respect, it is Miss Smith.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But I digress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Turning Adler into a criminal, whose motives are driven, not by petty spite and jealousy, but rather boredom and the desire for adventure, elevates Adler to Holmes\u2019 level. Here she is a true match for the Great Detective, and this is something I don\u2019t think a single adaptation has managed to do (ironically enough, by remaining too true to Canon). While I still do not subscribe to the notion that Holmes\u2019 interest in Adler was sexual (if anything, this adaptation emphasizes this point, as Holmes\u2019 discomfort with Adler\u2019s advances is blindingly obvious), it was refreshing to see him match wits with someone who is truly his intellectual equal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mark Strong as Lord Blackwood<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n As Sherlock Holmes villains go, Lord Blackwood is an interesting one. He is certainly not the Holmes-equal that Moriarty was, but he is on par with the likes of Stapleton (HOUN fame). Strong\u2019s performance is top-notch, and while I do wish they had pitted Holmes against a more worthy nemesis, it is obvious this is intended for the film\u2019s sequel(s) (i.e. with the introduction of Moriarty). Still, one cannot complain about Strong\u2019s presence in the film, for he certain adds an air of suspense and danger to the atmosphere. He is quite diabolical.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Other Characters<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Several other characters, recognizable from Canon, make an appearance in this film, though their roles are not profound. Geraldine James plays a disappointing Mrs. Hudson, who is not at all the strong, matronly landlady of Canon. Eddie Marsan plays Inspector Lestrade, who is, sadly, quite maltreated throughout the bulk of the film (note to writers: Holmes and Lestrade may have butted heads, and Holmes was never one to shy from insulting Lestrade, but beneath it all he did like and respect the man). Kelly Reilly plays Mary Morstan, and while the character is quite unrecognizable, Reilly portrayal is quite charming. I like the Mary of Canon, and I liked this Mary, too, which is impressive given that she is the largest stumbling block in Holmes and Watson\u2019s relationship. Aside from that there are a number of supporting players, none of whom stand out in any fashion, save perhaps the anonymous, shadowed man meant to be Moriarty, but I anticipate we will not have long to wait before making his introduction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Relationships<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Holmes and Adler<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n I confess; I always worry when a Holmes film includes Irene Adler. Above, I\u2019ve discussed my dislike for the character in Canon, but there is nothing worse than the assumption that she is somehow Holmes\u2019 only love interest. I was pleasantly surprised, then, by her role in this film. Oh, don\u2019t get me wrong; there are times when watching her interaction with Holmes was quite awkward, but overall she came across a strong, well rounded character. Their relationship seemed far more platonic, based on mutual admiration and respect than any physical desire. There is a suggestion that their relationship prior to this film might have held some intimacy, but it is clear that they do not trust one another, and that Holmes finds the concept of physical intimacy with her quite uncomfortable. I wasn\u2019t particularly fond of the suggestion that she was in love with Sherlock, and disappointed by his rejection, but at the same time, he did in the end reject her, so I suppose I cannot complain too loudly.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At one point, Watson refers to her as Holmes\u2019 muse, and I think this description works quite well within the confines of this film. Holmes clearly likes and respects Adler. He is clearly curious about her. But his interest in her rests on an intellectual level, not a physical (or even spiritual) one. She is an interesting character, whom he cannot figure out, and this vexes him, because he is used to knowing people more intimately than they know themselves \u2014 and this with only a single glance. Adler is a challenge. Sherlock Holmes does not love The Woman, but he does love the challenge she presents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Holmes and Watson<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n There is a very interesting subplot running throughout the film, which, incidentally, is far more compelling than the actual plot of the film. Watson has become frustrated by life with Holmes and has decided to take a wife (i.e. Mary Morstan). Save for Mary\u2019s back story, and that she wasn\u2019t Holmes\u2019 client, this plot is lifted directly from Canon. Readers will remember that Watson was quite put out with Holmes in SIGN: sick of his cocaine use and frequent black moods. Holmes, naturally, is quite upset by this, not wanting to lose his Watson to a woman (again directly lifted from Canon, as the reader will recall Holmes\u2019 campaign to woo Watson back in SIGN \u2014 that is, once he\u2019s realized Watson is falling for Miss Morstan).<\/p>\n\n\n\n There is a lot of tension between Holmes and Watson in this film, and it stems directly from Watson\u2019s impending engagement. One gets the impression that Holmes is quite distraught over the prospect of losing Watson. And one gets the impression that Watson is waiting for Holmes to admit this; something, sadly, Holmes will never do. This is the grand love story of Canon (with Holmes eventually faking his death and disappearing from Watson\u2019s life, not to return until after Mary\u2019s death). It is quite delightful to see this play out on the big screen, even if we know Holmes\u2019 attempts to sabotage Watson and Mary\u2019s marriage is doomed to failure. Hopefully the sequels (and the film does set up for at least one) will remain true to Canon, with Holmes and Watson soon regaining their partnership.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite the tension between them, they spend the bulk of the film flirting with one another. At one point they refer to one another as a cock and hen. At another, Holmes fondles Watson through his trouser pocket, and then tells him \u201cnot to get excited\u201d. They are exceptionally domestic, with Holmes specifically and intentionally referring to Baker Street as \u201cour rooms\u201d and to Gladstone as \u201cour dog\u201d. Then, towards the end of the film, Watson tells Holmes that he is gorgeous \u2014 this is followed by an awkward but lovely scene where Holmes and Watson sit side by side on a bed and Holmes tells Watson that he\u2019s glad he has lived. There are numerous small scenes throughout the film which will easily lead the viewer to conclude that Holmes and Watson are desperately in love with one another, and that Holmes, at least, has come to realize the depths of his feelings for Watson.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One might be disappointed when Watson ends up proposing to Mary, but those familiar to Canon will know that Mary\u2019s existence, however brief, does not hamper Holmes and Watson\u2019s relationship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Delightful Elements<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n There are a number of delightful things contained within this film. Even as a staunch Sherlockian, expecting the worst, I grinned throughout the film. The references to Canon alone should be enough to keep any Sherlockian happy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There are numerous lines lifted directly from the stories: \u201cIt is a capital offence to theorize before one has data,\u201d and \u201cit was worth a wound\u2026\u201d and \u201cmy mind rebels at stagnation\u2026\u201d and \u201cyour chequebook is locked in my drawer\u2026\u201d and \u201cyou have the grand gift of silence, Watson\u2026\u201d and \u201cData, data, data! I can\u2019t make bricks without clay,\u201d are only a handful. Then there are the numerous nods to Canon and its adaptations: Watson\u2019s bull pug, Watson\u2019s limp, Watson\u2019s wandering wound, Watson\u2019s gambling problem, the bullet-hole V.R., Holmes in disguise, the pocket-watch deduction, Mycroft, Moriarty, Adler\u2019s photograph, Holmes\u2019 violin and the flies (a nod to the Rathbone era films), Holmes\u2019 ability to speak French; the seventeen steps! The list goes on. I think I clapped with glee with each reference.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Then there are the sets and costumes, which, while at times were a little too gritty, were absolutely delightful, adding to the atmosphere of the film. It was nice, too, to see a Holmes\u2019 film with twenty-first century CGI and a larger-scale budget. Nothing was sparred in making this film look very, very pretty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Quibbles<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n No film review would be complete without its quibbles, and this film has dozens. The most obvious, perhaps, is the plot, which was overly simple, not truly a mystery (at least, not worthy of a Sherlock Holmes mystery) and so overshadowed by fight scenes, explosions, and heavy-handed attempts at symbolism (the crow comes to mind), that by the time the film ends, one doesn\u2019t particularly care about the resolution. I was ready to leave long before Holmes\u2019 infamous \u201clet me explain my reasoning to you, Watson,\u201d scene.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I am not a Guy Ritchie fan. I have never liked his films. I think he is far too concerned with flashy effects and slow-motion fighting, and not at all concerned enough with story and character development to merit his acclaim. I feel bad saying that, I do, but this film did nothing to redeem my opinion of him. It reeks of Guy Ritchie directing. The strength of the acting alone in this film could have overcome a shaky script. It cannot, however, overcome a shaky script and director.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Why then, do you ask, does this film warrant four out of five pipes? As I mentioned above: Watson. He really is that fantastic. And, of course, the Sherlockian fan service helped considerably.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So despite the film\u2019s flaws, it is still a good film. It\u2019s not a great Sherlock Holmes\u2019 film, but it is good; enjoyable and entertaining. It is certainly one of the prettiest Holmes\u2019 films I have seen to date. I leave, however, disappointed, because I suspect, with a better script and a different director, this could have been a great film. Certainly Downey and Law, like Rathbone and Bruce, or Brett and Burke\/Hardwicke before them, are both more than capable of claiming the privilege of being recognized as this generation\u2019s Holmes and Watson. I only wish I could have crowned them as such.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" A 2009 pastiche staring Robert Downey Jr. as Sherlock Holmes.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[13],"tags":[79,81],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nekosmuse.com\/sherlockholmes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/381"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nekosmuse.com\/sherlockholmes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nekosmuse.com\/sherlockholmes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nekosmuse.com\/sherlockholmes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nekosmuse.com\/sherlockholmes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=381"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.nekosmuse.com\/sherlockholmes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/381\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":382,"href":"https:\/\/www.nekosmuse.com\/sherlockholmes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/381\/revisions\/382"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.nekosmuse.com\/sherlockholmes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=381"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nekosmuse.com\/sherlockholmes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=381"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.nekosmuse.com\/sherlockholmes\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=381"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}