Just back from seeing Sherlock Holmes. I have to say, I was pleasantly surprised. It was an enjoyable romp, in some ways pleasingly true to Arthur Conan Doyle's creations. In other ways, not, but they did pick up on elements in the script that pleased me.
To be fair to the movie, it clearly sets out from the first to reinvent Holmes and Watson for modern sensibilities, with lots of action, fight sequences and typical questionable geography, but it appears to relish how daft it all is, rather than turning a blind eye to it, so Guy Richie and the crew must be given credit for that. It's undoubtedly a spiritual sequel to Young Sherlock Holmes rather than fitting in with the standard Holmes mold.
Credit to Jude Law, though. I've never rated him, much, but thanks to a nice script which plays up on his Watson's status as a decorated Afghan soldier, retired on the grounds of a leg injury, handy with a pistol or a cane, usually exasperated at Holmes and utterly capable, he gives a performance that's much more true to the books than previous bumbling incarnations.
Robert Downey Jr can't act in anything but a pleasing manner, but, although the script served the character of Holmes well, I wouldn't in any way consider his take a definitive version. He's a lovely line in wild eyed mania, but he seemed constantly surprised by himself and circumstances, rather than the rock-hard self-belief, arrogance and unflappable nature of Holmes as he's portrayed in the novels and has been previously. Jeremy Brett is hard to top, as he poured his heard into creating the definitive and faithful performance as Holmes and it's hard not to compare Downey Jr to him. There's a clear winner in the battle for the best Holmes there, but Downey Jr's an actor I could watch acting out the phone book and still enjoy, so there was plenty to enjoy.
Rachel McAdams makes a rather limp Irene Adler, though, turned into a washed out femme fatale who's more like a "femme little bit naughty". Lacking the bite I was hoping for, there. And the main villain, is, frankly, as dull as dishwater rather than genuinely creepy or scary, but you can't have everything.
The lest said about the plot, too, the better, really. Less a solvable mystery and more wild inventions and an excuse for a number of action set pieces. It had the advantage of doing so shamelessly and the swashbuckling was all rather infectious rather than offensive. Was it Holmes-esque? Not really, but it was all rather fun.
The best thing about the movie was the look: all grainy and grimy London backstreets and docks, handled more sympathetically than the usual American take on any period British based movie. It looked the part, at least, despite the usual desire to have things unfold at every major London landmark for the virtual tourists out there.
It's not a classic movie and certainly not classic Holmes, but it is rather fun for all that.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
