Morning:
10°c
Andrew O'Hagan's rating
Sherlock Holmes: Exemplary, my dear Watson
By
Andrew O'Hagan
24 Dec 2009
At the Sherlock Holmes Museum and shop in Baker Street, there’s a guy dressed as a Victorian policeman who stands outside all day.
He wears a plastic hat and an exhausted smile. Whenever I go past there, I’m always amazed by the number of tourists who want to have their picture taken with him. What is he? He’s a fake policeman outside the phoney address of a fictional hero who never existed in real life. It must be some kind of tribute to the power of the Holmes narratives that fans treat the whole thing not only as a phenomenon but as a genuine part of history and reality.
The stories have appealed to film-makers since the early days, and looking at the various Holmeses can give you a clue to the vagaries of English character. Those of us who grew up on Basil Rathbone and Jeremy Brett are apt to think of the great detective as a rather quiet, patient enigma himself, thoughtful to the point of stasis, but always with a devastating insight percolating in the area beneath his deerstalker.
Guy Ritchie’s brilliant new account of Holmes makes him a combination of clown and beefcake, wreck and genius, and, only minutes into this film, you know that Robert Downey Jnr’s version of the character will be indelible.
Late-Victorian London is (as usual) being subjected to a string of ritual murders. Holmes (Downey Jnr) and Watson (Jude Law) turn up at some cavernous gaff to discover a girl writhing on an altar surrounded by a bunch of dark hoods.
The leader of all this Satanic-seeming stuff is Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), who is arrested, convicted and condemned to death, which is easier to say than it is to achieve. The story – and I’m giving nothing more away, so help me God – will turn on Holmes’s mental acuity, especially when it comes to working out the difference between magic and trickery. The plot works very well, in the sprit of Conan Doyle, because it sets up a genuine meeting of oppositions, in which every possibility earns its keep. The film is fast and furious but it is never slipshod: you get to know everything in the right order and you feel crazily involved all the way.
Holmes has never been so well served when it comes to physical action. There has always been directors who preferred the pipe-smoking aspect, but Guy Ritchie forges a genuine connection (much more like the books) between cerebral activity and physical daring. Downey’s Holmes is a punch-drunk pugilist, forever biffing and whacking his way out of scrapes. The choreography of these fights is a Ritchie hallmark – he forgot it for a while, but I figure it belongs to his instinct.
He understands the comedy and the grace of male violence, as much as its awfulness, and every scene in this movie is a compelling little essay in the price of exertion, about the habit of ripping up the world to get your own way.
Ritchie’s best work is always about that, but with this film there’s no sense of him over-investing in the style of it or editorialising about his characters’ authenticity (an effort which damaged each of his earlier films). This one is pure magic: Ritchie is all over it, but everything is in the service of human nature, plot, and a good laugh. And it does these things so brilliantly that the film turns out to be one of the year’s best.
There’s something so lush about seeing Robert Downey Jnr as Holmes. He knows a thing or two about being in a scrape, and his Holmesian manners are impeccable. But the main thrill comes with the sheer pleasure he is able to communicate, the pleasure both of intellectual discovery and physical prowess. That combination is true to Conan Doyle but untypical of screen adaptations. Downey Jnr has pleasing degrees of vanity and vulnerability: you feel he is somewhat lonely with his genius, which is ripe stuff. Jude Law is the perfect foil to all of this, and he brings a weightier Watson, no mere bumbling accomplice but a man of action and individuality.
Law is an excellent physical actor, as anybody who saw his Hamlet would know, but here in Sherlock Holmes he is at one with Downey Jnr in folding a smile into scenes of enormous gravity. They are for my money the best Homes and Watson we’ve ever seen, and, if the franchise-merchants are worth their salt, we’ll be seeing a hell of a lot more of them.
Released on 26 December
Details are correct at the time of publication - please check with venue before booking.
Reader views (16)
Witty and charming, not lacking any of Sherlock's traits. I was caught on surprise on some of the things Ritchie featured what made me "re-read" the stories and amazingly enough it was all there the right to my face and I just had forgotten how realistic and current Sherlock was. It's really a film for the lovers of Sherlock. For the lovers of Cinema it might do just as well, as all the scenes had something special... Who hasn't seen it yet please, don't be so biased and take some time to do it. Even if it's just for the fun of watching a nice and entertaining movie
- Amanda Borges, Săo Paulo, Brazil, 22/04/2010 03:49
Report abuse
The reviewer has failed to spot that the film itself is a bit rubbish.
- Jethro Penzance, Bodmin, 04/01/2010 09:39
Report abuse
I managed to watch about half of the trailer on this page and it was more than enough. I think I'll be sticking with Basil Rathbone and Jeremy Brett thank you.
It seems to me that Mr Ritchie's films are way beyond parody.
- Albert, Lincoln UK, 01/01/2010 15:16
Report abuse
I thought the film was excellent. Great direction by Ritchie and outstanding performances, particularly by Robert Downey Jnr and Jude Law. Well worth seeing!
- Adam, London, UK, 31/12/2009 11:02
Report abuse
There's the punchline to a joke where Holmes says "Lemon entry my dear Watson". Unfortunately I can't remember the actual joke. Can anyone help?
- Clovis, London, 31/12/2009 10:27
Report abuse
After reading a lot of negative reviews of the film, it makes me wonder what the reviewers were watching. A wildly action packed adventure, with wit, action and humour. And I might add the first role that Jude law didn't come across as a idiot. This is the perfect Christmas movie, and even more so on a cold wet afternoon. Forget the bad reviews and go see..
- Morgan, London, 30/12/2009 23:37
Report abuse
I absolutely disagree with Michael Spencer. This is a terrific film, with a brilliant performance from Robert Downy Jr. It is also Jude Law's best performance by a mile.
I loved every minute and am planning a second visit.
A very innovative and creative take on the Great Detective.
- Angela King., London, 30/12/2009 10:38
Report abuse
Went to see this last night, didn't think I'd like it at all to be honest, but I really really did .. it's a great film and has (unsurprisingly) left the way open for a sequel which I'm already looking forward to.
- Louise, Essex, 29/12/2009 17:18
Report abuse
saw it yesterday - 6/10.
Michael Spencer - he is behind some v.successful movies already - grossing millions at box office and DVDs and now he has a settlement from split with Madonna.
- Ancient Wisdom, London, England, 29/12/2009 12:43
Report abuse
I don't think so! Yes who does fund Ritchie's movies
- Joanne Albelo, Los Angeles USA, 29/12/2009 00:35
Report abuse
Terrible movie, to much ACTION ACTION ACTION...which is boring.
Nothing to do with the books.
- Dave, London, 28/12/2009 22:53
Report abuse
I'm inclined to agree with Andrew O'Hagan's review. I thought it an excellent portrayal of an awkward character. Enjoyed every second of it.
- Rogan, Irving, 28/12/2009 21:18
Report abuse
I agree with Michael . . . it's not really what you know but who you know.
- Jane, London, 28/12/2009 18:58
Report abuse
I will make up my own mind after seeing the film, but Andrew O'Hagan's comments seem contradictory.
"Those of us who grew up on Basil Rathbone and Jeremy Brett are apt to think of the great detective as a rather quiet, patient enigma himself, thoughtful to the point of stasis, but always with a devastating insight percolating in the area beneath his deerstalker. "
"Guy Ritchie’s brilliant new account of Holmes makes him a combination of clown and beefcake, wreck and genius"
Unlike Andrew O'Hagan, I grew up on the written stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle which came long before the film versions. I think Jeremy Brett's portrayal was closer to the original character than someone with "a combination of clown and beefcake, wreck and genius". To me it does not sound at all "in the sprit [sic] of Conan Doyle".
Judging by Guy Ritchie’s other films I would not expect him to be faithful to the original style. Unfortunately, I don't like Ritchie’s other films, but I will find out how good this film is for myself.
- S. Evans, Derby, UK, 26/12/2009 11:04
Report abuse
Why is a Yank playing a British hero?
- Dhan Raj, Basildon, 24/12/2009 18:00
Report abuse
How does Ritchie get his funding for his films? Who goes to see them? They all do miserably. What's *REALLY* going on here....
- Michael Spencer, Toronto, Canada, 24/12/2009 15:18
Report abuse
