Sherlock Holmes (Downey, Law, McAdams) - Grading & Discussion

[iguana_tonante]

Saw it yesterday. Above average. I liked it very much, the actors were great and the story was entertaining. I liked the syncopated rhythm (Guy Richie's touch), and it was actually very true to the original character as told by Conan Doyle. I would have rated it Good given the opportunity, but it was not outstanding for giving it Excellent.

 

[CaptainCanada]

Where did the idea of Dr. Watson carrying a sword sheathed in his cane come from? Did the makers of the film get John H. Watson confused with Ham Brooks?

Makes a certain amount of sense for a guy who's apparently always getting involved in exciting mysteries.

 

[Skywalker]

Just saw it today. I agree with Miss Chicken about Holmes; I enjoyed Downey's performance, but I actually liked Jude Law's Watson more. I've never read any of Doyle's novels, so the only Watson I've ever really known was the pudgy, doddering version who seems to have become the iconic image of the character. I never knew that Watson was a war vet who carried a revolver, nor that he was a pretty decent detective himself.

I enjoyed the action scenes (another thing I never would have expected from a Holmes film; I really need to read the books sometime) and thought the whole movie was pretty fun. I'm also looking forward to seeing how they handle Moriarty in the next movie (which, given the box office, will probably happen).

 

[thestrangequark]

^Well, although Conan Doyle does state that Holmes is quite a fighter, and that Watson is indeed a man of action, the books are more cerebral and less action-packed than the movie. With the major exception of Holmes' infamous brawl with Moriarty. The books are great fun, though!

 

[Skywalker]

^Well, although Conan Doyle does state that Holmes is quite a fighter, and that Watson is indeed a man of action, the books are more cerebral and less action-packed than the movie. With the major exception of Holmes' infamous brawl with Moriarty. The books are great fun, though!

Oh, yeah, I wouldn't expect the books to be super-actiony, I was referring more to my misconception of Watson. Poor placement of that statement on my part.

 

[Trekker4747]

Does Holmes shoot-up in this movie? I wonder how much RDJ had to practice acting that out to make it look good?

 

[Caliburn24]

Just saw the movie a few moments ago. Enjoyed it very much, but I got the impression that it was rather heavily edited for pacing issues. I have no insider knowledge or anything, but I suspect there could easily be a three hour long directors cut put out later on dvd. There were also scenes in the trailers that did not appear in the movie, that again support the idea.

And RDJ and Jude Law are having such a ball as the characters that I would welcome a longer more character driven film.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

Back in the day, I used to listen to radio productions of various Sherlock Holmes stories, and I even taught The Hound of the Baskervilles one year to my middle school students. And while there's a certain emphasis on action, the characterizations in the movie are very much true to the spirit of Doyle's original characters. Which was a pleasant surprise.

I could see where Holmes might feel like a generic character -- but I wonder if that's mostly because the Holmes character has been so often portrayed in pop culture in various forms from Data to Mulder to just about anyone who uses insightful logic and deduction to solve a mystery.

 

[Captain Craig]

...the Holmes character has been so often portrayed in pop culture in various forms from Data to Mulder to just about anyone who uses insightful logic and deduction to solve a mystery.

I've never seen The X-Files Fox Mulder alluded to as being in the Holmes vein. Is this something you see or are relating via an article you read at somepoint? Just curious cause Dr.House has been stated as Holmsian.
So is Scully the Watson?

 

[Greylock Crescent]

It's something I see ... I admit the comparison a bit tenuous, Holmes was strictly rational while Mulder often uses leaps of faith, for example. But the Mulder-Scully partnership is a fascinating twist on the Holmes-Watson partnership where the main character is the driving force to solving mysteries/crimes by way of their exceptional talents, aided by a competent companion. I bring it up because it shows the extent to which this dynamic has played out (even in a juxtaposition of roles like we see with Mulder & Scully).

 

[Captain Craig]

I would be inclined to say that the Holmes/Watson dynamic has been juxtaposed many times with slight variations to fit a dynamic.
I would go so far as to say the following then use the Holmes/Watson template.
I define the template as One dominate character who carries the brunt and One character who assists. So if Mulder and Scully fit loosely then I nominate these as well.

Sheriff Taylor/Barney: Andy Griffith Show
Starsky/Hutch:
Maddie Hayes/David Addison: Moonlighting
Laura Holt/Remington Steele: Remington Steele
Bones/Booth: BONES
Castle/Beckett: Castle

 

[Trekker4747]

House/Wilson.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Where did the idea of Dr. Watson carrying a sword sheathed in his cane come from? Did the makers of the film get John H. Watson confused with Ham Brooks?

Maybe they're setting up a Wold Newton connection to John Steed.

Starsky/Hutch:

Not sure about some of the others, but these guys were portrayed as equal partners.

 

[DarthPipes]

Law's Watson was definitely the strongest of the two.

I've heard that House is essentially like Holmes in the way he solves medical mysteries. I've also heard that the title character of Monk and his brother is supposed to parrell the relationship between Holmes and his brother Mycroft.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

Does Holmes shoot-up in this movie?

We don't see it but there are a few moments where it seems very likely that he's hung over from something. I love Watson's line, "You realize that what you're drinking is meant for eye surgery?"

Another weak spot is the performance of Mark Strong. He doesn't give a bad performance mind you but a role like that needed for the villain to stand out more and Strong does not accomplish it. There's just nothing interesting about his character at all. He's not even an effective heavy. Being one-dimensional would have actually made him interesting.

Agreed. Mark Strong & the plot were the weakest parts of the movie. Perhaps it would have helped slightly if Lord Blackwood had been played by an actor with a bit more gravitas, like Ralph Fiennes, Liam Neeson, or F. Murray Abraham. Just for the hell of it, maybe they should have tried to get Christopher Lee.

Overall, I rate the movie as average. It would have risen to above average if the plot had been better.

For years, I've been hoping for a Sherlock Holmes that captured the man's misanthropic, insufferable personal flaws. Robert Downey Jr. gives us that and then some! I think he may have even gone a bit too far in that direction, but I suppose he's to be commended for doing so much the opposite of what nearly every other Holmes actor has ever done.

He's still not my favorite Holmes. That honor still goes to Rupert Everett in the BBC movie The Case of the Silk Stocking. But I'd say Robert Downey Jr. takes 2nd place. 3rd place goes to Ronald Howard from the old 1950s TV series.

As for Jude Law, he must be endlessly commended for almost singlehandedly rehabilitating Watson from the incalculable damage done by Nigel Bruce.

While Rachel McAdams in several silky period dresses gives us enough to drool over, I don't think nearly enough attention has been paid to Mary Morstan!

A couple things from the books that I would note. First, it was strange that this movie decided that Sherlock Holmes & Mary Morstan hadn't met before. In The Sign of Four, that was how Watson met her in the first place; she was Holmes' client. Also, when Mary Morstan made some mention of how she's a fan of the detective novels written by Poe et al, I was hoping that Holmes would jump into his tirade from A Study in Scarlet of how rediculous he thought those novels were and how imcompetant those fictional detectives were. I love that scene in the book. It's like the first ever angry fanboy rant.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

I would be inclined to say that the Holmes/Watson dynamic has been juxtaposed many times with slight variations to fit a dynamic.
I would go so far as to say the following then use the Holmes/Watson template.
I define the template as One dominate character who carries the brunt and One character who assists. So if Mulder and Scully fit loosely then I nominate these as well.

Sheriff Taylor/Barney: Andy Griffith Show

These two only fit the template if you're comparing Barney Fife to the buffoonish Dr. Watson played by Nigel Bruce in the 1940s movies. Furthermore, in the Holmes/Watson dynamic, Holmes is the eccentric one while Watson is the straight man. On The Andy Griffith Show, Andy Taylor is the straight man. Barney is the eccentric. But whereas Sherlock Holmes is a brilliant eccentric, Barney Fife is a moron.

 

[stj]

Jude Law and this conception of Watson is much better.
The disguises could have been emphasized more, but Holmes the combatant is not such a stretch. Transforming his deductive powers into plans for attack is novel. The ambient light is relatively realistic, i.e., too gloomy to see too often. Holmes' neuroticism is probably overdrawn but Downey still makes it interesting and, not grating, if not downright charming.

The actions sequences get tiresome, though, or I'd have voted excellent.

This is a long thread, so I don't know if anyone pointed out that there was an explicit cocaine use reference on screen. When Watson points out that stuff Holmes is drinking is used for eye surgery, he means cocaine.

 

[Rosalind]

Just came back from the cinema for this, and overall, I really loved this movie. While Jeremy Brett is still my favourite Holmes, RDJ is now a close second. I loved the dynamics between Holmes and Watson in this movie, it is a relationship you don't get to read in the books, although you get a sense of how close the two of them are. I had no problem with the movie portraying Holmes and Watson as action figures, it's not that far from what the books show. Came out of the cinema wanting to watch it again, and I'm definitely getting this DVD.

Well, Sherlock Holmes broke Christmas Day box office records, grossing an estimated $24,860,000 on its Friday opening. Looks like Warner Bros. has a hit.

excellent, I'm looking forward to the sequel.

It wasn't really what I was expecting and I'm someone who has read the books and seen the old Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes films, but I knew this would be a different take.

same here, I read the whole lot of Holmes books before I turned ten, and there was one point there I could open the Complete Sherlock Holmes book at any page, read a couple of paragraphs and know what story and how it's going to end.

I went in not expecting anything, because Brett was Holmes to me, just as David Suchet is Poirot. It probably helped with my enjoyment of the movie.

The cinematography was gorgeous, I loved the visual gritty look of this film, and the dirty smoking industrial city of London. The building of Tower Bridge was pretty cool.

indeed. seeing the Tower Bridge half built really adds a lot to the look of this film.

I really enjoyed it. It was truer to the books in many ways than some realize.

Yep. there were a LOT of little exchanges and scenes that were lifted straight out of the book.

I saw the movie yesterday and enjoyed it very much. I wonder if those who complain about Holmes' fighting in the movie have actually read the books -- he was described as a great fist-fighter and skilled swordsman.

hear, hear!

And thank you to Guy Ritchie for giving us a competent Watson as he should be instead of the bumbling fool Hollywood has portrayed him as in the past!

Precisely! Watson, I recall, is described in Study in Scarlet as tanned and war-wounded -- a man of action. And while he continually fails in deduction in comparison to Holmes he's certainly competent.

Compare to Holmes, almost every other character in the books is incompetent in deduction skills, but the book is called Sherlock Holmes after all. What I loved about this portrayal of Watson is that he was also quite competent in deduction, a Watson that we saw in the later Holmes stories. The guy got a medical degree after all, he can't be stupid, put him next to someone like Holmes for a while, he would surely pick up a lot of Holmes' deduction skills.

 

[Captain Craig]

This is a long thread, so I don't know if anyone pointed out that there was an explicit cocaine use reference on screen. When Watson points out that stuff Holmes is drinking is used for eye surgery, he means cocaine.

No that was pointed out yet, thanks.
That was one moment I was curious about as I didn't know what they used for eye surgery(heck even did it) back then.

I did know of his cocaine use so this moment was slyly put in the movie.

 

[Agent Richard07]

I didn't find the movie all that engaging, but I did enjoy this take on Holmes. It wasn't the total reimagining that the trailers led many, including myself, to believe it was. The best parts were the scenes with Holmes' deductive reasoning flashbacks and him running through his attack plans in his head during the fights. Then there's Jude Law, who was especially good as Watson. He was so good that I forgot I was watching Jude Law. That doesn't happen very often with big stars. The setup with Moriarty was also good. What little we saw made him seem like a pretty formidable foe. Looking forward to seeing what they do with him.