Seeing More

Amanda and I saw Sherlock Holmes over the weekend and I must admit to liking it and not understanding the overall lukewarm reaction to it. Of course, if you have followed this blog over the past few weeks, then you must have noticed that I have lukewarm reactions to movies people absolutely love.



Maybe people expected too much from this movie and the crowd pleasing Robert Downey, Jr. Iron Man and Tropic Thunder were awesome and gained both commercial and critical praise. Of course he would do it with this one as well! It could also be that the film ends with pretty much a huge "To Be Continued." They don't put those cringe inducing words on screen, but the entire vehicle was just a setup for more movies. Look, I know Hollywood will turn everything into a trilogy. Want to start taking bets on what the third Alvin and The Chipmunks movie will be called? The Tweelogy? But, be a bit coy about it with fleeting celebrity interviews and a leaked early script draft leaked online.

I appreciated the movie's buddy cop theme and there was a nice chemistry between Downey's Sherlock and Jude Law's Watson. Sherlock had a tough time elucidating his apprehensions of Watson marrying and leaving the sleuthing business. For such a rational man capable of cracking cases by just reading the initial police report, this was a nice touch of humanity. I also appreciated that we got that fragility without some heavy handed pathos building scene where we flash back to Sherlock's parents being killed by a mugger outside the opera or dying in a climbing accident.

Don't know if this is very true to the actual relationship in the books. The older interpretations do make it seem like Watson is Sherlock's go-fer. I remember reading some of the Sherlock Holmes books when I was younger, but that is about it. I am not sure what purists feel about the movie, but, if it is like any other movie based on a cherished serial story, then I am going to say they are mad. The movie is very physical, with slow mo fight scenes that made one Internet commentator say it is Fight Club meets Victorian England. I don't mind a bit of action thrown in to spice up the gumshoeing, but they do sometimes feel inserted for the hell of it. Best example is an early battle where Watson and Holmes dispatch a band of brigands tasked with burning the evidence. You can almost hear the characters resist saying "Oh, here we go again" when the guys show up. The fight then continues for a few minutes, extending into a scene defined by the almost there feel of a Family Guy gag.

Speaking of inserting elements for the hell of it...why was Rachel McAdams in the movie? Not necessarily her (Got nothing against her), but her character seemed pointless. Not to give away any story elements, but her quasi romantic foil is meant to keep Holmes, whether via sincerity or deception, on the case. This would make sense in any other movie that wasn't about Sherlock Holmes.

The world's greatest detective needs someone to motivate him to stay on the case? The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, maybe? This also feels hollow because an early conversation reveals how Holmes is frustrated that there are no more intriguing cases.

All of this relegates McAdams to a very pretty face and an American connection to an otherwise very European story. Remember the Tom Sawyer character from The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen?

I liked the explanation at the end where Holmes elucidates on how the villain was able to do all his nefarious deeds. It's neat, albeit a bit muddled by the fact that no one could figure it out because all the clues are haphazardly placed. One scene fleetingly shows Holmes licking a rock, which features prominently in the villain's escape. Good luck trying to figure out what are clues and what are the quirky characteristic Downey puts into the Holmes persona. I thought he just licked rocks cause that was weird and we wanted weird.

Peace!