
So I have just watched Sherlock Holmes, the one starred by Robert Downey, Jr., as Sherlock Holmes and Jude Law as Dr. Watson. Premiere here in the Philippines on January 8, 2010.
Mixed feelings and emotions, but I can safely say that I am relieved. The two Holmes movies I have watched previously (The Case of Silk Stocking and The Hound of the Baskervilles) were disappointing for a very simple reason. I have mentioned this over and over again, it was because in the two movies, Holmes injected himself with cocaine in a middle of an ongoing case!
That cannot be reasoned, because he only does cocaine when his mind are in stagnation. That only happens when he has no case to think about. Thus, he only injects cocaine when he is idle, never while he has cases to solve. If he is one a case, he will never give up such valuable time to inject himself. He would rather smoke his pipe and sit there while thinking of the case on his comfy chair in the 221b Baker Street.
Luckily, in the new movie, he is not injecting cocaine while on a case. Not even injecting at all, even when the movie tells us that he has been idle for three months after his last case, Lord Blackwood.
I?m not sure if Holmes ever had such a long period without having a case to handle. But in the times like these, he would usually use cocaine, so it would be in line with the canon (original stories by Doyle) if there was a scene showing him injecting himself. But I guess Guy Ritchie thinks differently, and decides that Holmes has to be a boxer/fighter in his spare time. Even though I find that hard to digest, but it is better than to see Holmes injects himself while on a case. I am trying to say that, I can manage the idea of Holmes fighting to fight boredom better than the idea of he uses cocaine while on a case, especially because Holmes being a boxer was mentioned in the canons.
That is the first part. Now on to the second. I can actually portray Dr. Watson in Jude Law?s performance. But I fail to do the same with Downey?s acts, he is simply not Sherlock Holmes. His physical appearance just doesn?t represent Holmes?. And to make it worse, the movie portrays Holmes as dirty as a homeless, while actually he is a British Gentleman, except when he is on undercover. And also, Holmes in the movie is too much of an action man to me. Sure, the canons tell us that he knows how to box and Baritsu. Sure, I?ve had hope that there would be a Holmes movie that actually portrays him as a man of action as well as a deep thinker. But the action side of Downey?s Holmes is just too much. Ritchie overdoes Holmes? ability in action.
A little further in the movie, I have this crazy feeling, that Mark Strong (plays Lord Blackwood) is more suitable to play Holmes, if one judges from his face only, especially his nose. I don?t know why, but I have the feeling that Holmes? nose looks similar to his. There is actually a description of what Holmes looks like in one of the canon, but I can?t be sure if the description fits Strong. Again, that is just my feeling.
Third, I think Holmes is a bit careless in the movie. The most obvious is when he takes for granted the bottle of wine Irine Adler gives him. That is just not the Holmes I imagine. In my imagination, he will somehow see that Irine has tampered the bottle, and therefore he will not drink the wine, at least, until Irine also drinks it.
Fourth, his relation with Dr. Watson, even so it is amusing to see them like that, is not something that I?ve imagined from reading the canons. There are some similarities with the original stories, but cannot help this feeling that that is not how their relation really is in the canons.
Fifth, the reasoning is okay. Most of them are in line with mine, which suggested that this movie lacks in mystery. However, regarding the hanging of Lord Blackwood in the early part of the movie, I find it hard to believe that he can be pronounced dead by Dr. Watson. It is not because his pulse, the movie explains how Blackwood makes his pulse seems to be gone. The trick is mentioned in the canon in another case, if I?m not mistaken, so it is no mystery to me.
Not also the way he is hanged. Even though a bit farfetched, but I can live with the trick.
It is the state of his neck that gets to me. According to my knowledge, if a convict was to be sentenced by hang to the death, s/he would die of a broken neck, not from suffocation. At least that is what I?ve read somewhere. I imagine, if somebody was suddenly to be dropped from a high place like you did to Lord Blackwood, and the rope around his neck prevents him from falling further, the rope would pull his neck but the body still went down for several moment until it cannot go any further. Hence, some joints in the neck would be broken and that caused death, not strangulation from the rope.
If that is the case, then Dr. Watson, being such an excellent Doctor as Holmes confesses in The Adventure of A Dying Detective, will no doubt check Blackwood?s neck before anything else. But the movie is missing that scene.
Speaking of Dr. Watson, in the canon his fianceé, Mary Morstan, is a client of Holmes before finally going out with Dr. Watson. In the movie, she never even met Holmes. And there is also Irine Adler, the only woman that ever defeated Holmes (read A Scandal in Bohemia). Many Sherlockians speculate that Holmes actually has feelings with the Lady. This is the view that Ritchie takes, apparently. However, in this movie, Adler sadly becomes a criminal, a deceiver, whom takes advantage of her beauty to seduce man (including Godfrey Norton, which in the canon she loves so much) and then gets benefits from her relationship. I don?t think that is consistent with the canon.
Another minute issue, Inspector Lestrade is not harsh enough towards Holmes. In the canon, the inspector frequently would have disagreement with Holmes on various aspects of crimes, even though at the end he is always proved to be wrong. But luckily, the movie shows he helps Holmes. That is good, because I do not think that he hates Holmes that much to actually capture him.
Another good things of the movie, it quotes the canon several of time. ?My mind rebels at stagnation. Give me problems, give me work?, ?Data! Data! I can?t make bricks without clays?, ?I was looking for it, ? (when in astonishment Watson asks him how could he see a transparent cord in the crime scene) are several of the quotes from the canon which appear in the movie.
Dr. Watson also being described as a competent partner. This is so true. In the canon, Holmes really relies on his partner. People tend to see Watson as an incompetent fool whose function is just to write Holmes cases, while in fact he is much more than that. He is a very capable partner and he is not stupid. He is a Doctor, mind you, an ex military as well. Maybe he has physical weaknesses (he was shot by a Jezail bullet. Many Sherlockians claim he was shot in two places; shoulder and leg), but that does not make him a weakling like so many people think of him. Although, I am not quite sure if he could really punch Holmes like in the movie, and I think there should be more of scenes where Watson was astonished by Holmes? deduction.
And a possibility of a sequel with Prof. Moriarty in it is just too cool to expect, even though it will most likely spawn a lot of critics from Sherlockians, should the movie failed to fulfil our expectations of an appearance of such a highlighted character.
The verdict?
The movie is not bad. There are still a lot of things from the canon that I wish I see and there are certainly a lot of things that I wish I didn?t see in the movie. I second
Rod Mollise's suggestion to all Sherlockians to watch the movie. That said, the movie would be more enjoyable if it doesn?t bear the name of Sherlock Holmes.