Film Review: Sherlock Holmes (2009)

Posted on | January 13, 2010 | 2 Comments

Sherlock Holmes (2009)
http://sherlock-holmes-movie.warnerbros.com/

Before we went in to see Sherlock Holmes (2009) – I feel the year must be mentioned since the producers didn’t grace the film with a more unique title – I told my girlfriend that we should consider a few things in advance in order to get our money’s worth in enjoyment out of it. One: It will have the characters and plot, rather than be particularly true or false to the original, amped up – a carriage crashes into a wall and EXPLODES, sort of thing*1. Two: Don’t expect too much or you’ll inevitably be disappointed – better to go in suspecting it’s going to be mediocre.

I wasn’t wrong, at least about the carriages.

The film falls in the category I call “filmed fanfiction”. It’s not based on any particular Arthur Conan Doyle adventure. An occultist called Lord Blackwood has been kidnapping and murdering young women in occult rituals. He’s publicly hanged, comes back to life and goes about saying spooky things about the new world order and killing more people. Meanwhile, Watson is courting Mary Morstan and Holmes acts jealous and clingy. Irene Adler wears that dark red lipstick that’s unfashionable now but that many of us secretly miss and kicks ass in a display of what started out as Girl Power and has become All Women Know Kung-Fu.

My rule of low expectation is generally a good rule, I think, but this time it didn’t seem to work for me. I did enjoy the film, but not in the full, childlike way I was hoping for. It had plenty of things to delight and interest, but I kept getting distracted with my adult self going, “no, that’s not right”, or “that wouldn’t work”. I may have to watch it again after writing this review just to capture that enthusiasm. I DO like to get my money’s worth.

One thing that kept distracting me was trying to figure out the Ceremonial Magicians. The first scene involves Holmes and Watson interrupting a ritual where a young woman is tied to a table and apparently hypnotized in a vaguely sinister way, and I kept wondering if they mean to show how this is evil for some other reason than it being spooky. Then we get introduced to the Order of the Four Corners, and I think, oh, great, it’s going to be “good” Freemasons against “bad” Ceremonial Magicians. But no! I’m pretty sure the writer wanted to make the villains Masons, but could be the producers didn’t want to piss off Masons or were Masons themselves, or maybe thought it was done to death (as if evil Magicians aren’t).

And then I started wondering if Lord Coward was played by the actor I thought (wasn’t). Then I found myself trying to remember the dates of various electrical inventions, trying to recognize whether Watson’s coat was fashion or military, and wondering if it was period accurate. And wasn’t that “pentacle points as murder sites” thing used in Alan Moore’s From Hell? I wonder if he lifted that out of Jack the Ripper: The Final Solution, too? I wonder which one I should refer to when I write my review.

See what I mean? Stupid chattering adult brain won’t let me watch my film.

Let’s talk about the stuff I liked.

- Watson kicks ass. Doyle’s Watson always kicked ass, but this is often lost in the (more or less canon-loyal or filmed fanfiction type) Holmes movies. Jude Law’s Watson kicks ass in an amped up exploding-carriage kind of way. Also his cane is a sword-pimp-cane, holy shit, just look at that Watson take on London’s underworld and throw them around like a motherfucking wrath of… moustachioed Victorian gentleman doctor. Rawr. Also he’s pretty – and pissy, straight-laced and constantly bitching. N’aw, I like him, though.

- Holmes was filthy, emotionally stunted, egotistical and alternately brilliant and wallowing in self-pity. So, spot-on, really. But we like him too, because he’s funny. (Okay. I’m being facetious. There’s a whole ‘nother article here about Holmes’ crippling bipolar disorder. I’m sure it’s already been written. I’m taking cheap shots at an egotistical character I’d otherwise be in danger of disliking. More on that in a moment.)

- And because you have to have the girl – or rather in this case, the Woman – there was Irene Adler. She’s not just an intelligent “adventuress” (whatever Doyle meant by that), she’s a thief and, because this is a Hollywood film made in the early 21st century, a fighter. She wears either gaudy and impractical gowns or practical but completely unconvincing male attire and matches Holmes and Watson step for step, except when they need a girl to rescue. …What the hell, I liked her too. (My adult brain wants to know whether the writers considered the Adler/La Maupin connotations in deciding to make her a fighter, too.)

- Okay, and I liked that the film dealt with Ceremonial Magicians, even if once more they got to be the evil/deluded ones. I’ve always been attracted to the dualism of Victorian upper-class love of magic on one hand and science on the other, and the attempt to combine those two.

- London was filthy. Whoo!

On to stuff I didn’t like.

- I just don’t think Blackwood’s plan would have worked. You don’t make people president because they’re good at killing people with black magic, not even in London.

- I find this recent trend of naming remix films based on original concepts the full, original name somewhat annoying – because I don’t think it’s appropriate or accurate. This film is not the definitive version of Sherlock Holmes, the franchise, same as Star Trek (2009) is not the definitive version of Star Trek, the franchise – both are rather remixes on the original characters and setting intended to start the entire thing over in a more modern, box-office favourable flavour, hopefully to go on for several movies. I can only hope the trend ends soon and we’ll be spared Star Trek II (no, not Wrath of Khan) and Sherlock Holmes 2! (My spoilery suggestion for this film’s title: Sherlock Holmes: The Fight For the Remote Control. I think it beautifully references both the plot-under-the-plot as well as Holmes and Watson’s domestic bickering.

- Okay, do you have to amp it up THAT much? While it’s not entirely out of character for Holmes to go have a boxing match just to snap out of his apathy, and while I do like that they address his emotional states in the film rather than presenting him only in the role of the brilliant detective… it kinda was just an excuse to put in some violence, wasn’t it? But, then, I guess we also needed to have amped!Sherlock! re-affirmed as an ass-kicker after we’d just seen him crawl around on the floor of his dark pigsty of a study.

- While I found the pull between Watson and Holmes interesting and it had its own kind of warmth, I missed the part where Watson also respects Holmes. Granted, I love seeing Holmes put down; pretty much all egotistical characters need someone to knock them down a little in order for the audience to like said egotistical character. At least that’s how it works for me – some characters seem to be able to pull off being Marty Stus and still have people like them*2. However, in this film it sort of came off as if Holmes was Watson’s addiction first and friend only superficially.

Which doesn’t mean that this film wasn’t a total slashfest. Unhealthy or not, Holmes and Watson were pretty much married.*3 The writers seem to recognize that and have fun with it. I’ve seen articles and heard TV personalities call this a bromance, but it’s more like a brodivorce. You know those romantic comedies where the couple has recently divorced or broken up and are now forced to be together again, hashing out all their grievances and why they’re glad they’re not married anymore (well, why one of them is, anyway – the other one still wants to get back together), only to end up making out again in the end?*4 Yeah, it was like that. Except without the making out. That’s what fanfiction is for.

Oh, another thing I liked: Holmes doesn’t kiss people. People kiss Holmes. Well, if they’re amped!Adler! they do. Mmm, tasty tasty Victorian repression.

So, conclusion? Not perfect. Better than I thought it would be. I am troubled by the trend of super!awesome!action!wow! remakes of tasteful, downplayed originals. It was kind of fun. I like repressed Victorians. This is probably the worst review I ever wrote, and a day late too. Well, chin up, stiff upper lip, there’s always next week.

-

*1 I got this impression from the trailer – not that it wouldn’t have been easy to guess from the posters in any case. I found the first trailer so horrible I went from wanting to see the movie just for the lols and the wrong to the point where I’d decided it was too bad to even see for that. Luckily the next trailer was better.
*2 I’m thinking of Lestat de Lioncourt of Anne Rice’s Vampire Chronicles. Yeah, I don’t get it.
*3 “Gladstone is our dog.”
*4 Examples of this that I can think of off the top of my head: The Philadelphia Story (1940) and His Girl Friday (also 1940) (which, by the way, was based on the play The Front Page in which the “guy” and “girl” were two men in a relationship situation almost identical to Holmes and Watson’s in this movie).

Bechdel Test:
1. It has at least two female characters
2. who talk to each other
3. about something other than a man.

Edited to add: Read an erudite breakdown of the occultism in the move with some added conspiracy theory here on VigilantCitizen.com.

Rating 3.00 out of 5

Share/Save

Category: 3 Stars, Reviews, Reviews - Film

Comments

2 Responses to “Film Review: Sherlock Holmes (2009)”

Amazon
January 23rd, 2010 @ 2:07 pm

Saw it.
Thought it was adorable.

I like Watson. :-)

They are such roommates, oh my gods. They remind me of my brother and his friends. :-)

Also: Guh. DRESSES! :-D
Hyel
January 25th, 2010 @ 9:33 am

I like Watson in shirtsleeves with braces/suspenders and a hat on.*cough*

Funnily enough, did not like the dresses. Mary’s at the restaurant was charmingly period though it looked like it was made of curtains and doilies; Irene’s in her first appearance was just garish, though I liked the combination of colours when she put on her blue coat and picked up those red flowers.

Film Review: Sherlock Holmes (2009)

Comments

What is this? Where am I?

More?

Feed the Blogger

Polls

Past Posts

Posts by Category

Search the Curious Blog

Subscribe

Kivitasku Photography

Kivitasku's Dreamwidth

Our Merchandise

Sponsored Links

Blog Listing Sites