There aren't many movies around that dare to reinvent something both literary and cinematic that is beloved by readers and movie-goers alike, but action director Guy Ritchie has dared in a big way ...and succeeded beyond my expectations.
When Sir Arthur Conan Doyle created Sherlock Holmes (A Study in Scarlet, 1887), he made Holmes a roughshod, drug-addled genius with keen deductive powers. This made him a person that lay-readers could identify with. A man with problems, but with unique abilities that were much in demand. Coming off the heels of the Victorian era, too, Holmes was – in a very real way – a person coming out of that stuffy time period and into the more loose and modern one. Again, something readers of the time could identify with.
Although the books live on in perpetuity, most of the population over the age of 40 are probably more familiar with director Roy Neill's television series starring the estimable Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes and Nigel Bruce as Dr. Watson (if you're under 40 you're probably hooked on the hit TV series HOUSE M.D. which has more than just a passing familiarity with Doyle's character). Basil recreated the character of Holmes and also cleaned him up quite a bit. No drugs. Clean shaven. A real gentleman. In Doyle's literary works, however, this is far from the case ... which brings us to this new manifestation: the 2009 cinematic work starring Robert Downey Jr. (TROPIC THUNDER) as Holmes and Jude Law (REPO MEN) as Watson.
Downey Jr. is one of our great new actors. He is a chameleon in every sense of the word. Which is why I found his Holmes to be extremely well played. From his migraines to drugging Watson's beloved dog, Downey Jr. truly encompassed everything that Doyle wrote about. He's both brilliant and prone to folly; seeks a new case that's semi-interesting but is just as likely to seek out a new drug to make him feel more interested; and only has eyes for one woman, the lovely Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams, THE FAMILY STONE) who is just as much trouble as any drug or migraine.
This film is, hopefully, a reawakening of the Sherlock Holmes mystique; but a reawakening with Doyle's truly flawed character and not some scrubbed clean version. The ending of this movie certainly leaves open the possibility of a sequel. Let's hope that happens.
One final word of warning in case you didn't get what I was saying: this isn't your grandmas Sherlock Holmes. If you want Rathbone, go watch him. If you want Doyle's Holmes, check out Guy Ritchie's newest (and more accurate) interpretation.
When Sir Arthur Conan Doyle created Sherlock Holmes (A Study in Scarlet, 1887), he made Holmes a roughshod, drug-addled genius with keen deductive powers. This made him a person that lay-readers could identify with. A man with problems, but with unique abilities that were much in demand. Coming off the heels of the Victorian era, too, Holmes was – in a very real way – a person coming out of that stuffy time period and into the more loose and modern one. Again, something readers of the time could identify with.
Although the books live on in perpetuity, most of the population over the age of 40 are probably more familiar with director Roy Neill's television series starring the estimable Basil Rathbone as Sherlock Holmes and Nigel Bruce as Dr. Watson (if you're under 40 you're probably hooked on the hit TV series HOUSE M.D. which has more than just a passing familiarity with Doyle's character). Basil recreated the character of Holmes and also cleaned him up quite a bit. No drugs. Clean shaven. A real gentleman. In Doyle's literary works, however, this is far from the case ... which brings us to this new manifestation: the 2009 cinematic work starring Robert Downey Jr. (TROPIC THUNDER) as Holmes and Jude Law (REPO MEN) as Watson.
Downey Jr. is one of our great new actors. He is a chameleon in every sense of the word. Which is why I found his Holmes to be extremely well played. From his migraines to drugging Watson's beloved dog, Downey Jr. truly encompassed everything that Doyle wrote about. He's both brilliant and prone to folly; seeks a new case that's semi-interesting but is just as likely to seek out a new drug to make him feel more interested; and only has eyes for one woman, the lovely Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams, THE FAMILY STONE) who is just as much trouble as any drug or migraine.
This film is, hopefully, a reawakening of the Sherlock Holmes mystique; but a reawakening with Doyle's truly flawed character and not some scrubbed clean version. The ending of this movie certainly leaves open the possibility of a sequel. Let's hope that happens.
One final word of warning in case you didn't get what I was saying: this isn't your grandmas Sherlock Holmes. If you want Rathbone, go watch him. If you want Doyle's Holmes, check out Guy Ritchie's newest (and more accurate) interpretation.