Sherlock Holmes

Sherlock Holmes is iconic, that can't be denied. Since his first publication back in 1887, there have been four novels and fifty-six stories by his creator, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and countless other works featuring the character. He is Doyle's most famous work, to the extent that Doyle began to resent and then hate his character, eventually pushing him off the Reichenbach Falls, with a cry of "at last, I've killed the brute!". Holmes, however, wouldn't stay down, and public outcry brought him back for another twenty-five years and a 'peaceful' retirement to the countryside.

Basil Rathbone was, arguably, the most iconic of Holmes' portrayers. He appeared in fourteen films between 1939 and 1946, all starring opposite Nigel Bruce as Dr Watson. He gave us the deerstalker hat, the cape, and, if I recall correctly, the specific kind of pipe Holmes liked to smoke. It's possible that this is where the line "Elementary, my dear Watson!" first appeared - it's certainly not in any of Doyle's original works.

I first read the Sherlock Holmes stories when I was about twelve-years-old. I'm fairly sure that I've read all of Doyle's original stories, although I haven't picked up any of them in two or three years.

Those three paragraphs do have a purpose - I went to see Guy Ritchie's interpretation of Sherlock Holmes earlier. Starring Robert Downey Jr as the titular character and Jude Law as Watson, the film features an entirely new story, rather than, like most Holmes films, being an adaptation of one of Doyle's works.

The film avoids most of the canon created by other film adaptations, and seems to have gone back to the original stories. It includes many things referenced, such as Holmes' experiments with chemistry, his shooting the initials 'V.R.' into a wall, and his skill as an amateur boxer. These things weren't often used as plot points in the stories, or frequently mentioned, but they did exist there. The violin playing is in there too, although the cocaine abuse is sadly missing.

Holmes' personality has changed, too. This take on the character is slightly more emotional, and seems more impulsive than Doyle's Holmes. Doyle's character was always asexual, while this one has a romantic history with Irene Adler, played by Rachel McAdams.



Irene Adler does appear in the original stories, and, yes, she is one of the only people to ever outsmart Holmes. However, they were never romantically involved...at least, not in Doyle's version. And she wasn't a master criminal, either.

That's the thing about this adaptation. It goes back to Doyle's original Holmes stories, and gives them a twist. Think of it as an alternate dimension version. The characters are basically similar, but there's no way the plot could fit into the original canon, despite the references, and the similar exposition near the end.

Once you get over the canon issues, it is a pretty good film. The action sequences are good, and it doesn't feel like it's over two hours long. I got really into it. The mystery doesn't quite have the same feel to it as a traditional Holmes' mystery, although it does use many of the same elements - there are clues that you can pick up throughout the film, for instance, but not quite enough, not as many as there would be if the film were meant to be a detective film. Instead, it's an action film, and not a bad one.

Interestingly, a trailer for Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland was shown before the film. I do want to see that film, but, aside from that, I think you could quite fairly call this film "Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes". Anyway;

None of the characters look quite right, but I'll forgive that, since I'm basing that idea on other adaptations, and it's hardly fair to criticise Downey for not resembling Rathbone. Downey does look a little too old for the part, especially playing opposite McAdams and Law. However, a quick look at their wiki pages shows that he's only about fifteen years older than the former and seven years older than the latter - not a huge jump.

At one point, it did bother me that McAdams needs rescuing or saving every so often. The whole point of her character is that Holmes respects her as an equal, not as a damsel in distress. Then I noticed that Watson and Holmes need help or saving just as many times as she does - it's just more noticeable to me when it's a woman chained up, apparently.

The film plays around with time and camera angles a lot. Holmes will plan out a sequence of events in slow-motion, and then perform then more quickly. Or, at times, a scene will flashback to show us something we missed the first time. It's quite effective.

Another technique Ritchie utilizes is to play with the sound when the characters are temporarily deafened. There's muffled or slow-motion speech, ringing noises...it works very well as a way of bringing the audience into the action.

A couple of scenes mention Professor Moriarty, possibly just as a nod to the original stories, but, probably, given the current atmosphere, a nod towards a sequel. Personally, I feel that the film stands well on its own, but I suspect a sequel may well be released should it do well - and I feel it will.

One thing really bugs me though - who paid for and organised Lord Blackwood's funeral, and why did they not need their permission to go opening his coffin?

On a final note, it feels really weird to hear someone address someone as 'Sherlock' completely seriously, because it's their name.

On another final note, I have never in my life been so tempted to scream out "stop, drop and roll!" in a cinema. Watch it, you'll know the bit I mean.