I am aware of “Sherlock Holmes” by pop culture reputation only. I have not read the novels or seen any of the films starring Basil Rathbone, the actor who I am told is the definitive Holmes on screen. My only exposure to the character is through pop cultural osmosis, references made by countless other outlets. I mention this because many others seem to find director Guy Richie's take on the legendary character offensive in some way related to their feelings for what is known of the character.
I can compare it, in a slightly odd way, to how I feel about the faux vampires of “Twilight.” In my opinion they aren't really vampires. They walk around during the day, they play baseball, they are about as menacing as a bag of declawed kittens, and they are NOT vampires. I am tied to the classic version of vampires and admittedly it creates a bias. I have no such bias for or against “Sherlock Holmes.”
Robert Downey Jr. stars as Sherlock Holmes who, as we join a chase in progress, is running to some sort of showdown. Along with his faithful sidekick Dr. Watson (Jude Law), Holmes has uncovered a secret society that is in the midst of a ritual sacrifice when Holmes and Watson arrive. A brawl ensues, the fair maiden is rescued and the murderous Lord Blackwood (go to bad guy Mark Strong) is apprehended.
Case closed? Hardly. The capture and eventual hanging of Lord Blackwood were all part of Blackwood's devious plot. As he tells a skeptical Holmes, he plans on resurrecting himself and leading a plot to take over the world, restoring England to the status of a world power under his leadership.
Meanwhile, Dr. Watson who has lived and worked with Holmes for years is set to move on. He has met a woman, Mary (Kelly Reilly), and is going to marry her, even if Holmes stands opposed to the idea, which is somewhat unclear but a fun source of tension for the bickering partners.
Back to the plot: On the night of Lord Blackwood's execution, after he confesses his plot to Holmes, Lord Blackwood does rise from the grave causing a massive panic in London. It's up to Holmes and a reluctant Watson to figure out how Blackwood pulled off the resurrection and stop him before he launches his takeover of the country.
Also employed in this plot is Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams), the one woman ever to draw Holmes' attention away from sleuthing. She comes back to London with a mysterious benefactor who remains in the shadows but will no doubt play an important role in future sequels.
And really, isn't that all we can expect from “Sherlock Holmes,” a table setter for future sequels. Honestly, if you were looking for anything other than the beginning of a franchise you were on a fool's errand. “Sherlock Holmes” is a machine built to create a franchise and on this lowly task it is supremely successful.
The bantering between stars Jude Law and Robert Downey Jr. has the potential for greatness, in sequels. The action direction that director Guy Richie takes these characters in shows potential that could flower in future sequels or become supremely irritating, wait and see. As for this Sherlock, it's like a starter kit for people like me who know Sherlock only by reputation but know the work of Downey and director Guy Richie like old friends.
There is a homey sort of professionalism to the work of both Downey and Richie. They are working at such a level of comfort together that things are at once pitched perfectly to create this character for future sequels and find enough friendly charm in this movie to make you want to see that sequel. Sure, you're being fleeced but in such a fond way, you don't mind so much.
“Sherlock Holmes” is never anything more than the beginning of a business arrangement between friends. Guy Richie, Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law pitch you these characters, their funny banter and the idea of “Sherlock Holmes,” action hero, and you sit idle witnessing it and welcoming it. You are agreeing that the sequel is why we are all here and that this is just the pitch.
This will be unsatisfying for some, but for those disposed to the charms of those involved, you won't mind at all. “Sherlock Holmes” is a welcome introduction to a character and his future endeavors yet to be brought to the screen. If this idea doesn't offend you, you are just the audience “for Sherlock Holmes.”
BYLINE:
Sean Patrick Kernan is a film critic. Check him out at: http://www.myspace.com/number1ramjamfan.
0 comments:
Post a Comment