Monday 25 January 2010

Sherlock Holmes - A Review



Directed by: Guy Ritchie
Cast: Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Mark Strong, and Rachel McAdams.

Interpreting a literary character is never a bad thing. In fact it signifies an attempt at being original and trying something different. Therefore, when it was announced that Robert Downey Jr. was going to play Sherlock Holmes and Jude Law was portraying his ever-suffering partner, friend and chronicler of his adventures, Dr. Watson, intrigued is what this writer was. The casting would either be a stroke of genius or one of the biggest man-made disasters in recent times, very similar to the last two Bond films (yes, I firmly believe that Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace were disasters of epic proportions).

I was pleasantly surprised by the performances of the lead cast especially the banter between Holmes (Downey Jr.) and Watson (Law). But that is all the film offers. There is no semblance of a mystery here, which is quite shocking since the lead character is one of English literature's oldest and well loved sleuth. The makers of this film knew that only a strong cast in the form of Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law would make this film worth the price of ticket and Downey Jr. and Law quite valiantly carry the movie on their broad shoulders.

The film begins with Holmes and Watson ready to part ways as Watson is going to get married. Holmes seems to be extremely jealous, in a platonic way, and uses the mysterious resurrection of Lord Blackwood (Strong), a practitioner of the black arts, to drag Watson along.

Downey's portrayal of Holmes is very similar to that of the late Jeremy Brett who played Sherlock Holmes in series of Granada Television films between 1984 and 1994. Brett played the iconic detective as an obsessive and depressive personality with a penchant for drugs, alcohol and the dramatic. The only difference with Downey's portrayal is that his Holmes is more physical, practices martial arts and partakes in bare-knuckle boxing competitions.

Jude Law's Watson is energetic, quick-witted, is socially more adept than Holmes and seems to have have more common sense than his cerebrally gifted friend. In fact, quite refreshingly, unlike previous cinematic versions, this Watson is not a dithering old fool. He has his own charisma and his only failing is that he lets himself get dragged into his friend and partner's adventures, sometimes at the cost of ruining his relationship with his soon-to-be-wife.

The campy but delightful chemistry between Law and Downey Jr. would have been very interesting in an adaptation of one of the original stories written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. I genuinely cannot understand why the filmmakers could not take one of the original stories and let Downey and Law use that as a platform for their interpretation of the iconic characters. The script writers have completely deviated from the original stories. Therefore, in this film Holmes has never met Watson's soon-to-be wife. Whereas, in the original classics, Watson meets his wife in The Sign of Four. The film also has an ex-love interest for Holmes to deal with in the form of Rachel McAdams, whose character is working with the mysterious Professor Moriarty. Mark Strong as Lord Blackwood grimaces throughout the movie and is completely wasted. He is neither mysterious or scary. Another case of a good actor let down by a travesty masquerading as a story.

But let me not digress. This writer would have forgiven every single creative liberty taken by the filmmakers if there was even the semblance of a story and mystery in this film. Throughout the movie Holmes trudges and trundles about and gets beaten black and blue. His deductions occur haphazardly, as if the script writers suddenly remembered that Sherlock Holmes has to be shown doing some sleuthing and detective work. The script has quite obviously been written for staging elaborate action pieces. As one reviewer put it, "(t)his is Holmes and Watson on a cheerful romp around London, and it never demands any real mental exertion of the audience." (Jon Williams http://www.littlewhitelies.co.uk/theatrical-reviews/sherlock-holmes/). This is a Sherlock Holmes mystery with no mystery, a 'whodunnit' where the audience knows who has done it from the very beginning and the chase to catch the perpetrator has no thrills. The movie is an ambitious roller coaster ride that unfortunately only coasts and but hardly ever rolls and jolts the viewer with excitement. There is no sense of foreboding that comes with stories set in Victorian England. This might as well have been set in the 19th century America because the lead character acts more like a cowboy and less like a sleuth.

As the director Guy Ritchie does the best he can with such a horrible script. The action pieces are well shot but just do not have the chutzpah that one expects from Ritchie's offerings. The script just does not lend him a helping hand. In fact, it feels as though Ritchie is trying to tell the studio bosses that he is now a director on hire and can work on scripts not penned by him. I would rate this movie as one of Ritchie's least satisfying concoctions, second only to the disaster ,Swept Away starring his ex-wife Madonna. The editing is smooth and the film movies at a frenetic pace. It does seem as though the quick pace of the film is deliberate so that the viewers do not have time to realise that there is not much a story.

Quite clearly the studio bosses needed a vehicle to cash in on Downey Jr's new found success and popularity. I just hope that the sequel has some semblance of a story worthy of English literature's great Victorian sleuth.

Tuesday 12 January 2010

Dil Kabaddi - A Review

Please click on the link to read the review which was written a year ago. The writer, as is his habit, forgot to post it on his blog.

http://blogs.widescreenjournal.org/?p=1269