"The Holmes we have become used to from later interpretations is sort of Holmes-as-Vulcan, the Mr. Spock of the gaslight era; cool, cerebral, controlled, a bit disdainful. Forgotten in the Holmes-as-Vulcan version is that the original Holmes was an eccentric drug addict who went to pieces in the absence of a degree of mental stimulation ordinary life could not afford him. Also forgotten is that he was written as a man of tremendous physical energy, a boxer and martial artist who relished describing his victory in a brawl (The Adventure of the Solitary Cyclist)."I've seen the movie twice now, and I heartily agree. In fact, there's not much of anything I don't like about the film. Mark Strong is his villainous best, Jude Law is the perfect Watson (and this from someone who's not usually a fan), I even loved Rachel McAdams, despite having been prepared to be underwhelmed by her part (although I would have liked to see more of her). Kelly Reilly, who you may be familiar with if you've watched Pride and Prejudice as many times as I have (she's Caroline Bingley) as Watson's fiancee hits every note right in every scene she inhabits.
I would bet serious money that Robert Downey Jr. read the entire canon, or at least most of it, in preparing for this role. I would bet more serious money that Ritchie gave him wide interpretive latitude and that some of the best lines in the film were ad-libbed from deep within character. Because Downey’s performance is right. It is truthful to the original in a way that the Holmes-as-Vulcan version could not be.
This is a movie that I actually miss when I'm away from it. The review criticizes the "sepia-and-grime thing," but I think that's a big part of why it works. It feels real, and Victorian. I want more of it, of Irene Adler, of Mary, of Watson, and especially of Holmes. Goodness gracious, I hope there's a sequel!
No comments:
Post a Comment