Crisp in rhythm, relatively clever, quick-footed and first and foremost entertaining, Warner Bros. has done an aces job of hiding what they actually have in “Sherlock Holmes” — a competently intelligent, dark and dynamic action thriller — and managed to sell it as a more-appealing adventure buddy comedy. And yes, while the film does contain elements of that — it’s occasionally goofy — it’s much more genuinely amusing and satisfying than we would have imagined (yes, we were wrong and happy to admit it, but hey, with a 7/11 Tacquitos tie-in, cornball trailers and terrible posters, you have to admit they hoodwinked us all).
If director Guy Ritchie’s sly, premeditated plan was to reposition himself near the top of Hollywood’s A-list with an above-action pulp thriller that should please critics and, especially, fans he’s definitely succeeded. ‘Holmes’ is certainly his most successful front-to-back picture since “Snatch” in 2000 — everything in-between was either forgettable or terrible — and it accomplishes what it sets out to be: a taut crowdpleaser.
Adding strong actors to the mix — Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law and Rachel McAdams are all quite good — and including some shadowy, credible aesthetics in the picture (dank, wet and cold London is captured exceedingly well), Ritchie takes average material and elevates it beyond potentially embarrassing levels (several possibly dubious elements from the original screenplay were wisely jettisoned in the final version).
While one doesn’t want to throw around “The Dark Knight” comparisons too lightly, one could argue that “Sherlock Holmes” is a good synthesis of the elements that worked in “Batman Begins” and the first “Pirates of the Caribbean” picture.
Not wasting time setting events into motion, “Sherlock Holmes” kicks into gear minute one with the world famous detective and his trusty sidekick, Dr. Watson putting a stop to a virginal ritual put on by the mysterious and macabre master of the dark arts, Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong). This is supposed to be the final case for Sherlock and Watson as the latter is engaged to be married, but unfinished business arises when Blackwood, thought to have been hanged for his crimes, is inexplicably and mystically raised from the dead. His resurrection causes widespread panic in London and a plot driven by fear — shades of war on terror tactics — is soon afoot. Holmes is naturally compelled to solve the riddle of how Blackwood has returned — using of course some logic, some fisticuffs and dismissing the supernatural worries — and Watson reluctantly follows suit. It’s a facile set-up really, but it generally works.
While there are flawed and silly elements — the film’s conclusion reveals a story simply in service of a sequel, the ‘Matrix’-like, flash cuts of how Holmes’ mind solves the riddles being rather ridiculous — the fact remains that the Ritchie picture is largely exciting, compelling and enjoyable.
The buddy elements — the much-discussed bromance if you will — are actually quite subtle, believable and well-balanced, thanks to the two actors who complement each other quite well. These components, and most facets of the picture are way less broad than you’d expect (again, the trailers was selling something much more comical and lame-brained).
Overly-stylish and on-the-nose moments do exist, but thankfully they’re kept to a minimum. Holmes explaining to the audience how he will disarm an opponent methodically in slow-motion and then Holmes actually dispatching that victim via speed ramping— is one device utilized to convey how calculated and shrewd Holmes is, but by and large, Ritchie wisely keeps his stylistic tics mostly in check. And they do not overshadow the, ahem, story.
‘Holmes’ is bigger on relationships and interactions than it is on plot — catch the big bad satanic baddy (Strong) who has mysteriously risen from the dead and is now coveting world domination via fearmongering is essentially the complexity of the story, but it almost matters not. ‘Holmes’ is so quick-moving, witty and sharp (relatively of course, for a mainstream tent-pole) that it basically becomes an enlivening, pulpy and twisty detective story through the backstreets of London replete with assorted sundry types trying to thwart the duo.
The film’s best narrative device is its friction between the two protagonists. Jude Law’s Watson is about to be engaged and end his detective career and the brilliant, but boorish Holmes — prone to drinking, hermitude and late night fisticuffs to blow off steam — is a bit lost without his best friend. It’s, ahem, an elementary internal conflict for the good guys, but it adds another layer and most importantly it feels genuine and works (there’s a few moment of sorrow that RDJ evinces that are some surprisingly effective moments of acting too).
Likewise the tête-à-tête that Holmes and his adversary/paramour Irene Adler (McAdams) enjoy is charming and comical and their witty and contentious repartee is diverting.
If ‘Holmes’ suffers from a bit thin and convoluted narrative and its character super-deductive skills are far-fetched and somewhat ludicrous, it matters little as the film lives and dies on the strength of its two protagonists and the Downey Jr. and Law chemistry is rather magnetic.
Huge plaudits go to Hans Zimmer’s score and he might be the picture’s ace in the hole. Utilizing a dark, propulsive score not unlike his work in “The Dark Knight,” Zimmer takes potentially placid moments and imbues them with a racing urgency and trembling electricity. If “Sherlock Holmes” is a terrific mystery thriller, a big part of that credit is due to Zimmer’s brawny and sturdy compositions (okay the “clowny” sections employing a lot of accordion to convey the whimsical nature of Holmes leave a lot to be desired, but overall, a smaller quibble).
Kudos also go to Warners, Ritchie and even, yup, producer Joel Silver for wisely employing the dark super hero vibe displayed in recent “X-Men” and Batman films — the look and feel of ‘Holmes’ is admirably unprettyfied and therefore genuine — but knowing also how to perfectly calibrate that tone and effect to its best use and owning its own unique tenor that blends clowny whimsy with tense tautness (and isn’t dark for the sake of it).
If “Avatar” wasn’t around “Sherlock Holmes” would surely be the blockbuster of the winter and regardless, its dark, enjoyable escapist vibe should net a large audience and take a sizable cut out of James Cameron’s second week box-office haul. Certainly ‘Holmes’ isn’t brilliant, but next to the facile aspects of “Avatar,” it feels rather sophisticated. [B]