Went to see that new Sherlock Holmes film last night and, given how much fun I had blathering on about The Immortals, thought I'd do some sort of half-arsed review of it.
It's strange in that it lifts a lot of stuff from the first film, yet also completely ignores parts that you'd have thought might be the most important to it. For example, Holmes following Irede Adler in a disguise; Watson calling on Holmes and finding him to be in a state bordering on the psychotic, with the landlady being distressed and angry; "The Savoy? Your/my favourite"; and Holmes tucking into his dinner at the Savoy without his dining partner(s) (Watson and Mary in the first, Adler in the second). This of course leaves aside the slow motion/fast motion camerawork during the action sequences or Holmes' pre-planning of events, but those are more stylistic things unique to the franchise (as such we must now think of it), and it is to be expected that Ritchie would have brought them out again. I'm talking about plot events, to an extent that the first part of the film feels a little like you're watching the first all over again, just in a slightly different order.
The things that are missing (as Holmes would surely tell us) are even more important than the things that are present, however. Firstly, Professor Moriarty (played with sinister viciousness by Jared Harris) never displays the spring-loaded pistol which he put to Holmes' head and which he used to killed that policeman at the end of the first movie (small caliber bullet, powder burns on the eyebrows). It was a nice little device, a little steampunky, and completely absent here for no discernible reason. Secondly, and more glaring - there was no mention of the remote control trigger that Moriarty took after killing that policeman. None. Nada. No mention, no sign, no sight, NOTHING. Lest we forget, this was shown to be the entire purpose of Moriarty's exploits in the first film. If you're going to go to the trouble of creating an entire movie about this criminal mastermind's efforts to obtain such a device and set up a sequel in the process, at least mention the damn thing in the bloody sequel.
So, enough of such continuity frivolities. What of this movie as a stand-alone work? Does it engage, does it convince, does it entertain? The answer is, by and large, yes... until you stop and think for a second. If you make that mistake, even for a second, you're a bit screwed because while the scope of this movie is greater than the first, so is its margin for error.
The plot, focusing on Moriarty's attempts to destabilise Europe and profit from the carnage by buying up everything that would be used in a war (wait, wasn't that the plot of League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, more or less? It was? Well I never) rattles along at a breakneck speed once we've got past the extended opening ceremony of "this is why you won't see much of Rachel McAdams in this film" and drags the viewer along with it so fast that you can barely catch your breath. So fast, in fact, that Holmes' leaps of deduction and logic occur so fast and furiously that you kind of sit there going "Huh? Oh... well... okay then", and I'm not sure if that's a bad thing because you're failing to appreciate it or technically a good thing because there's actually not much logic there and if you have time to analyse it then you'll realise that. Certainly, things like Holmes and Watson determining that because a piece of paper is thicker than usual and has a wine stain on it then it must have come from a printing press in a wine cellar appears to ignore the fact that wine is a quite widely-spread beverage, and may sometimes be found outside of the cellars in which it is stored, and indeed get spilled on things. Likewise, Holmes noting the 'telltale signs' of a secret passage in said wine cellar appeared ridiculous to me ("hmm, that spots of blood's from someone cutting themselves sawing wood, that bit of wine is from where they clinked their glasses together in celebration of a job well done", etc etc).
Then we have the complete logic fails in the plot. I'm certain there were ones in the original, although I can't think of many offhand aside from the usual failure of bad guys to kill Holmes when they could have done, instead electing to talk to him and allow him to find a way to escape. However, I am truly, truly puzzled by any arms factory that regularly stores its large-scale ordinance with shells loaded. That seems like a risky procedure to me, and certainly runs contrary to any health and safety legislation, even nineteenth-century ones. I'm also displeased by Moriarty's failure to get his marksman to kill Holmes; he's far too intelligent to leave such an opponent alive, surely? What's more, Watson at one point rescues Holmes from Moriarty's clutches and a quick search of the wreckage would turn up the Professor, at which point Watson (whose honeymoon had been interrupted by he and his wife being shot at by Moriarty's men) could have put a bullet in Moriarty's head or stabbed him with his swordstick, then got the hell out of Dodge. Instead he grabs Holmes and they flee; why not take a few more seconds and off the criminal mastermind? No-one's going to catch you for it, and you at least are convinced of his guilt. This is where we need Rorscharch, you see. Also, the cossack waiting in the rafters. Why wait so long? Why pretend to die? Why not drop down and do your business before the interfering Englishman turns up?
Another plot point that really bugged me was the climactic scene at the end. Without wishing to give too much away, it's a good scene but it doesn't work too well in the grand scheme of the movie. If you stop and think about it, the side plot about Noomi Rapace's gypsy fortune teller and her brother really doesn't make much sense at all. It's like someone decided that they needed a female in it (why I don't know, as Watson's married and Holmes was only ever going to be interested in Adler) and then needed a reason for it, rather than her character being called for by the plot. That said, once she was in it then seems that the scriptwriters had to come up with a way to prevent her from making things too easy for Holmes and Watson, including casually throwing in the invention of advanced plastic surgery about a century ahead of its time.
I am going to take a moment here to ponder on Stephen Fry. I like Stephen Fry, I genuinely do. He is a wonderful presenter, personality and comedian, and a thoroughly intelligent and worthy man. However, he's not an actor. He's a comedian and a writer. His level of acting is the General Melchett variety; basically, Stephen Fry but rather more so. As a result, despite my liking for him, he was completely the wrong choice to play Mycroft Holmes. This is a movie, a big, Hollywood movie with an otherwise thoroughly respectable cast and played with drama, if not exactly pathos. It seriously did not need Stephen Fry in there playing Stephen Fry, which appeared to be simply an excuse to shove in some cringe-worthy campy humour. Besides which, Mycroft is meant to be the uber-Holmes - he's far more intelligent than his brother. Fry plays Mycroft as a buffoon. Also, he looks nothing like Robert Downey Jnr and they didn't even try to make them resemble each other at all. I don't care that he's a national treasure; it's the equivalent of making another movie with Morgan Freeman's character from 'Se7en' and putting Eddie Murphy in it as his brother (only Eddie Murphy would probably do a more convincing job).
Apart from Fry, the acting's good. Downey Jnr puts in another startlingly brilliant performance as Holmes, managing to convey the single-minded intellect and social awkwardness of Baker Street's most famous resident in one hyperactive, wild-eyed package. If it's sometimes played for laughs, that's no real bad thing because both the character and the characterisation can stand it. Jude Law's Watson is equally good; more down-to-earth and serious and an excellent foil for Downey Jnr to play off, and if anything the more important part of the pairing. Holmes is the visionary, the exceptional man who is not connected to the real world, the world of you and I; Watson is our contact, the man who understands Holmes enough to see what he's getting at but is still close enough to us for us to sympathise with him. A movie of watching Holmes would be entertaining but distant; a movie of watching Watson deal with Holmes makes us understand what it would be like to be friends with a person so extraordinarily our superior in so many ways, yet completely unable to take comfort in the small things that make us human.
Then there's Jared Harris as Moriarty. He's excellent. From the moment you meet him, this portrayal of the Professor is downright scary. Harris presents a monster with no morals or qualms; the ultimate realisation of Holmes, if you will, with all the intelligence, none of the good intentions yet with the ability to integrate smoothly into society in a way completely beyond his adversary. If Holmes is meant to be (as I've seen suggested elsewhere) some sort of high-functioning autistic, Moriarty is surely the classic psychopath. The brilliant final touch on the Professor is when, near the end of the movie, you see him pre-planning the upcoming struggle in the exact same way as Holmes. "Come now, do you think you're the only one who can play this game?" Chilling.
In some form of loose conclusion, then; the acting's great (except for Stephen Fry), the plot's alright (if a bit derivative), and the details let it down (if you can catch your breath long enough to think about them) but although the climax to the Holmes/Moriarty scene at the end should have been obvious to anyone who's read the books as soon as they saw the waterfall, it was well done. I'm glad I went to see it, but I just feel that with a little bit more care and rather less campy humour, it could have been even better than the first.
