Sherlock Holmes

My mother and I have a tradition. Every Super Bowl Sunday she and I do what we can to avoid the big game and that usually involves a movie. This year that movie was Sherlock Holmes; even though I’ve already seen it I put up no protest – a Robert Downey Jr. film that I love? Don’t you think it must be so hard to get me to that.

On second viewing I still love Sherlock Holmes. The fact that Guy Ritchie and crew could take the great detective, keep his essence and world intact and somehow make it exciting and vibrant on screen is astounding. Sherlock Holmes has been a lot of things, but he’s rarely been exciting when put on the silver screen. Holmes himself is a character that is always in his head, thinking steps ahead of the other players, and when put on screen in everything I can think of prior that makes for a film that is intellectual with a good mystery, but suspense, excitement and the threat in Holmes world never makes it to screen.

I have to give props to Rachel McAdams as well. This is an actress that I adore and isn’t in nearly enough movies; however, since she is so selective she tends to make really damn good movies and Sherlock Holmes is no exception. What becomes truly astounding about her character in Holmes is that of everyone on screen (from the books) her character is one that had the least source material to work with. Irene Adler is only in one short story, very briefly and somehow the writers and McAdams formed Adler into a fully formed, well rounded character that belonged in the majority of the film second only to Watson.

I’ve heard plenty of people say they are unwilling to see Sherlock Holmes because it looks like all action and no story. To those people I say to not just a film by it’s trailer and go and make a judgment from the actual film. You might be surprised by what you find.

Inspector Lestrade: In another life, Mr. Holmes, you would have made a excellent criminal.
Sherlock Holmes: Yes, and you an excellent policeman.