We just finished the Mike-Johnson-written script of “Sherlock Holmes” that’s currently being shot by Guy Ritchie in London. At best it’s fun, harmless romp through the Holmes mythos, revitalized for audiences assimilated with the ‘Bourne’-style, action, smarts and authenticity vibe. At worst its “Pirates of the Caribbean” set in Scotland yard – mindless, escapist entertainment that’s trite and hokey.
But the ‘Bourne’-angle is how they draw you in. ‘Sherlock 2000’ (what we like to sardonically call it) is no more realistic than say ‘Indiana Jones 3’ (its not quite as ridic as ‘Indy 4’) and from we get from the script, we shouldn’t expect anything much more than a fun PG-13-ish summer popcorn flick with a smidgen of edge unless Ritchie can really dig into this thing, but there’s not a ton of depth to mine.
They promised action-adventure, so with that in mind, the writer has succeeded, but there would have to be a miracle for this thing to land even anywhere near the shoehorn of the Indiana Jones classic films or even “Romancing The Stone” (which granted, if it came out today, it’d be laughed out the door).
One can’t help but hearken back to Catherine Zeta Jones’ “Zorro,” or the three’s-a-crowd dynamic of the ‘Pirates’ series (which obviously isn’t at all new).
Like Johnny Depp in ‘Pirates,’ Robert Downey Jr. will probably make watching Holmes a lot of fun (for the first episode, err, franchise installment anyhow). The new Sherlock is a curious fellow who’s not so stiff as past incarnation. He loves to get soused, to box in underground clubs for free and more than anything lives to to detect and do his job. The writer posit him as an aimless man who only comes alive when there’s a serious riddle, challenge or villain to solve/tackle (and of course all three the better).
A old school cross between Batman and CSI (version 1.0) Holmes is almost MacGyver like in his seemingly impossible (and amusing) makeshift levels of deduction (Scratches on his door frame? He’s an alcoholic cause he can’t fit the key in the door soberly!)
His method of true detecting meditation – when it really counts! – is unintentionally hilarious. He squawks away on a violin, parsing his mind rapidly through the labyrinth of clues and possibilities and as he gets closer to solving the dilemma, the cacophonous music begins to subside and become smoother and listenable – of course it does, he’s almost figured the complex riddle out! He knows where the bad guy is. Elementary my dear Watson!
Watson 2000 (to be played by Jude Law) on the other hand wants out of the game, he’s getting engaged and wants to free himself from the detecting racket despite the excellent asset he is. This friction between the two friends is a dynamic that vacillates back and forth, but you can surely figure out where it goes as its arc is all too predictable and even eye-rolling at times.
The semi-invented character of Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams; her character was only in one of the many Holmes stories) is basically a thorn-in-the-side script device. A rival of Holmes, their flirtatious relationship is a love/hate one and in this story its not immediately clear who’s side she’s on. The uber-crafty character is both ally and out for herself, but she’s also a love interest… of course.
Finally, Mark Strong villain is pure comic-book evil. An occult leader and a seemingly super-human badguy. One dimensional or not the viciousness (“bad-assness” to geeks) of his character will surely appeal to less discerning audiences.
A lot of action adventure films have a hokey, whoa-what’s-going-on! corny thrill ride vibe to them (we can’t help but going back to ‘Pirates’) and “Sherlock Holmes” is no exception. The story is meant to begat a Mcfranchise (and look for a famous villain cameo near the end) and that means asses-in-seats and nothing too wild or edgy. Let’s bring in the whole family and entertain them. So perhaps it’s nothing more than it aims to be: a tentpole vehicle for next summer which is fair enough, we suppose, but even “Iron Man,” proved you could make a smart and enjoyable popcorn flick, but on the page, there’s not much here to suggest that kind of quality, spark or vitality (let’s not even go there with ‘Bourne’, it can’t hope to compare with even the worst of any three).
So a fresh new take on the series? We suppose. But make this new batch, extra large and don’t hold back with the butter, please. Oh and nachos while we’re at it too.
Why do you say that Irene Adler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irene_Adler) character is “invented”?
read online the release date is Nov. 20 2009…gonna make a bunch with that Thanksgiving crowd.
must be an old draft, the latest one is by anthony peckham, i think.
The version I have says by Mike Johnston, “current revisions by Anthony Peckham.” I suppose I should have noted. It’s also dated March 14, 08, and by most script review standards, that’s pretty new. The Ben Button script everyone went off of is like 3-4 years old.
The reason the Adler character was because she only appeared in ONE Holmes story, and Holmes never hot much info out of her. Her character was never really developed much as would have to be for a movie like this. I am anticipating her character is being reinvented much as the Bond movies started to use the titles from Fleming stories without using much of the plot (there were no space shuttles when Fleming wrote “Moonraker”!)
I would like to know why all of these articles about this film keep saying that Holmes is “stiff” and “stuffy.” If anyone would actually read Conan Doyle’s canon, they would figure out that he was, in fact, the exact opposite. He was known for being rather bohemian, for bucking trends of society. He was an expert singlestick player, knew baritsu, and boxed. He had a wicked sense of humor, as well.
Interesting comments on Sherlock but, seriously, is Indy IV really more ridiculous than Indy III? Is an unknowable alien really sillier than a thousand year old knight guarding the Holy Grail, an object which simply doesn’t exist? Or are they both equally silly. Hmmm.
Hey I think Indy III is totally ridiculous, but most people still think it’s great. It’s slightly less ridic.
As someone who is a diehard Sherlockian and a lover of the canon, I’m not sure whether to laugh at this or be positively sick.
Oh…Sherlock Holmes entertainment for the masses……it’s going to be Rathbone all over again, except this time the Holmes hey’ve chosen doesn’t even look remotely close to what he should…
This makes me sick…
I’m a lover of Holmes’ canon and even if I think RDJ will make a good Holmes (even if he doesn’t look like him at all!) and Law will be a good Watson, all the plot and characters’ interaction looks completely wrong.
Watson wanting to leave Holmes? When?
And then… WHY IRENE ADLER? She was a good character in the books but I’m sure she will be turned in one of the many annoying female characters in the modern cinematography. I can’t really understand WHY every f***ing movie, even action movies, have to include a woman as a love interest even when the main male character is canonically uninterested in love and feelings!!!
I hate when a book I love is turned into crap by movies..
To the two claiming to be Sherlockians and The Playlist: have any of you ever actually READ Conan Doyle? You seem to be belittling the characterization of Holmes here, but it sounds dead-on. The meditation by violin, getting stoned, boxing, being completely aimless when not working on a case, the “impossible” leaps of “deduction” (until he explains his methods of course), the friction with Watson (because Watson found him difficult to live with, not because he necessarily wanted out of the partnership)…it’s all there. And fleshing out Irene Adler as a love interest/foil is nothing new, it’s been done several times before, in plays, films, and even the John Hawkesworth TV series with Jeremy Brett. There is nothing here in The Playlist’s description to make me think this is anything to worry about. I’m more worried about the casting and the director.
Anonymous 7:02 AM, calling BS on your statement that you’re a “lover of Holmes’ canon” because it’s obvious you’ve read little of it, if any.
“Watson wanting to leave Holmes? When?” When he married Mary Morstan; in this respect the script is dead-on. After that point, Holmes lived alone and was only occasionally helped by Watson. However, Watson always found living with Holmes difficult and was probably always considering leaving the living arrangement if not the working partnership.
“WHY IRENE ADLER…WHY…include a woman as a love interest even when the main male character is canonically uninterested in love and feelings!!!” Pretty clear here that your primary source of “canon” is the Rathbone-Bruce films. It was made very clear by Conan Doyle that Holmes did have feelings for Adler (Watson says he refers to her as “THE Woman”, possibly the only woman he ever found to be his intellectual equal and the only one he ever had feelings for) and the only reason he didn’t pursue her is because she was married to someone she loved. Reintroducing Adler as a love interest for Holmes is nothing new, it’s been done dozens of times in various plays, movies, and novel pastiches.
“I hate when a book I love is turned into crap by movies.” I hope you are speaking generically; the Holmes canon you claim to love is NINE books (four novels and five collections of short stories), so which one are you claiming to love?
Every Indiana Jones movie is ridiculous. That’s why I love ’em. 🙂
This article actually gives me hope for the movie now.
As a lifelong Sherlockian, I’m compelled to say that not only does this sound like a travesty, but it sounds atrocious. Sherlock Holmes is one of the most clearly and specifically drawn characters in all literature. The character does not need to be reinvented. There are reasons why Basil Rathbone, Peter Cushing, and Jeremy Brett were so memorable in the role. Robert Downey, Jr. is absurdly miscast. Read the original stories if you doubt what I’m saying. Daniel Day Lewis and Christopher Eccelston would have been strong candidates for an authentic Holmes adaptation. What is worse, this sort of project can alienate the next generation from experiencing a faithful, authentic version of Sherlock Holmes such as Granada Television produced with Jeremy Brett back in the 1980’s. Holmes is immortal and he is in no need of anyone trying to make him fashionable. Before you waste your money or your time on this film, read the orignal stories!
“And fleshing out Irene Adler as a love interest/foil is nothing new, it’s been done several times before, in plays, films, and even the John Hawkesworth TV series with Jeremy Brett.”
-Not really. The Brett series, especially the first series, was fairly literal in its adaptation, and Adler was no exception.
– Moriarty shows up at the end… no one saw that coming.
-The love story in the books, if there is one, is between Holmes and Watson (NO, not the gay variety). Watson is the person who helps Holmes to function. He is Holmes’ “One Fixed Point” in a chaotic universe. Not only that, but Watson gladly tosses off his medical practice and wife (wives) whenever Holmes calls. They are dear friends, and a tad co-dependent.
-Finally, have they replaced Holmes’ drug usage with drinking? I hope not. He shot up to stimulate his brain and alleviate boredom. Drinking has the opposite effect, and therefore there would be no reason. Then again, most of this adaptation is going to be ridiculous. Guy Richie is a hack who understands characterization to be a series of camera tics.
Sherlock Holmes did have superhuman skills of deduction. That was/is his hook.
Irene Adler appears once? she is referred to as The Woman, more than that.
The comments here are so literate & on the money—Sherlockians typically are. I agree with almost all the others. Don nailed it as far as casting goes too, though Downey will certainly capture the spirit both old & new. Though he'll still be too short. . ..;-)
“Watson 2000 (to be played by Jude Law) on the other hand wants out of the game, he’s getting engaged and wants to free himself from the detecting racket despite the excellent asset he is. This friction between the two friends is a dynamic that vacillates back and forth, but you can surely figure out where it goes as its arc is all too predictable and even eye-rolling at times.”
Sounds like the movie “Zero Effect,” which was based on the Sherlock Holmes story “A Scandal In Bohemia.” Great film, by the way. Everyone should see it!
I just read that the sequel, “Brokeback Baker Street,” has already started shooting. According to the script that has leaked onto the Internet, Holmes and Watson start a passionate liaison, meeting regularly at 221B. Mrs. Hudson opens the door and finds them in a passionate embrace. Holmes grabs a candlestick and strikes her dead. Holmes and Watson attempt to cover up the crime, but Holmes’s brother Mycroft suspects the truth. Finally, Mycroft confronts Holmes, who challenges him to a cage fight. In the climactic final sequence, with Watson clinging to the bars of the cage, Holmes lifts Mycroft over his head and body-slams him to the floor, killing him.
Doesn’t that sound GREAT?
I agree with a lot of these posters. You guys seem to know nothing about the text inspired Holmes. If this film appeals to Sherlocklan purists I say it’s about time. The nonsense perpetrated on us by Hollywod and other productions companies (with the expception of Granada, RIP Jer)is typified by the jokers on this blog using the NEVER used “Elementary” phrase. As a John Hughes/Weird Science fan, I’ll agree that using RDJ for this is strange, but many thought the same of Brett. Let’s give Ritchie and RDJ the benefit of the doubt here.
I love the fact that silly PG-13ness of this movie is proving you all wrong.
I have the Sherlock holmes script