Very Well Done

Rating: 9/10 (31 December 2012)

I saw Sherlock Holmes for the first time after a long, exhilarating day of skiing up in the Berkshires. Accompanied by my parents and older brother, I had low expectations of what sounded like a tribute to some outdated book about a detective. The fact that my mother was itching to see this film meant that it was in a foreign dialect with subtitles, was about a tale of a forbidden love, or was done in black and white. I guess you could say "family movies" (in actuality whatever my mom wanted to see) didn't exactly have a positive connotation in my mind. My mom had her qualms about action-packed thrillers and films she reported were "too unrealistic".
I'm not entirely sure what my mom was taking that day, but for whatever reason she actually chose a decent film. More than decent. The scary part is that I think she liked it, too. In fact I'm pretty sure this was the first film my entire family found entertaining, so much so that we've probably all seen it a good three or four times and made it our priority to see the second one.
What was so good about Sherlock Holmes? Well I don't want to get into too many specifics, partly because I'm afraid I'll give something away, but mostly because I fear I've somehow muddled the first and second movies together and may make some comments that just aren't correct. It has to do with the pure genius of Robert Downey Jr.'s character. It is almost as if one is invited into the intricate abstractions of a most powerful mind within the very first scene. The whole audience gets to have the glory of feeling "intellectual" for the duration of two hours and eight minutes. Here we are met with a new superhero of sorts, one who relies entirely on his all-powerful mind. But he is not one of those bookworm geniuses caught reading in the library or wearing a lab coat, rather he is a man of intellect who relies on his intuition with all disregard for the law, or any obstacle, for that matter.
Holmes leads an atypical lifestyle, rooming with Dr. Watson, fighting for profit, testing out inventions at his will, and having an uncanny knack for sizing people up at first appearance. His character is not one that is revered, rather sourly accepted. His sarcasm and disregard for "being liked" add comedy to the film and his casual manner in the way he goes about his investigation is complemented by his overwhelming arrogance.
A man of such little care for the opinions of others would be nothing without his "cher Watson". Watson gives depth to the film, acting as Holmes' moral compass and best friend. What is a superhero without his trusty sidekick? Although in this case I might argue that Watson isn't actually his sidekick, and that the two share a corroborative relationship. Or maybe it's that Holmes is in fact subservient to Watson, but like an inquisitive dog, he begs for leash. When he gets that leash he runs off with it and is later brought back to heal when he finds that he is in a compromising situation. If you didn't see the movie you're probably perplexed by my analogy. Allow me to elaborate. Holmes has a certain distaste for doing what is publicly acceptable; he has a propensity to doing things such as insulting another or blowing cash away on a fight. Dr. Watson, on the other hand, plays the more respectable role of being a conscientious and hard worker within the boundaries of what is acceptable in society. Watson constantly advises Holmes on what not to do, but Holmes, being the egotistical outsider that he is, often dismisses Watson's pleading but often finds he is in need of the acclaimed Doctor's help. Watson's role is just as much that of a parent as a friend.
Being invited into the world of Sherlock Holmes is being invited into a world of strategy, darkness, and a strikingly refreshing use of slow motion play-by-play action. The mystery in Sherlock Holmes isn't really the basis of the movie; it serves more as an added inquiry. It provokes the viewer to try and think ahead of the plot line, to solve what inevitably will be solved, and to try to beat out Sherlock Holmes.
Of course there is some romance. The exchanges between Holmes and Irene Adler suggest a more than comfortable past between the two characters, which adds to the suspense throughout the film. Adler is a highly strong-minded feminist woman, a novel idea in nineteenth century London. She is independent and plays just as much the adversary of Holmes as she plays his infatuation. In contrast to society's belief of the woman as being the moral compass, Adler plays for the dark side, manipulating Holmes and asserting her valiance. By no means does her character conform to the general depiction of a nineteenth century "lady".
The best scene in the film takes place rightly at the end. This is the summary of Holmes' findings and thought process, the point at which the crime unravels and the audience shares that final "ahah" moment, leaving the theater with the same satisfaction as if they had cracked the case themselves. The last scene is the one that wraps it all together, and the cliffhanger ending leaves one's mouth watering for more of the clever antics, complicated romance, scintillating action scenes, and ceaseless intrigue the perfect setup for a sequel.