Sherlock Holmes | Film review | Film | The Guardian Sherlock Holmes Saturday 26 December 2009 19.05 EST First published on Saturday 26 December 2009 19.05 EST Share on Messenger Close Everyone has their favourite Sherlock Holmes impersonator, as well as their favourite Holmes story, novel and film. For me the best Holmes is the one played on stage in 1974 by John Wood. But I admire Jeremy Brett's on TV and retain immense affection for Basil Rathbone, the first Sherlock I saw, partly because he looks like the Sidney Paget illustrations, and partly because he has the right combination of intelligence, wit, poise and world-weariness. I later came to wish that Rathbone had a better companion than Nigel Bruce's dithering, dim-witted Dr Watson. My favourite story is a toss-up between "The Red-Headed League" (which Woody Allen drew on for Small Time Crooks) and "The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton" (I once had the privilege of showing its Hampstead setting to blind Conan Doyle fan Jorge Luis Borges), and my favourite novel is The Sign of Four.

My favourite adapted film is the 1939 Hound of the Baskervilles, my non-canonical one Billy Wilder's immaculate, elegiac The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, which I would love to see restored to the three-hour-plus version that only its producers have seen. So where does Ritchie's film fit in? Well, it's written by two young screenwriters (Michael Robert Johnson and Anthony Peckham) who clearly know the stories, and it takes place in a realistic, handsomely designed Victorian London where Tower Bridge is still under construction. Jude Law is a suitably sober yet dashing Watson. Robert Downey Jr is an intelligent Holmes, though his diction (seemingly based on studying Anthony Hopkins and Patrick McGoohan) is strained and not always easy to follow, and he's invariably ill-shaven and as badly turned out as Raskolnikov. The one dislikable aspect of Billy Wilder's film – its crude jokes about a suspected homosexual liaison between Holmes and Watson – is here blown up into a tiresome running gag, in which the pair bicker like an old married couple, have lovers' tiffs and argue about who's wearing whose clothes.

The invented story is another of those grand conspiracy thrillers, where an ancient secret society (the Masons in all but name) employs witchcraft and allies in high places in their attempt to take over the world, with the House of Lords their first target. The villain, Lord Blackwood (chillingly played by Mark Strong), is a cross between Hannibal Lecter, Count Dracula and a leading member of the Hellfire Club. Also involved are Holmes's old flame Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) and, more remotely, his old enemy Professor Moriarty. A cross between a Dennis Wheatley black magic novel and The Da Vinci Code, it's more a brown study than A Study in Scarlet. There is also far too much violence (both slow-motion and speeded-up) and too many frenetic chases. Unendearing, then, but not unentertaining.

‎Sherlock Holmes (2009) directed by Guy Ritchie • Reviews, film + cast • Letterboxd 6 Incredibly stylish, wonderfully balanced & thoroughly entertaining, Guy Ritchie's on-screen adaptation of one of literature's greatest creations is a smooth blend of kinetic direction, deft writing & solid performances that may not go down well with the die-hard fans of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle but it nonetheless succeeds as an impressive cinema of its year that manages to get many things right, if not all. Set in 1891, Sherlock Holmes follows the adventures of its titular character & his colleague, Dr. Watson, as they successfully apprehend the aristocratic serial killer & occult practitioner Lord Blackwood to close their latest case. But when Blackwood's body disappears from his grave, Holmes is hired by a secret society to investigate into the matter, only to discover that… 2 Perhaps it's unfair to compare the two recent incarnations of the famous Baker Street detective. One has a number of programs to unravel the many layers of this complicated character, working on a smaller scale where the cerebral is more celebrated and allowed time to flourish.

The other has two hours to reveal the man, his companion and become a relevant story for a new generation to buy into. It is also worth considering that Guy Ritchie's revival laid the way for Cumberbatch and co's more recent adventures. As with any good film timing plays a big factor in bringing together the various components needed to make it a success. Ritchie caught Robert Downey Jr on the crest of a… 5 A deliriously entertaining, handsomely crafted period adventure, Guy Ritchie's "Sherlock Holmes" knocks the dust off of the formidable detective and presents Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's creation as a sardonic, semi-super hero of an investigator. Starring the great Robert Downey, Jr. as Holmes and an enjoyably put-upon Jude Law as Dr. Watson, the film is a brisk, clever, and cinematically rich crowd-pleaser whose brain is as notable as its brawn. The story finds consulting detective, Holmes, and his partner, Watson, involved in a uncovering a plot to bring England to its knees. The narrative weaves together secret societies, dark mysteries, and pervasive evil, providing for a compelling and involving tale.

The core plot is intriguing, but it is the narrative's delivery… 2 I've always been a huge fan of how Guy Ritchie manages to retain a certain fluid quality in his rapid editing. His comedic timing has always been spot on, his humor pleasurable. Initially, I was a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes back when it was first released. But in this rewatch 6 years later, it has revealed itself to be a self-obsessed mess, distracting the audience from its flaws with a few flashy slo-mo scenes littered here and there. (though admittedly, is actually really fucking cool) I think Guy Ritchie had an array of ideas of how to make the film but instead of sorting them out and only use the suitable ones, he jumbled them up. It's as if… 4 content note: extensive discussion of abuse i talked about this briefly in my 10 cloverfield lane review , but one thing that abusers are very good at doing is appearing disproportionately powerful, even omnipotent, to their victims.

abused people are overwhelmingly afraid to talk about their abuse at all, terrified that their abuser is over their shoulder, or somehow listening—that word will get back, somehow, that they’ve tried to break out of the cage, or to file away at the bars a tiny bit. or even that their abuser will just be able to tell. (culturally christian) abusers model their image after toxic representations of the christian god—forever watching, keeping, protecting, occasionally or more than occasionally punishing, always out of love.… Review by Quinn Bailey ★★★★ In the short time that I've been acquainted with Guy Ritchie's work, I've noticed an interesting particularity of his - in each film he makes (that I've seen so far), Ritchie seems to single out a certain aesthetic element and make it the centerpiece of the film. With The Man from U.N.C.L.E., Ritchie focused in on subtitles and onscreen text, playing with them in ways that made them central aspects of the cinematography itself.

In this film, Ritchie's focus falls squarely on some truly fantastic sound design that can best be described as "hypersensitive" - we hear the world from Holmes's perspective, one where even the smallest motions bear a great deal of significance, and thus we move through Holmes's… Review by Jonathan Decker ★★★★ Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s classic crime-solver has been portrayed on film more than any other literary figure. The new version, starring Robert Downey Jr. as Holmes and Jude Law as Watson, has marketed the sleuth as an action hero instead of an intellectual. To my pleasant surprise, the film itself is true to its source material and Holmes’ legendary mind is front and center in the narrative. The recreation of turn-of-the-century London is exquisite in its detail and the story builds steam as it goes on (indeed, I found myself enjoying it more and more as it progressed). Downey, an American, flawlessly portrays the British lead, while Law’s Watson is portrayed as less of a sidekick and more of a… ‘Sherlock Holmes’: Hollywood finally plays by the book with Watson | Hero Complex – movies, comics, pop culture – Los Angeles Times ‘Sherlock Holmes’: Hollywood finally plays by the book with Watson Jan.

06, 2012 | 9:48 a.m. Nigel Bruce, right, played Dr. Watson to Basil Rathbone's Sherlock Holmes in 14 films. The pair are shown here in 1939's "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes." (American Cinematheque) Link Robert Duvall played Dr. Watson opposite Nicol Williamson's Sherlock Holmes in the 1976 Oscar-nominated film "The Seven-Per-Cent Solution," based on the novel by "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" director Nicholas Meyer. In the film, Watson tricks Holmes into going under the care of Dr. Sigmund Freud. (Universal Pictures) Link Patrick Macnee, right, best known for his role as "John Steed" in "The Avengers" series, portrayed Dr. Watson in several TV movies, including "Incident at Victoria Falls." Christopher Lee, left, played Holmes in the films.

(Revelation Films; Kirk McKoy/Los Angeles Times) Link It’s a mystery worthy of Sherlock Holmes — you might call it “The Doltish Doctor of Baker Street” — and the scene of the crime was in Hollywood the day before April Fools’ Day 1939. That’s when 20th Century Fox released “ The Hound of the Baskervilles ,” the first of 14 films starring Basil Rathbone as Holmes and Nigel Bruce as Doctor Watson, that daring duo from Arthur Conan Doyle’s famed books. Doyle has deeply devoted fans across the globe and through generations, and the eager ones who went to see “The Hound of the Baskervilles” in theaters back in ’39 were surely shocked when they realized there was something very different about this new Watson: The man was a complete idiot. Doyle readers since 1887 had known John Watson as a bright, handsome man of the world, a battlefield surgeon and former rugby player who had yet to reach his 30th birthday when he set out for adventure with his eccentric and brilliant friend.

But that hale and hearty Watson never made it to the screen with the plump performance of Bruce, who played the sidekick as an endearing but daft uncle whose primary functions were to express baffled amazement and get into trouble. Doyle purists jeered at the parlor nitwit (they nicknamed him “Boobus Britannicus”) but moviegoers adored the elementary appeal of the character, as did the radio listeners who tuned in to hear Bruce (paired at first with Rathbone, then later with other Holmes actors) put on jolly good shows in 259 weekly episodes . Over the last seven decades, Bruce’s portrayal of Watson has maintained more traction in the public imagination than any other version in any medium. That may change, however, with the unfolding success story of director Guy Ritchie’s revival of the great detective and his physician friend, played now by Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law, respectively. “ Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows ” opened Dec. 16 and has grossed $254 million worldwide , which adds to the $545 million brought in by the first installment in 2009.

Today’s young moviegoers may have bought into the franchise’s Victorian Era adventures because they connect with Downey’s dark, bratty charisma and Ritchie’s trademark slo-mo / fast-mo mayhem, but it is Law’s Watson that has created the biggest stir among silver-haired Sherlockians. “For years, Sherlockians have wrung their hands and bemoaned the fate of poor Watson on screen in films and television and told anyone who would listen that this wasn’t the real Watson,” said Leslie S. Klinger , the editor of “ The Annotated Sherlock Holmes ” and an advisor on both Ritchie films. “The thing that Sherlockians say is, ‘Why would a genius like Sherlock Holmes want to hang around with a fool like Nigel Bruce’s Watson?’ It doesn’t make any sense…. The way we have always thought of him is as an intelligent person, young and certainly not older than Holmes, someone who is stalwart and courageous, a little bit physical. He’s someone who can mostly give back as good as he gets from Holmes….

I’m on the payroll so I am not unbiased, but I think Jude Law is probably the finest on-screen Watson ever.” Naming the best Watson in film or television would lead to spirited debate for members of the Baker Street Irregulars, the invitation-only literary society with a name inspired by the Doyle detective’s famed street address, and many would point out that the redemption of a capable Watson has been achieved in the past. In the 1980s and 1990s, for instance, first David Burke and then Edward Hardwicke played Watson with distinction in the highly regarded Granada productions for British television. Still, when Law took on the role, many Sherlockians felt that Hollywood had finally delivered a Watson who was more buff than buffoonish. In “A Game of Shadows,” Holmes most certainly wants Watson around, but the doctor’s impending marriage threatens to smother their adventures. There’s also a rising danger as Professor Moriarty, played by Jared Harris , sets in motion a plot to create massive strife for all of Europe and massive profits for himself.

Stephen Fry joins the cast as Mycroft Holmes, brother of Sherlock, and at one point in the film, right after meeting Watson, he finds himself impressed by the doctor’s incisive deductions. Turning to his brother, Mycroft points out that Watson is not nearly “as slow-witted as you’ve led me to believe” — a fitting sentiment for the celluloid career of Watson. Nigel Bruce, right, played Dr. Watson to Basil Rathbone's Sherlock Holmes in 14 films. The pair are shown here in 1939's "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes." (American Cinematheque) There have been more than 200 movies featuring the character of Sherlock Holmes (and more than 75 actors), and by most citations he is the most persistent fictional character in film history, ahead of Dracula, Tarzan and old Ebenezer Scrooge. And, Klinger points out, Dr. Watson is in almost every one of those Holmes films. With each new portrayal, the creative team and the actor have looked at the past (with Doyle’s writings and Bruce’s performances looming most large there) and decided what to leave in and what to leave out.

André Morell, Robert Duvall, James Mason and Colin Blakely are among the actors who have played Watson on the big screen. There’s no end in sight. CBS announced in September it was moving forward with plans for a prime-time Holmes series from the producers of “Unforgettable.” The fact that CBS’ approach will be to move the detective to a modern-day setting was not received well by the creative team behind ’ Sherlock ,” the Emmy-winning U.K. series that premiered on BBC One in summer 2010 and later aired in the United States under the PBS “Masterpiece” banner. “Sherlock” stars Benedict Cumberbatch as the cerebral sleuth and Martin Freeman as Watson, and, yes, that show transplants the tandem’s exploits to contemporary England. Jude Law, right, returns as Dr. John Watson with Robert Downey Jr. in "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows." (Christopher Raphael / Warner Bros.) If the two television projects look to bring the 19th century hero up to modern times, the Ritchie films try to transport a modern sensibility back to old London.

For Downey, who is already turning his sights to a third Holmes film, the key to the franchise’s success is respecting the rhythms of Doyle’s universe and being brave enough to “not treat it like a museum piece that might break.” During an interview at his Venice Beach office last spring, Downey said it was amusing to note the number of reviewers who have criticized the movies for making the detective duo younger and edgier when in fact they were returning to the core of the source material. “I’m a big believer in literary significance and Doyle is a standalone innovator in the art of reverse storytelling, and Guy is not a linear thinker, so that suited him,” Downey said. “Working with Jude is just a delight and we have this adventure, this expedition into character, and if we do to it correctly we have something that really works. There’s a reason Doyle and Holmes and Watson endure.” The Holmes and Watson canon not only endures, it has just expanded.

In November, “The House of Silk” by Anthony Horowitz became the first new Holmes adventure to be sanctioned by the late author’s estate and became an official addition to Doyle’s 56 short stories and four novels featuring the detective, which were first collected and published in 1930 as “The Complete Sherlock Holmes.” The new bestseller earned strong reviews for its macabre tale that opens years after the death of Holmes with aged Watson revealing for the first time details of a shocking early case. To Lionel Wigram, a producer of the Ritchie films, there was no great mystery to solve in the salvation of Watson — it just required a respectful reading of Doyle. “This is the 115th anniversary of the first Sherlock Holmes story and it all comes down to the brilliance of Arthur Conan Doyle,” Wigram said. “In Watson we see ourselves, the reader or the audience; he is our way into the adventure, and in Holmes we see the very best of all of us, the power of intellect.

The friendship and the writing of Doyle, which is underrated, is why Holmes and Watson still matter and will continue to matter.” — Geoff Boucher No mystery why so many have played Sherlock Holmes - CNN.com No mystery why so many have played Sherlock Holmes By Jo Piazza, Special to CNN STORY HIGHLIGHTS Sherlock Holmes has been played by 75 actors in 211 movies Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law star in director Guy Ritchie's latest adaptation, opening on Christmas The character was created by doctor-turned-author Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in 1887 RELATED TOPICS Movie Reviews (CNN) -- Maybe it's just elementary. There's something about the character of Sherlock Holmes that makes the pipe-smoking detective irresistible on the silver screen. Holmes, the 19th-century creation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the crime-solver who employs wit and deductive reasoning, has been the most portrayed fictional character in film history: 75 actors have played him in 211 movies. Holmes and his loyal sidekick Dr. Watson will again be resurrected on the big screen this Christmas Day in director Guy Ritchie's "Sherlock Holmes," starring Robert Downey Jr.

as Holmes and Jude Law as his faithful companion, sidekick and lodger, Dr. John Watson. Created by doctor-turned-author Conan Doyle in 1887, Sherlock Holmes originally appeared in four novels and 56 short stories. A chemistry and forensics expert, Holmes took seemingly trivial observations and used them to solve some of London's most dastardly crimes. The character of Holmes has been in films since the industry was in its infancy at the turn of the 20th century. "Sherlock Holmes Solves the Sign of Four" was released as a black-and-white silent film in 1913, 17 years before Conan Doyle passed away. The combination of the inquisitive detective and faithful sidekick lends itself to a variety of genres and circumstances. Holmes as a character is flexible enough that he can be dropped into any sort of plot and interact with both real and fictional characters. iReport: Review of new 'Sherlock Holmes' movie. British actor Basil Rathbone portrayed Holmes in 14 films, the first of which was "The Hound of the Baskervilles," which has inspired at least 24 screen adaptations alone.

The first two films Rathbone made as Holmes were set in period in Victorian England, but because this was costly, subsequent adaptations were set in contemporary times, even indulging the audience's love of war films with Sherlock Holmes fighting the Nazis in "Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror." "Holmes has been able to be all things to all people," explains Kirk Honeycutt, chief film critic for The Hollywood Reporter. "People keep making Sherlock Holmes into their own creation because he s a very malleable character. He is like Silly Putty and you can keep changing him around." Holmes even lends himself well to animation. Warner Bros.' Looney Tunes took on the detective in 1956 with, "Deduce, You Say," starring Daffy Duck as Dorlock Holmes and Porky Pig as his loyal helper, Watkins. In 1976 the character of Holmes again blurred the lines between fiction and reality in Nicholas Meyer's, "The Seven-Per-Cent Solution," in which Watson lures Holmes into treatment for his cocaine-induced delusions with real-life psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud.

Meyer's cast was one of the most notable of any Holmes film, starring Alan Arkin as Freud, Robert Duvall as Dr. Watson, Nicol Williamson as Holmes and Sir Lawrence Olivier as Holmes' nemesis, Professor James Moriarty. Tony winner Christopher Plummer's Holmes also faced a nemesis rooted in real-life events in 1979's "Murder By Decree," in which the detective goes after 19th-century serial killer Jack the Ripper. Director Barry Levinson and writer Chris Columbus teamed up in 1985 to turn back the clock and tell the tale of Holmes' pubescent years in "Young Sherlock Holmes." Holmes and Watson meet as boys at English boarding school Brompton Academy. The pair discover and foil a plot to murder a group of British businessmen. Holmes' fans may have recognized Hugh Laurie's deductive doctor on the medical drama "House" as a modern incarnation of the Victorian detective. Laurie's Dr. Gregory House lives in a house with the number 221B, just as Holmes lived on 221B Baker Street in the Holmes canon. "There is one view that Holmes is the Hamlet of the pop culture world.

He is the test for actors. Many great actors have played him," says Susan Rice, self-designated Sherlockian and member of the Holmes-inspired invitation-only literary society, the Baker Street Irregulars. Sherlockians are partial to British actor Jeremy Brett's portrayal of Holmes in 41 television films produced by Granada TV between 1984 and 1994. Brett had previously played Watson on stage opposite Charlton Heston as Holmes in the 1980 Los Angeles production of "The Crucifer of Blood." He conducted extensive research on the great detective and on Conan Doyle himself, and was painstakingly attentive to detail when it came to differences between his scripts and Conan Doyle's original work. "There are very few who have met with our approval. Jeremy Brett is one of them. There have been many incarnations of Holmes and it is part of what we study as Sherlockians. Opinions are high about what Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law going to do with our beloved characters," said Rice, who has plans to see the film on Christmas Day with some Sherlockian friends.

Expectations are high for the new movie all around, which features Downey's Holmes as more of a swashbuckling Indiana Jones type than a buttoned-up professorial detective content with the intellectual exercise of solving crimes. If the current Holmes incarnation is a success, moviegoers can expect to see more of the detective quite soon. Warner Bros. Pictures Group president Jeff Robinov has said that if the Ritchie "Holmes" does well at the box office a sequel will be made. Sony Pictures is also in the process of developing a Holmesian comedy, starring Sacha Baron Cohen as Holmes and Will Ferrell as Watson. "Even Conan Doyle tried to kill Holmes off and couldn't do it. At the end of the newest film, it says, 'case reopened,' " said Honeycutt. "In the current incarnation Holmes has become like Jason Bourne. So of course they will try to launch this into a series of movies." Warner Bros. is a unit of Time Warner, as is CNN.

Share this on: Sherlock Holmes - Director Guy Ritchie, Interview Twitter Sherlock Holmes (2009) - Dr Watson (Jude Law), Director Guy Ritchie and Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr) © Warner Bros Take the iconic characters of Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson, put them in the hands of quirky, independent director Guy Ritchie, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s legendary story is reinvented for a new generation. Ritchie admits that when he was a child, he had a ‘strong visual sense’ of who he thought Sherlock Holmes was, so when Warner Brothers contacted him about making a movie of the renowned detective he immediately said yes. What is it about Sherlock Holmes that makes him so quintessentially English? Director Guy Ritchie on the set © Warner Bros In part it’s the period, he’s a caricature of that period but what Doyle managed to create was a three-dimensional character, he’s flawed which isn’t necessarily conspicuous in many of our contemporary heroes, and the fact that he is rather selfish, rather arrogant and suffers from depression, those are the things about Sherlock Holmes that make us interested in him as a character. What did you see in Robert Downey Jr for the role, he’s not British?

I think he’s truly brilliant at what he does and I can’t imagine anyone else playing that role now that he’s played it. Also he’s American, I like the idea of an American playing an Englishman, after all they’re actors, I like to see actors act. He’s the right age, he has the right look, he has the right intellect, Robert Downey does a job I know I can’t do. I think he’s a true actor and I love working with people who are very good at what it is that they do, because sometimes you can’t help but think, ‘Just move out the way and I’ll show you how to do it.’ Robert Downey is not one of those guys that you can do that with, so I couldn’t think of a more perfect Sherlock Holmes than Robert Downey. What about casting Jude Law as Dr Watson?

Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr), Director Guy Ritchie and Watson (Jude Law) © Warner Bros We really wanted a good looking Watson and then in the tabloids he got called Hotson, and this was because I’d always seen their relationship as much more of an equal partnership, more like Butch and Sundance, and I thought that was fair to Conan Doyle. The chemistry between Jude Law and Robert Downey Jr is better than some male and female couples I’ve seen on the screen. They first met a year ago and I was like a mother hen trying to put a couple together, like an arranged marriage, but within ten seconds you could see that the chemistry had already taken care of itself. Once we transcended that obstacle, everything else took care of itself. Why do Watson and Holmes complement each other, when they are so different? I think it’s the yin and yang, the fact that they are rather different, one’s rational, one seems to be irrational, that one needs the other to balance the other and I think we feel innately and unconsciously that you need one to balance the other.

One is an extremist so he needs an anchor in which to orientate himself, but there in lies the rub of genius, it’s on the fine edge of madness and I suppose Watson really represents this side of rationality where Holmes is almost into the metaphysical world of rationality. I understand you were a long time Sherlock Holmes fan, what was it about it that made you want to bring it into this century? Director Guy Ritchie on the set © Warner Bros I’m very familiar with the stories and what Arthur Conan Doyle was influenced by. I wanted to somehow represent what I believed to be an authentic Sherlock Holmes. Of course you can be quite subjective about how exactly that’s going to be, how he should be portrayed. But this is the Sherlock Holmes I imagined, even when I was a young lad. This was the Sherlock Holmes I’d like to see. Are we going to lose you to Hollywood or are you going to make smaller films as well after this? I don’t know is the answer to that. I make the films that I want to make. The interesting thing about this experience is that it wasn’t the cliché experience between filmmaker and studio.

I argued for the studio, I wanted to make an accessible, broad movie and what they wanted was Guy Ritchie-isms, so I argued for the studio and the studio argued for me. So all the arguments between the studio and myself were always coming from a positive place. I think studios have changed with their approach towards filmmakers and I really found this with Warner Brothers, they supported a filmmaker’s vision. I had a tremendously positive experience from beginning to end. TAGS Sherlock Holmes Reviews & Ratings - IMDb IMDb 847 out of 1042 people found the following review useful: It saddens me ... from United States 26 December 2009 ... not the movie, but the number of self-professed Holmes aficionados who apparently have no knowledge of Holmes. For the record, Holmes was a miserable, irresponsible drug addict who did indeed sleep on the floor, insult his best friend, experiment on his dog, and never ever wore a deerstalker's cap (at least, not until television was invented). He was a brawler who practiced martial arts and was as likely to slum around in the filthiest of rags as he was a suit.

It wasn't until after Doctor Watson took him in hand that he truly refined himself and became a "respectable" member of society. And yes, we can tell that this movie takes place THAT early in their relationship because Watson has not yet married his wife (the retconning did annoy me, too, by the way, but you just can't avoid a little re-imagining here and there). Speaking of unavoidable, Irene Adler, Holmes' one uncapturable (is that a word?), simply had to be cast as a potential love interest. The flirting, the romance, and the near-make-out session were irresistible to the director (and to all of the audience who're honest with themselves). That being said, I felt Robert Downey, Jr. played Sherlock Holmes to perfection. His characteristic caustic attitude towards Lestrade and even Watson at times was exactly how I'd imagine him. He gives several summations of his observations and deductions that brought Holmes to life in an almost unparalleled way. His fight scenes (preceded the first few times by superhuman calculations) show both the mental and physical sides of Holmes in ways that Watson's notes can't quite convey, but at which they constantly hint.

As for Watson himself, Jude Law delivered a wonderful performance. I was a little skeptical of how well he fought, given Watson's wartime injury, but his character and demeanor were entirely on the nose. His loyalty to Holmes despite his frustrations with him could not have been captured more expertly, I feel. No one, no matter how patient or forgiving, could endure Holmes forever without the occasional confrontation. The original Holmes, after all, was not above insulting his best friend or even deriding his deductive capabilities at times. Nevertheless, Watson never could abandon his friend in his time of need. This version (or vision, if you will) of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's greatest creation may be more swashbuckling, more thrilling, and more edgy than any other incarnation, but that doesn't make it any less faithful to the original. Aside from a little revisionist history in the cases of the female leads, nothing is that far out of the ordinary; and no amount of references to Madonna will change that. Was the above review useful to you? 343 out of 485 people found the following review useful: They Finally Got It Exactly Right!

27 December 2009 *** This review may contain spoilers *** Nearly hundreds of actors have played Sherlock Holmes and his sidekick Dr. Watson, and it may seem rash to call Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law the best Holmes-and-Watson-duo so far. But I've been a Sherlock Holmes fan my whole life, and most of the portrayals I've seen of the character only focus on an aspect or two of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's character. In Guy Ritchie's film, as in Doyle's "canon", Sherlock Holmes is an avid boxer, a martial artist, a dabbler in many sciences, and a master of disguise. Most importantly, he's an expert in logic and deduction. He playfully torments his housekeeper Ms. Hudson (Geraldine James) and shares an antagonistic but symbiotic relationship with police Inspector Lestrade (Eddie Marsan). The movie opens with Holmes and Watson apprehending serial killing Satanist Lord Blackwood (played broodingly by Mark Strong). Blackwood is executed, but when he seemingly rises from the dead, the deductive duo must determine whether it's a supernatural occurrence or if there's a logical explanation.

It's exactly the type of mystery Doyle would have devised, with plenty of twists and opportunities for Holmes to show off his genius as he races to stop a plot to take over England and (gasp!) America. Everything from the experiments Holmes performs in his Baker Street flat to his climatic revelation of the mystery on the Tower Bridge seems perfectly in line with Doyle's writing. One of the only departures from the canon that bothered me was Sherlock's introduction to Dr. Watson's fiancée, Mary Morstan, played as a delicate English rose by Kelly Reilly. In the stories, Mary was Holmes' client in "The Sign of Four" before Holmes first encountered Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) in "A Scandal in Bohemia." Then again, the continuity of the stories was rarely important to filmmakers, or even to Sir Arthur, so I'm just nitpicking. As a film on its own merits, "Sherlock Holmes" is almost perfect. The movie's opening shot grabs you, and Guy Ritchie's directing stays gripping all the way through the end titles. His version of Victorian London is moody and atmospheric.

Hans Zimmer's quirky score blends well with the film's tone and Downey Jr.'s off-kilter Holmes. Meanwhile, Jude Law transforms Dr. Watson from the bumbling comic relief of most movies into a cool, competent sidekick. Perhaps owing to his own considerable acting chops, he's the rare Watson who manages to be as interesting and watchable as Holmes. When he leaps into action, he relies on a sword-cane and a trusty revolver, while Sherlock favors a riding crop (which die-hard fans will recall was his preferred method of self-defense in the canon). Rachel McAdams manages to tweak Sherlock's classic adversary into a feisty action heroine. All the while, another familiar adversary skulks in the shadows. Even when Sherlock Holmes feels a little bit more like James Bond, he doesn't feel any less like Sherlock Holmes. Ritchie finds a way to depict Sherlock's fighting as a mental exercise as much as it's a physical feat. In the same way, though "Sherlock Holmes" is grander and more commercial than Guy Ritchie's usual films, it doesn't feel any less like Guy Ritchie. Was the above review useful to you?

251 out of 372 people found the following review useful: Downey and Law are on the case from United States 22 December 2009 Do Guy Ritchie and Sherlock Holmes fit? Why, it's elementary my dear movie fan. This is one of the most entertaining thrillers of the year and the fantastic Downey Jr. and Law are a big part of the reason why. They take top honors as the years best bro-mance, arguing like an old married couple while deep down knowing that they'd be lost without each other. Downey is Holmes and Law is sidekick Dr. Watson, embroiled in a plot where the black-magic-practicing Lord Blackwood (a perfectly grave and menacing Mark Strong) has risen from the dead after being sentenced to hang. Rachel McAdams also shows up as Irene Adler, the only criminal who has ever gotten the best of Holmes. Downey Jr. brings quick-wit, cunning, and a scruffy toughness to a role long seen as stuffy and dry, while Law a distinguished charm that, at times, spills over into testy aggressiveness (which is funniest at Holmes most annoying). Both toss off the one-liners with ease.

Ritchie's directorial style also comes through, from the dark, grimy Victorian- London production values to the violent boxing and martial arts matches. Holmes' mindset (such as the steps he takes to neutralize a suspect, interpret clues, follow the deceptive) also brings out Ritchie's ability to create an ultra-stylized flashback. There are also a few really thrilling action set-pieces involving a boat and an unfinished bridge. The plot, by three screenwriters, is a little on the convoluted side but it gets the job done with plot-twist on-top of plot twist. With all the brutal violence and style, you can be sure this isn't your Grandpa's Sherlock Holmes, but it will have you drooling for a sequel nonetheless. Was the above review useful to you? 138 out of 203 people found the following review useful: Actor, and Placement from Porto, Portugal 4 January 2010 Somehow, i've always avoided the cinematic (or TV) presentations of Sherlock Holmes. I find the character fascinating, but i always felt it was more invested in literature, not cinema. His deductions, the way he surrounds the worlds he investigates are a feast for thinking minds.

Even when the deductions are over the top (which happens often!) one can't stop smiling at the cleverness. More than that, the character is a perfect piece invested in a clever, irresistible and fascinating world. London. That part is visual, and a good ground to invest a cinematic world. But, unlike for example anything by Agatha Christie, Doyle's cleverness is rooted in pure deductive logic, not on the mechanics of the world. Notice that Christie's crimes are many times a matter of understanding how things happened, spatially (murder on the orient express is the zenith of that). I suppose Doyle formed his mind before cinema had any significant impact on how our minds work. So the challenge for any modern filmmaker, and actor, who wants to update Holmes, is to make the character more cinematic, more appealing. Several tricks are used here, most of them successful, even if straightforward. One is the most obvious, making Holmes an action character (which actually is in its original dna, even though TV productions usually ignore that).

This might be a flop, and make the version laughable, but by now there is a sense of irony and self awareness in Ritchie's films (sincer Lock Stock) that allows him to support a xxi century action figure in Holmes clothing that actually is watchable. A minor trick here is the association of the deduction with the very process of physical fighting, which creates some Matrix moments. Well, their watchable, though not particularly interesting. In the greater arc, there are good action sequences, because, as any competent action these days, considers the elements of the surrounding space, and uses them. But there are two big things in this film, which take it to new levels of interest. One is the acting. Jude Law is a clever guy, an interesting actor whose greatest quality is how he merges anonymously with the context he is intended to integrate. He willingly becomes a piece of a larger tapestry, and that really is something to look upon. There are not many actors who can claim they can do this competently. But the king of the game is Downey Jr. He is the gold piece in the puzzle of updating Holmes. There certainly will be a before-after Holmes character, with this film.

The man is capable to work his performances on several directions, and each of them is a perfect link to its surroundings. So he gives in to Ritchie's demands, and introduces humour, irony, and self-awareness in the character, to make it usable for the director's winks at ironic action. He invests totally on the creation of a character who merges with the textures of the context, while being distinct from it. And while doing it, he folds us into his game, so we do everything with him, side by side. We deduce, we smile, we run, all with him. So, if the film hadn't other qualities, Downey Jr would still make it worthy, because he, alone, solves one the most basic problems with any film: to find a channel audiences can safely cross into the game someone (director) proposes. He is one of the best ever. But there is another great thing here, which i suspect has a lot to do with several guys involved in the process of making the film. The result is an incredible sense of placement. London, XIXth century. All those dirty muddy streets, all the dirt. The fascination of the inner locations, namely the midget's laboratory.

How those sets are usable, in the action scenes. That's all competent, more than competent. It's perfectly rendered, carefully photographed, it sounds overly artificial, but it's a matter of taste, i suppose. But what was really striking was the use of the London bridge. Notice how it is announced, early in the film, with a similar perspective to the one we'll get in the end. Than, the great sequence, when Irene Adler goes through the sewage, goes up, and we end up with a close up of her, in an unidentified location. The angle opens, we move away, and we are set up in the location for the final fight scene, which in its own merits is interesting enough. So, this was a unique way to actually use an establishing location, instead of merely showing it. I mean, how many films have shown the Eiffel towers? countless. How many actually use it? not so many. This is one of the best London cities we've seen lately. My opinion: 4/5 from Dallas, Texas 27 December 2009 Greetings again from the darkness. Great literature seldom makes for great cinema. The mediums are vastly different.

However great literature, in the right hands, can make for very entertaining cinema. Such is the case with Guy Ritchie's interpretation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's greatest character. Mr. Ritchie provides us with quite a departure from the Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce "Holmes and Watson". Here we get dazzling special effects and near super-human feats and stunts. Another twist is that this Holmes here is no meticulous, fastidious bore in real life. In fact, he lives more like a frat boy or rock star - replete with trashed room and bouts of isolation. What is not missing is Holmes' world class attention to detail. The story here is multi-layered and actually very interesting, if not a bit high-minded and high-concept. The still-under-construction Tower Bridge plays a role in the film and the bleakness and gray of London is captured perfectly. Of course, I won't reveal any details of the story other than to say the "good" guys are out to get a real bad guy here ... wonderfully played by the always solid Mark Strong, who may or may not be dead. That always makes for an interesting case!

Support from Rachel McAdams and Eddie Marsan are fine, but Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law are the real stars as Holmes and Watson. As odd as it seems, they really do have a buddy factor that works well on screen. Downey's physicality has always set him apart from many contemporary actors ... he moves like a dancer and fights like a champion. Jude Law is often too pretty-boy for me, but he really does a nice job of capturing the reluctant sidekick with complimentary skills. This is a BIG movie! It is made to be a rollicking good time with tons of popcorn munched. Smaller kids will not be able to follow the story, but anyone who has read a Holmes story (and isn't against a little artistic license) should see the film. It is extremely entertaining and fun to watch. Was the above review useful to you? 130 out of 203 people found the following review useful: Sherlock Holmes for the remake generation 25 December 2009 *** This review may contain spoilers *** Sherlock Holmes - Based on the books by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the popular detective is portrayed by Robert Downey Jr.

His loyal companion Watson (played superbly by Jude Law) is getting married and Holmes is none too happy. Their antics are put on the shelf because Lord Blackwood (ice cold Mark Strong), a powerful man of the occult world, has committed a series of murders. When he is hung, he rises from the grave and promises to drastically change the world with himself as master. With the future of several countries at stake, it is up to Holmes to stop Blackwood. Downey Jr. disappears into the role like the character does with various disguises. He is completely believable as a detective whose deductive skills are so powerful that, without focus, mundane situations are overwhelming to his psyche. The film and role are his. Holmes is portrayed as a borderline manic depressive eccentric who cannot function unless he has a goal to accomplish. In other words: Robert Downey Jr. The film has fun exploring the part of Holmes left untouched by the films done by varying Television productions for many years. Namely: the physical side of Holmes. Yes, Holmes is a boxer, stick/sword fighter, and a martial artist. It was in the books, and it is done in this film as well.

He flung Moriarty down a chasm with jujitsu in one of the stories for God's sake! It always bothered me that Holmes's eccentricities and drug-use seemed to be shelved on the screen in favor of a more well-put together stern man who would never deign to get his hands dirty. Holmes was never meant to be a symbol of stiff-upper lip Britain, yet that's what he became. The obvious reasons behind these choices were probably finances (or lack thereof concerning fight co-ordination) and censorship. It's funny how interpretations work. Icons are taken down such a strange path that, when someone decides to bring them to where they started, the old looks new. Batman was always noir. Bond was a quipless suave killer. Holmes could fight. A down and dirty Holmes is more interesting (surprise!) to a 21st century audience than an omniscient uppercrust man eternally in a bathrobe. This Holmes is fairly true to the original character. It may not be true to the Holmes some people have in their heads, but that version cherry picks elements of Doyle's original creation.

Actually this Watson is not as close to the original version (younger with no limp), but this Watson ties Holmes to reality, is less of an audience fill-in (read: a dumb shmoe) and kicks some major ass. The film is riveting with only a few parts that actually lag. Huge explanations are saved until the end. We realize we have seem more or less all that Holmes has seen, and yet he gleaned far far more with his powerful intellect. Guy Ritchie's directing is vast and yet detail oriented. It's fairly comprehensible yet there is enough in the dialogue and character relationships to warrant future viewings. Sherlock Holmes is smart and entertaining, a combination which always works better than either adjective by itself. This is an invigorating re-boot that reminds us why the detective is such an icon. Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law have perfect chemistry like an old married couple. Mark Strong plays a chilling villain and one lament is that, as part of the film is spent trying to find him, his performance is surprisingly brief. Rachel McAdams is the one part of casting that feels disingenuous. She's not quite devilish or sensuous enough to be the one woman that outsmarted Sherlock Holmes.

Still, a thoroughly entertaining film for the head and heart. I look forward to the inevitable sequel. A- Was the above review useful to you? 182 out of 309 people found the following review useful: 'Sherlock Holmes' is a Fast-Paced Whirlwind Adventure from United States 23 December 2009 -----It came as a surprise when Guy Ritchie was chosen as the Director of 'Sherlock Holmes.' Known primarily for his work on indie crime films, such as 'Snatch' or last year's 'RocknRolla,' Ritchie had never taken on a mainstream franchise film, the likes of which 'Sherlock Holmes' promised to be. Thankfully, Ritchie was able to mesh the two genres on some level, with his trademark style of film-making ever present in his latest outing. The result is a film that will surely prove the most popular take on the character outside of Conan Doyle's original novels, and will also likely spawn a franchise. -----Sherlock Holmes and his partner Dr. Watson have been successfully solving cases throughout England for years. Their most recent case was that of Lord Blackwood, a man who murdered in the name of his black magic.

Finally hanged for his crimes, it comes as an unpleasant surprise when he literally rises from his grave. And so it is up to Holmes and Watson to find him and stop him before his killing spree devours the whole of England. -----Robert Downey Jr. is right at home in the role of the infamous detective. Swapping out futuristic armor for a pipe and fiddle, he plays another character with the wit and confidence of his Tony Stark persona in 'Iron Man.' This makes sense because, to some degree, what is 'Sherlock Holmes' if not merely the Tony Stark character set back about a hundred years? Regardless, Downey Jr. is excellent, providing an effervescent wit and supreme charm to his latest role. Jude Law plays his right hand man, Dr. John Watson, in a role much smarter than past incarnations of the Watson character. The two are more equals than hero and sidekick, and their chemistry is indelible. Even when the narrative becomes a bit erratic, the pleasure of seeing the two stars' continuous verbal quarrels is worth the price of admission alone.

Together they inspire numerous laughs and clever rebuttals to an unrelenting degree, allowing many of the jokes to pass unrealized, saved for the treat of a second viewing. -----'Sherlock Holmes' has a method completely reminiscent of Director Guy Ritchie's earlier films. In the style of show first-explain later, Ritchie has effectively applied his trademark fast cuts to the mind of his lead protagonist. Much as Watson is often catching up to Holmes' various schemes, so must the audience sit in question for a large portion of the film, waiting for Holmes to reveal his motivations. Particularly similar to his work on last year's entertaining 'RocknRolla,' along with many of his other films, Ritchie takes the first hour of his endeavors laying out the dots to be connected in his lengthy but fast-paced crescendo throughout the second half of the film. With 'Holmes,' he has compromised nothing, rather managed to find a better balance between build up and climax. With various fistfight intervals dissecting the chaotic mystery, Ritchie keeps the audience entertained even when they're unsure about the direction of the plot. That being said, many viewers will begin to question their purchase throughout the films first half hour, as the story puzzles more than entertains.

But rest assured, a satisfying finale follows, with so many pieces coming together that a second viewing is a necessity to begin dissecting the intricacies of the case being solved, if that only means better understanding Holmes' course of action. -----Visually Ritchie has constructed a film in the shadows, only occasionally getting out into spanning shots of daylight England. This, like the rest of the film, settles into place as the film develops. His infamous lightning cuts allow no slow moments, even when the pace would typically meander in the hands of a lesser Director. Holmes also riddles off explanations so rapidly that audiences can hardly pick up on all of what he is saying, or all of the nuanced humor during the interplay between Watson and him. Unfortunately much of the laugh-out-loud humor as been divulged in the trailer, but a film should not be penalized for the faults of its advertising campaign. The musical score is supplemental to the frantic convolutions of the film's earlier scenes, providing a spirited tune that rides the energy of fiddling and poses as anything but generic. The locations are likewise smart, the costumes are admirable, and the effects are gritty, proving to be another benefit of having an indie Director helm an event film.

Ultimately there are no blatant shortcuts in the way of computer generation, only clever sets and a brilliant Art Direction. -----'Sherlock Holmes' is refreshingly less conventional than one might guess, even if some viewers may find themselves a bit lost by Ritchie's unforgiving cuts and unrelenting energy. It jumps right into the tale, no origins told and no flashbacks necessary, relying on Holmes renowned history. Furthermore, many subtle elements of the various characters' past interactions are left for the audience to deduce in the fashion of Sherlock Holmes himself. And while the film may not be the grand epic some may have hoped for, its sheer entertainment value is undeniable. From the moment the credits roll it's apparent that 'Sherlock Holmes' cannot be full appreciated in one screening, and will likely grow in favor upon further viewings. It further presents itself as a gem of home entertainment in the long run, as a film that can be enjoyed on any occasion in any company, even with its hefty two-hour-plus runtime. This is a byproduct of the wonderfully gritty action Ritchie brings to the tale, and the uncompromising portrayal of the classic characters by the films superb leads.

'Sherlock Holmes' won't be quite what you expect, and you may even be dismayed by the films feisty narrative style, but more often than not you'll be completely entertained by the characters on screen in this fun addition to the loaded Holiday season. Was the above review useful to you? 135 out of 218 people found the following review useful: A very simple (and boring) plot... 1 February 2010 *** This review may contain spoilers *** Many people complains about the plot being confusing, but I found it very simple: Two ninjas, Sherlock and Watson (the former said to be very clever) have a fight each five minutes of the film. In-between fights they try to solve a very difficult case about a bad guy (Lord Blackwood) that, as Count Dracula, has the power to get into the minds of the people and make them cause riots and protests everywhere in Victorian London. Although the bad guy’s ambitions are merely political, he also murders women as a hobby and that’s why he is captured by the two ninjas, then prosecuted and finally hanged.

Many people go to see the execution, but nobody (not even the clever ninja) notes that the rope from which the bad guy hangs stays loose around his neck. The other ninja, said to be a physician, takes the pulse of the corpse directly on the neck, and realizes that the rope didn’t leave any mark whatsoever in the dead guy’s neck. Admired by how soft these new ropes are, he says nothing and declares him dead. The bad guy wasn’t dead, but he was buried the same under big blocks of granite. This was a very hard task because these blocks were actually very small pieces glued together lightly so that the bad guy could break them from the inside of his grave and it must have required quite a lot of people to put these fragile blocks in place so delicately as not to unglue them. Fortunately for the bad guy no one working at the cemetery noticed this. The film goes on very slowly after that. Anything they investigate is immediately followed by a long fight. Very often Conan Doyle writes about cases that although they look supernatural at the beginning, a sound and rational explanation is provided at the end. Guy Ritchie decides to change this tedious scheme, so that a crescendo is built till the last frame.

To achieve this Guy Ritchie applies the rule that if a case looks supernatural, the explanation should be more supernatural than the case itself. So, at the end, we are faced with magical substances (that couldn’t be found till now even in the Pandora moon) like a kind of clear, odorless liquid, that people take as water, which ignites readily and violently with just a spark, distilled cyanhydric acid that kills much better than the relatively pure counterpart so easy to obtain, an antidote thanks to which you can breathe hydrogen cyanide with no ill effects, small sized remote controls made in 1880, and many, many more. No ridicule is spared in explaining what has happened and how. Such a display of fantasy for nothing; at the end the clever ninja cannot explain how the bad guy managed to get into the minds of the people and organize riots telepathically. Maybe there was also a magical gas that was released by the bad guy and caused this, but unfortunately this is not shown in the film. Was the above review useful to you?

76 out of 104 people found the following review useful: Mediocre 20 July 2010 *** This review may contain spoilers *** I'm rating a 1/10 to counterbalance all the 9/10 reviews. This movie was just another stupid, boring action movie. I might of given it more stars if it wasn't named "Sherlock Holmes". 1. The characters in the movie were not Holmes and Watson. Maybe Dr. House and Jackie Chan. I read some reviews saying that this is the best portrayal of Holmes you've ever seen, seriously? Yes, he was eccentric, but he wasn't a smug, childish, karate champion, witty.... He was a proper British gentlemen. Why does he always have a stupid, baffled expression in the movie? You know the one with his eyes wide open. 2. I have to agree with another reviewer, Conan Doyle mostly had believable explanations. Not some remote control, flammable water, and lot's of other junk that they didn't have in the late 1800's. 3. I hate that everything nowadays has to be an action movie. Holmes and Watson were not crime fighting ninjas.

I've read many Holmes books and I've yet to find one where he goes around kicking ass all over the place. Next we'll see a Jesus movie where there are lots of explosions. This movie is good for the masses, but not if you are an actual thinking human being. Was the above review useful to you? 175 out of 302 people found the following review useful: Tremendous!!! One of my favorite movies of the year. from Israel 25 December 2009 What a ride. "Sherlock Holmes" left me giddy. I absolutely loved it. It was thrilling, funny, stylish, fast-paced and brilliantly acted. Downey Jr. is a delight to look at. He eats up the screen. He gives the character all sorts of mannerisms and nuances which really bring Holmes to life like never before. The chemistry and interplay between him and Jude Law is hilarious. I wasn't a big fan of Rachel McAdams's performance, but it didn't detract from the experience. I felt she just didn't bring as much to the table as the others. (Kinda like Katie Holmes in Batman Begins.) Guy Ritchie really outdoes himself here.

The way he uses the camera, the motion, the fluidity, the snappy pacing - I loved every minute of it. A really fantastic movie. Well done. Was the above review useful to you? Page 1 of 63: Sherlock Holmes | Film review | Film | The Guardian Sherlock Holmes It's a souped-up Victorian crime romp with Holmes and Watson reinvented as wisecracking action heroes Time thieves … Jude Law and Robert Downey Jr in Sherlock Holmes Thursday 17 December 2009 17.30 EST First published on Thursday 17 December 2009 17.30 EST Share on Messenger Close It is, as the great sleuth might have said, a three-pipe problem. How does cackling master-criminal Guy Ritchie keep getting away with it? How on earth did he manage to perpetrate those two egregious crimes Revolver and RocknRolla without getting his collar felt?

This lordly super-villain is well known as a master of disguise, donning a pearly cap and smearing himself with odorous jellied eels to pass as a cockney rapscallion, in which garb this patrician scofflaw carries out his dastardly acts in film studios, before changing back into tweeds and vanishing away to his country estate. Now he has managed to steal hours of precious time belonging to cinemagoers everywhere for his latest silly escapade. It's a souped-up Victorian crime romp with Holmes and Watson reinvented as wisecracking action heroes, played by Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law - a two-man league of pretty ordinary gentlemen. As ever, Ritchie has some bareknuckle fighting in slow-motion interspersed with very-quick-speeded-up-motion and there's plenty of diddly-diddly Irish folk music in the background. I fear producer Joel Silver may feel like grabbing Ritchie and plunging with him down the Reichenbach Falls. • Released on Boxing Day.

Jude Law in Sherlock Holmes: Shoscombe Old Place Jude Law in Sherlock Holmes: Shoscombe Old Place Tweet Jude Law may have recently played Watson in Guy Ritchie’s 2009 film Sherlock Holmes, but this wasn’t his first brush with the great detective. Back in 1991, Law appeared in the Granada television series The Case-book of Sherlock Holmes, with Jeremy Brett in the title role. In the episode ‘ Shoscombe Old Place ‘, Jude Law plays Joe Barnes, a young man who comes to a stable looking for work, beause he’d “like to be a jockey more than anything in the world”. At first he’s turned away by stable owner Sir Robert Norberton, but before long he’s back, the young innocent drawn into a sinister scheme involving death, spaniels, and cross-dressing. […] record, I loved Ritchie’s first 2009 film, and for the trivia hounds among you: 1991′s ‘Shoscombe Old Place’ had a very young Jude Law in drag as Joe Barnes. Once a character in Doyle, always a character in […] Leave a Reply

Question: Who played Watson in Guy Ritchie’s 2009 film Sherlock Holmes?
Answer: Jude Law