Sherlock Holmes, As Doyle’s Ghost Recoils

 We saw a good movie over Christmas. Strong cast. Interesting plot. Gorgeous sets. And one of the best things about the experience was that I was well-prepared, before going in, for the worst of it. I had read Mick LaSalle’s movie review, which has, I think, one of the breezier send ups of a director’s style I’ve ever read. (Yes, the world’s worse directors have been safely diverted … )

 Braced by LaSalle’s review, I was prepared for the visual assault of Guy Ritchie’s directing. I know my struggles to follow the dialog are partly due to my difficulty in parsing speech from background noise (although my hearing is good), as another in our group could discern it. Or at least most of what was said. (The other person, perhaps as a defense against sensory overload, fell asleep.) But the frenetic microsecond-long shots and visual assault grossly confused an otherwise very good movie.

 For the sets of London are magnificent. The cast is strong. There is an interesting plot hidden inside the chaos. And Ritchie’s technique does work in detail, to illustrate Holmes’ thoughts, whilst it fails in overall structure.

 This is one of the more interesting parts of the movie—Sherlock Holmes as a neurotic so hyper-attune to stimuli that he freaks out and becomes agoraphobic. And in certain situations the micro-second long shots work, as you see Holmes take so much in, assimilate it, then form and execute a plan. To that extent, the visual assault works.

 But not all of us are Sherlock Holmes.

 Some of us, on a day off from work, might occasionally want to relax rather than have our eyes, ears, and brains bombarded with directorial excess. For one thing, given so much information and so many details makes it difficult to track it all. (Had I not read LaSalle’s review, I’d have thought my trouble keeping track of all that excess was my fault. So his review was an unexpected Christmas gift.)

 But if you do stay with it, there is a decent plot buried inside all the flash and thunder. And there’s hope for a good series of movies, too! Jude Law as Watson is a great straight man, and Robert Downey, Jr., portrays a brilliant re-conception of Holmes.  With more clever plots, this could be a great new series of movies.

 Should any of you see it (and agree with me about Guy Ritchie), can you suggest a better director for the project? I wonder what Ridley Scott could have done with the abundant resources available, especially an interesting plot, given a chance to pluck it out and let it shine.