The Wolfman (2010)

Note a completed Tower Bridge in the background

Remakes, in general, are a bad idea... and this was a remake of a B-film.  Perhaps Universal, the owners of the franchise, were looking for a way to extend their copyright on their classic horror film.  The shoot itself seemed to be cursed with uncomfortable costumes, short-tempered actors, alternate endings and multiple rewrites.  Of course all of this might point to the extreme efforts by many to actually make a good film out of a cheesy if beloved precursor.  Regardless, the result is an uneven product. 

This version weaves father-son tension, filial jealousy and uxorcide into the often gory scenes.  While these themes are clearly there to "explain" a son's fear and hatred of his father and a penchant for roaming, no one element is ever fully explored.  This lack of completeness lands the film on the wrong side of the tracks, I'm afraid.  Rather than lend credibility and convince the audience that this film was taken seriously; it merely reveals that it only wanted us to think it was being taken seriously.

Someone in the production team (it's nearly impossible to divine who) actually has a penchant for Victorian-era philosophy and social constructs.  The underlying details are quite thoughtful.  Colonialism, Orientalism, Freudian scholarship, gothic literature, Darwinism, and the crumbling aristocracy are touched upon.  Sadly, none is ever followed through.  The biggest miss is most certainly the story of Singh, the father's valet from India.  Yet, for all this research and attention to detail there a glaring mistake.  The film is supposedly set in 1891, as announced in the opening moments.  But, a completed Tower Bridge is spanning the Thames in two specific shots (the bridge was opened in 1894).

Hugo Weaving

Thankfully, the "monster" scenes are few.  The fur and makeup were not convincing, or even very frightening.  They are gory, but in a drive-in movie sort of way.  Anthony Hopkins brings just a smidgen of Hannibal back to the screen and plays his shallow role with as much professionalism as an Oscar-winning role.  Benecio del Toro is less satisfying.  He is more emo than angsty.  Emily Blunt is lovely and superb.  I look forward to watching her in years to come.  But it is Hugo Weaving as the Scotland Yard inspector who steals every scene.  He full embodies every Lestrade, Whicher, and Japp ever played.

Lighting and motion captured by Shelly Johnson

The strongest part of the film is the cinematography by Shelly Johnson.  Every shot is gorgeous and ethereal.  Lowlight, candlelight, moonlight, fog, lantern - you name it, he can shoot it.  It is clear that he too has read his Sherlock Holmes and studied his Caspar David Friedrich.  Without his rich vision, the film would have been entirely unwatchable.  In fact, look for a shot the looks just like this painting by Friedrich.

Two Men Contemplating the Moon by C.D. Friedrich

Sherlock Holmes

I grew up on Sherlock, quite literally.  I grabbed my dad's heavy volumes and looked at the original Strand etchings even before I could read the complicated stories.  And Jeremy Brett IS Sherlock Holmes.  Doyle himself couldn't have a qualm with that casting.  So I was initially thrilled when I heard of the pairing of Robert Downey, Jr and Jude Law as the storied sleuths.  Then I saw a trailer and felt betrayed.  Since when was Sherlock an action hero?  And Watson a slimy-looking ingrate?  I even get annoyed at the Basil Rathbone films when Watson is portrayed as a bumbling fool.  He is an doctor!  It was explained to me that this film was being based on graphic novel, not the stories, but I wasn't satisfied.  Sherlock is great - why mess with it? 

Then post-Christmas ennui set in and as the family sat around eating leftovers for dinner we contemplated our entertainment options (As funny as the word "squeakquel" is, we weren't going to sit through a story about hip-hop rodents).  We agreed (amazingly enough) on seeing Sherlock Holmes, all with the understanding that it not be compared to any other adaptations, or even the writings, really.  I chose to think of it as a guy in Victorian London who gets involved in sci-fi adventures.  

I am not an easy convert, but Sherlock ended up being a fun film and much more literary than I anticipated.  The "case" was not taken from any story I am aware of, but had elements of Holmesian problems.  Indeed, the consequences for not solving it in time were much more monumental than anything that Sherlock faced, except maybe the Naval Treaty.

It employed an interesting device, that was thankfully not overused, of letting us in on Holmes' thoughts and reasoning before seeing him carry it out.  It works, particularly by being introduced in a boxing match, that no Guy Ritchie movie can be without.

Downey, Jr. brings a nice levity to the character, and clearly was inspired by Brett's facial tics and idiosyncrasies.  Jude Law does well as Watson, but the character itself doesn't quite find its footing.  I don't blame Law, but rather the storyline.  It uses him as a soundboard for Holmes, which he often is, but it falters when it tries to give him his own backbone.  

The heroine, if she can be called that, is played by Rachel McAdams.  She too is passable, has a few scenes in which to shine, but her talent is underutilized.  Her character is also the only one that   drops the ball in terms of production design.  Her frocks are ridiculous and hot pink.  Not a good idea.  The rest of the set design was superb.  221b is a fabulous mess, one can almost smell the stench of the Thames, and the villain's lairs reek of turn-of-the-century nostalgia  (I am fairly certain they used the same prison yard and warehouse in Nolan's The Prestige.  And I think Watson wears the same jacket as Branagh's Hamlet).  

This jacket.

And this prison yard.

The Prestige - Jail Guard | Movies & TV | SPIKE.com

The face off with the bad guy got a bit long, and the "girl" isn't all that, but overall, the movie was very enjoyable, even for a stalwart Holmes fan. There is plenty to make a fan smile, and enough to keep a general viewer engaged.  The clues were dropped is a smart way, something not often seen anymore.  They weren't overt and obvious.  There is nothing more annoying than knowing the answer to the mystery but having to wait 2 hours for everyone around you to figure it out.  Not the case here.  Ideas were subtle enough to be mysterious yet visible enough to avoid the cliche it-was-the-guy-you-never-saw-who-did-it-the-whole-time (i.e. Bone Collector).

In short, go see Sherlock Holmes, even if you think you won't like it.  It won't be like any Sherlock you've seen before - but it won't be unrecognizable.