Holmes & Watson stars Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly as the respective titular characters set in 1867 England under Queen Victoria in their fourth comedic movie pairing since Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby, Step Brothers and Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues, but the only one not that Adam McKay did not direct, which makes sense. McKay was too busy directing Vice, which was box office competition although they couldn’t possibly predict it at the time of production. Earlier this year, McKay and Ferrell announced their amicable, conscious uncoupling, and it makes complete sense. Their film priorities have diverged.
McKay uses comedies to make the cinematic equivalent of vegetables become entertainment. He seems to really want to make documentaries and knows no one would watch them so instead he gets a cast of stars to helm dramas that are hilarious and educational such as The Big Short. In contrast, Ferrell is all about the funny first, and while he has a conscience, it isn’t at the forefront of his creative endeavors. If he can throw it in to signal that he is on the side of the angels, then he will, but it is not the point. It affects the inflection of his comedy, but it is an undertone, not overt. Ferrell is willing to be self-abasing in the service of a gag. I can’t always go with him on his journey, but I can appreciate the commitment.
Reilly is a soul brother to Ferrell in his commitment to their projects and craft. He is extremely versatile: a great dramatic actor, a song and dance man if the occasion commands it and a joyful partner to Ferrell who never acts as if he is above the material. He will commit to the gag. Earlier that year, he appeared in Stan & Ollie, which I saw before Holmes & Watson, so it influenced my reception of this film. Ferrell and Reilly may be trying to reboot without blatantly paying homage if you like it (Simon Pegg and Nick Frost) or ripping off Stan & Ollie if you don’t for our time. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn’t, but also maybe it isn’t about us, but them. After watching Pedro Almodovar’s Pain & Glory, one actor essentially explains that she takes any role just because it is about the work, not the quality. When Adam Sandler makes crap, it was probably about the free vacation with all of his friends and the bonus of a tax write off. Rob Schneider isn’t beating projects off with a stick. When great actors such as Boardwalk Empire’s Kelly Macdonald, Vicky Cristina Barcelona’s Rebecca Hall, Philomena’s Steve Coogan and his comedic other half from The Trip franchise, Rob Brydon, Game of Throne’s Bella Ramsey and A Bigger Splash’s Ralph Fiennes also appear in the film, of course you could discount that a few must have kids in college or serious bills, but all of them? Maybe they are taking a page out of Reilly’s book and conducting a grand acting experiment by exploring an underexplored side of their art, comedy. They are saying yes.
I’m rooting for Ferrell and Reilly, but I did not find Holmes & Watson more than theoretically funny; however I take umbrage if anyone thinks that Holmes & Watson is the worst movie of 2018. Have you seen Siberia? How about Kings? Everyone is happy to kick comedy in the teeth, but dramas are treated like a silent fart. Even when we don’t talk about it, it may be the worst stench of all. Even if Siberia and Kings stood on their tippy toes, they couldn’t outshine than any Ferrell and Reilly movie, which at least has a coherent story. Siberia and Kings has a parade of hot people and a scattering of good actors, but they are dreckitude.
Holmes & Watson is mostly forgettable although there was potential to mine the idea that Holmes was an overachieving kid who cut himself off emotionally to shield himself from pain and only felt rewarded by accolades, not taking satisfaction in relationships. I did crack up (maybe too loudly) at one line, “I’ve discovered emotion, and I’m only forty-six.” There is also one cameo that made me super happy. Hint: he was one of the main supporting actors, but for me, the star of another 2018 film, Samson. I need him in more movies. There are quite a few Presidon’t digs, which I appreciated. Even though it is hacky, I don’t think that jokes based on Americans having guns will ever get old for me.
I was never invested in the overall plot of Holmes & Watson. It was a huge MacGuffin. The revelation of whodunit should have been funnier or to make it richer in terms of the overall story, the villain should have felt like a foil to Holmes by them having mirror image solutions to the same problem, but it was a missed opportunity. The heart of the movie is social awkwardness in the face of intellectual brilliance, but it was easy to see as a viewer, apparently difficult for everyone involved in making the movies. Instead the humor seemed rooted in comparing and contrasting the mores and absurdities of each period through anachronism, and it never quite struck the right note. I think that they were trying to poke fun at Guy Ritchie’s take on the classic starring Robert Downey Jr., but I only watched the first one , and I have no idea how popular Ritchie’s take is so it does not seem like ripe enough material to mine for a spoof comedy.
If Holmes & Watson has a major problem, it lacks narrative momentum to successfully and consistently tie all the jokes together. Even though it took a decade to come to life, it felt as if the story needed more work. Apparently Ferrell was supposed to play Watson and Sacha Baron Cohen would have played Holmes. I can’t even imagine what that movie would have looked like, but it would not have landed as high in my queue as this one.
If you’re looking for a funny movie, skip Holmes & Watson, but if you’re a completist like me and adore the Ferrell and Reilly dynamic, then you will feel compelled to watch it regardless of how bad it is. At least it isn’t so bad that you will regret seeing. It is only ninety minutes long so while I wouldn’t go out of your way to see it, if it comes on television or is suddenly available to see streaming at no additional cost, definitely check it out.