Review by Sean Moreland: To enjoy Guy Ritchie's flashy, boom-and-bash adaptation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's legendary detective series, a case of amnesia would help. Starring Robert Downey, Jr. as the eponymous sleuth and Jude Law as his sidekick, Dr. Watson, "Sherlock Holmes" is a serviceable comedic action flick with fairly good special effects and cheeky repartee reminiscent of Ritchie's crime opus, "Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" (the film makes little attempt to situate its dialogue within its Victorian setting). As a persuasive re-imagining of Doyle's detective, however, the film flops facedown like a drunk in turn-of-the-century Whitechapel's refuse-flushed gutters, in spite of Ritchie's stated intention of producing a film more "authentic" to Doyle's vision than earlier adaptations.

A few things about Ritchie's re-invention work well. The film's pitting of a skeptical Holmes against an apparently supernatural proto-fascistic antagonist, based on the figure of Aleister Crowley, is gratifying. It echoes the Gothic sensibility of Doyle's "The Hound of the Baskervilles," and nods to his infamous, lifelong fascination with the occult. Mark Strong deserves credit for his eerie and imperious portrayal of this villain, Lord Blackwood, whose name is a cute allusion to a popular 19th-century British periodical that specialized in spectacular and supernatural tales. Rachel McAdams puts in a game performance as Holmes' erstwhile nemesis and romantic interest, Irene Adler (bearing little resemblance to her literary namesake), while Downey and Law gleefully play up the homosocial intensity of the Holmes-Watson "bromance."

Nevertheless, while Downey's performance is enjoyable in its own right, it just doesn't work as an incarnation of Holmes. This is due as much, I suspect, to the film's intentional re-characterization of the hero as it might to any limitations Downey may possess as an actor. While Ritchie reportedly had to warm to the idea of casting Downey in a role he originally envisioned for a younger man, employing the career-resuscitated star of "Iron Man" reflects Ritchie's decision to make something of a comicbook superhero movie. This decision is also reflected in his choice of soundtrack composer. Hans Zimmer's ("The Dark Knight") score features an unsettling combination of epic symphony and discordant banjo-and-piano sounds, often curiously contrapuntal with the onscreen action and perhaps the least generic thing about the film.

Characteristically steering away from the cerebral, Ritchie converts Holmes into a quipping, pugilistic action hero who could hold his own in the ring with Vinnie Jones (presumably all the smoke and coke have yet to take their toll on the sleuth's constitution). In keeping with this character reinterpretation, the film captures Holmes' mental gymnastics with colorful, high-speed visual sequences reminiscent of the Wachowski brothers. These scenes increase the already manic pace of the film in a way that ultimately robs it of any sustained mystery or suspense. Occasional nugget-style allusions to Doyle stories aside, the film's lack of fidelity to both Doyle's writings and to the detective/crime genre is likely to irritate any Baker's St. Irregulars who swallow their skepticism long enough to see it. While recognizing that these points were not part of Ritchie's vision, I can't help but wonder: if mystery, suspense and deerstalker-sleuthing are not the point... why make a Sherlock Holmes film in the first place?

Last Word: "Sherlock Holmes" is slick, sometimes witty, and boasts ample amounts of fire and flash, but it's ultimately banal in its translation of Holmes into a fists-first action hero.

Review By:
Sean Moreland

IN REVIEW ONLINE