Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Rachel McAdams, Mark Strong,

Directed by: Guy Ritchie

Warner Brothers

The Official Site of Sherlock Holmes

Discuss Sherlock Holmes on the boards!

Robert Downey Jr.’s turn as literature’s most famous detective (that doesn’t dress like a bat) Sherlock Holmes is a career-making performance. Or at least it would’ve been had Downey not slid on that Iron Mask a couple summers ago. His take on Holmes has a lot of similarities to the combination of confidence, genius and vanity that made his Tony Stark one of the most interesting superheroes in years. Holmes embraces all of that without the hygiene or technology.

This latest version of Sherlock Holmes has been marketed as a superhero whose super power is his advanced intellect. He defeats his enemies with his world-class book smarts and keen eye for detail. A preferred version to the old-timey Brit throwing his brain at people, which could easily be misconstrued from the high concept description.

Fans of the source material (including Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s classic series of books as well as the string of films it inspired) may take issue with the modernization of Holmes but missing magnifying glasses and pudgy sidekicks don’t remove the spirit of the character. Holmes is definitely presented like a superhero film with all the spit polish, cartoon baddies and grand set pieces that that implies but the story itself is all kinds of British, super-sleuth charming.

Holmes pits the Sherlock against the evil Lord Blackwood who has risen from the dead to take over the world. Lofty goals for a zombie but the classic premise of science versus magic offers ample opportunity for our hero to be challenged and find new creative ways to save the day.

At his side is Doctor Watson (brilliantly cast in Jude Law) who sheds his jolly naiveté for street smarts and stubbornness towards his dear friend Holmes (slash roommate in a confusingly Bert and Ernie sort of way if you know what I mean). The truest treat of the film is the camaraderie between these two. Downey and Law’s chemistry is instant and electric. Something easy to latch on to as the story takes off.

At his other side to less affect is Irene Adler, the only woman that ever bested Holmes. She is a sloppy love interest slash opportunity to at establishing a sequel. Her connections to organized crime offer us shadowy glimpses at Moriarty, Holmes’ most infamous nemesis, opening the door for Holmes to develop into something bigger and badder. (Think the joker card in Batman Begins or the entire last third of Casino Royale) Most regrettably Adler is a complete waste in that she was cast with the wonderful Rachel McAdams who continues to get herself attached to fantastic projects that don’t give her adequate opportunity to shine.

My disappointment with the film didn’t end in its wasted heroine though they’re considerably less severe. I think that in its narrative the film fails to make good use of a couple of obvious pay offs. There are sequences early on involving sensory overload and the inner workings of Holmes’ mind that begged to be revisited during the film’s climax but are noticeably missing. One in particular where Holmes calls out in his mind the attacks he’s going to use as the audience watches along in slow motion before seeing it come to life in real time would have been a perfect addition to the film’s big showdown. Its absence hurts the film.

This is not only the return of Holmes but also of director Guy Richie in his most accessible film in years. I’m a huge fan of Richie, his grasp of British crime and his affinity for slow motion - not to mention some of his more oddball experiments behind the camera. Holmes encompasses that at restraint. You can feel the wagging finger of Warner Brothers keeping him in check. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing. Freedom is fantastic but new perspectives can bring about new ideas or in this case hone a broad idea into the textbook definition of a tent pole crowd-pleaser. It’ll never be as satisfying as a good book but it was a spectacular way to close out 2009.

Holmes offers a nice burst of adrenaline but for a film boasting one of literature’s finest minds - it’s a touch dim. Seeing it a second time I was equally charmed by the film’s pace, development and performances (Downey and Law are remarkable buddy cops. If they recast War Machine again for Iron Man 3 I think we’ve got a great candidate even if he is super white) but disappointed it had little else to offer. This should be a film with nuance, the type of movie that offers you new insight with repeat viewings. Sadly it’s a film that lives and dies on face value. It’s pure entertainment but little else. Such a shame.

Fans of the FOX program House, a series developed around the Holmes template, will definitely understand this version of the Sherlock as opposed to the prim and proper super sleuth he’s been iconified (not a word) as. Both embody the selfishness of a mind that stands head and shoulders above those he’s surrounded himself with. The movie definitely echoes the complex relationship between House and his Dr. Watson, something I’m eager to see them build on in the inevitable sequel.

Undecided. Fun is great but a smarter movie would have me reaching for it more often. I wonder what the life span is of a movie that has the promise of saying something great but ultimately says little beyond “ka-blamo!�

To hear more spoiler talk for movies like Holmes, Avatar and even movies I haven’t touched on here like The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnasus please give a listen to the all-new Crappy movies podcast. It’s a brand new show that will focus on taking a closer look at films, both new and old, exploring themes and topics I can only tease at in the reviews. You can listen to the first five shows via this widget or the shows homepage at talkshoe. It’s a young show and I’m beginning to experiment with editing and on site hosting. If it continues to be fun you can expect it to evolve. For now it is what it is – two guys shooting the shit about movies.