Sherlock Holmes

As someone who has read the entire Arthur Conan Doyle canon of Sherlock Holmes stories, I viewed the Guy Ritchie film with some trepidation. Making him as a combination Batman and Jack Sparrow isn't exactly staying true to the character. However, the movie wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. Not great, certainly, but moderately entertaining enough to keep me interested through most of its running time. Holmes now belongs to anyone to do what they will with, and worse things have been done. During World War II Basil Rathbone's Holmes battled wits with the Nazis.

Robert Downey Jr. stars as the great detective, and its a curious and unsatisfying performance. He seems to have based it on Johnny Depp's turn in Pirates of the Caribbean, not by aping it but by consciously affecting a kind of whimsical eccentricity. I found it off-putting and not keeping with the character as written--his Holmes seems incapable of functioning in society--and furthermore Downey mumbles so much I couldn't make out half of what he said. I think his success in Iron Man has spoiled him a bit.

On the other hand, I thought Jude Law as Dr. Watson was terrific, and consistent with the character as created by Doyle. Watson, an ex-soldier, was a man of action, and Law presents him as such. Nigel Bruce's characterization as a bumbling fusspot ruined the character for years. Law, much as he wants to get married and leave behind his bizarre friend, is addicted to the risk (Ritchie and his screenwriters give him a gambling problem).

The best part of the film is the overall look. The sets, costumes and photography well serve the Victorian time period. Even the music, by the usually criminally bombastic Hans Zimmer, was enjoyable. Ritchie's directing style is a little too modernistic, though. I found the action scenes badly handled, and regretted they were even thought to be necessary. Doyle's Holmes was not afraid of a fight, but I don't recall any mention of him participating in nineteenth-century fight clubs. I also didn't care for his voice-overs detailing his fight strategy.

Where the film is lacking is the central mystery, which is a problem considering we're talking about Sherlock Holmes. The baddie is a Satan-worshipping Lord who seems to have found the ability to rise from the dead. It seems to have been cobbled together from leftover Dan Brown manuscripts and From Hell, the Alan Moore graphic novel about Jack the Ripper, and seems oddly familiar.

Purists shouldn't be too upset. There are several nods in their direction, with details that will please them: Mrs. Hudson, Mary Morstan, Irene Adler (though Rachel McAdams is wasted in playing her), Inspector LeStrade, and bullet-holes in the shape of the letters VR. Interestingly there is no mention of a cocaine habit, though Holmes at one point drinks liquid that is intended as anaesthetic for eye surgery. The screenwriters manage to cover most of their tracks in plotting, though Tower Bridge and Parliament are much closer together in this film that they are in real life.

The best Sherlock Holmes film remains Murder By Decree, with Christopher Plummer and James Mason. The best Holmes ever? Why, Jeremy Brett, of course, in the BBC series.