Ritchie Revises Sherlock Holmes

Sherlock Holmes is the most famous detective of all-time and, while he only exists within the confines of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's numerous literary accounts of his exploits, his move from written word to the silver screen this Christmas left little wanting. Little, that is, as long as you've never read a single one of Doyle's books.

That's not to say that Guy Ritchie's (director of Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, Revolver and Snatch) Dec. 25, 2009 release of Sherlock Holmes was not a good movie by 21st Century standards. The flick features the apparently endless talents of Robert Downey, Jr. (Iron Man, Tropic Thunder) whose portrayal of the genius detective is nearly flawless, right down to his fits of mental apathy in between cases (which, in the books, Holmes copes with through the use of opium, a fact hinted at but not depicted in the movie). Downey is backed up by Jude Law (Cold Mountain,The Holiday) as Dr. John Watson, Rachel McAdams (The Notebook) as Irene Adler, and a myriad of competent actors in supporting roles.

The movie itself has Ritchie's distinctive flair throughout- it's full of action, mystery, and plot twists. While Sherlock Holmes is certainly not Ritchie's best movie, it fulfills it's promise as a Hollywood blockbuster. It even sets up sequels for itself very nicely, leading me to believe that this is not the last time we'll see this version of Holmes. The movie is exciting, the plot riveting and fast-moving, the scenery and costumes excellent (although the CGI is not the best I've ever seen) and the acting satisfactory.

Really, the only thing wrong with the movie, other than it's lack of serious character development and tendency towards overused plot points, is that the character portrayed by Downey is not Sherlock Holmes.

Or, to be more exact, the movie is not a direct representation of Doyle's work. While the characters, setting, and even a bit of the plot are classic Holmes, Ritchie takes these elements and utilizes them in a tale much more Christmas blockbuster than 19th century novel. All of the characters, save for perhaps Holmes (whose superhuman tendencies are hard to embellish, even for Hollywood) are mere shells of their literary counterparts, reshaped to fit the modern-day storyline. Holmes is more brawn than brain, much like the rest of the movie, forsaking Holmes' less-dramatic but more intellectual method of disseminating his cleverly deduced clues for a machine gun approach that leaves the viewer breathless, but a bit disappointed. The plot itself is much wider in scope and polished than the books, which results in a movie that looks and sounds like a Sherlock Holmes' movie, but feels very different.

If you're a fan of the books, don't go to this movie expecting a scene-by-scene reproduction of Doyle's work. If you're not, then prepare for a highly entertaining two hours of interesting, if not unique, detective work.

Sherlock Holmes is rated PG 13 for intense sequences of violence and action, some startling images and a scene of suggestive material.