No summary

Rating: 3/10 (7 January 2010)

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes is an 1890s sleuth who bears an average Englishman's body; has cat-like cleanliness; has an uncanny ability to blend seamlessly with brilliant disguises; knows a Japanese system of wrestling called the Baritsu; is a formidable bare-knuckle fighter; a single-stick expert regarded by Dr. Watson; is also an expert with a sword as he studied fencing; and always carried a pistol.
In this 2009 adaptation, the world's most famous fictional detective returns to the big screen bearing six-pack abs and an effects-heavy action story. But this adrenalised Sherlock Holmes lacks the intelligence of its brilliant hero. Robert Downey Jr. lends his not-inconsiderable wit to the proceedings as the brawny, brooding Holmes, but despite director Guy Ritchie's robust re-imagining, this picture struggles to transplant the 19th-century sleuth into the world of 21st-century Hollywood blockbusters. His sleuthing simply became a sideshow.
On characterization, Watson, played by Jude Law was more consistent with the original physician. But the medical character itself lacked the on-screen narration much popularized in Doyle's earlier Holmes cases.
Irene Adler, Holmes' only love, played by Rachel McAdams, was a breather from the almost Brokeback Mountain-ish bromance between Holmes and Watson. For without her pretty face which cuts like a warm knife against the brilliantly designed backdrop of how dirty 1800 London was, Ritchie's adaptation would've been mistaken for Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, the sequel; full of revving testosterone with no where to go.
Now let's go to Holmes.
Doyle's original Sherlock is an eccentric, sloppy bohemian, erratic eater, an expert on deductive reasoning, a fighter, a cocaine and morphine user and a loner.
Ritchie's Holmes focused on the eccentric and fighter with a slight tinge of reasoning. A similar image would be Batman. Richie wants Sherlock Holmes to be a dark, edgy, exciting adaptation. Holmes may still have his trademark pipe, but he has ditched the deerstalker hat and bookish demeanor for a roguish manner and buffed-up physique. Likewise, he and Watson are presented as a crime-fighting duo who get involved in elaborate action set pieces that are pitched at a hyperbolic level that quickly becomes numbing.
The desire to turn Conan Doyle's detective into a complicated action hero is intriguing, but after the recent cinematic reboots of Batman and James Bond, this approach has started to lose its novelty. You can add a big dose of Captain Jack Sparrow at one point Downey is tied naked to a pair of bedposts.
More crucially, unlike the other two properties, Sherlock Holmes's personality and psyche aren't meaningfully explored in the new film. While Downey Jr. provides his usual devil-may-care charm, this Sherlock Holmes ultimately feels like an excuse for high-energy action sequences rather than an attempt to breathe new life into a dusty literary icon.
The film does have its hints of brilliance. Take the piece called production design by Sarah Greenwood (Atonement and Pride and Prejudice), she transported us to 1890s London. One could almost smell the rancidness of Baker Street. Add to that Hans Zimmer's (The Dark Knight and Angels and Demons) moving score with crescendos that push you to the edge of your seats without the help of Ritchie's pyrotechnics.
Any film which doesn't need flash and flare will always turn out overly done. This is a film adaptation which lost some important parts along the way because someone failed to see the bigger picture and decided to make up his own pieces.
These are just a few personal observations deduced rather quickly just as Holmes would. But still, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle would have had a hard time figuring this one out.