Pretty damn good for what it is.

Rating: 8/10 (29 December 2009)

I had mixed feelings about this one, but wouldn't you know it? I liked it. Sometimes great fictional characters deserve a revamp. I'm not saying go and do some 'hip' revamp of every famous fictional character, like say, make Captain Ahab into some bad-ass space marine with a cybernetic leg who fights alien whales in space or something like that, but sometimes reinterpretations can work. I can safely say that 'Sherlock Holmes' is one of them.
Here, the roles of Watson & Holmes are reversed. Traditionally, Holmes is a no-nonsense, nearly emotionless man who ruthlessly conforms, and demands conformity despite his many eccentricities, while Dr. Watson is a warm, emotional reader/audience identification figure who, despite his intelligence, comes off as an idiot compared to the brilliant Holmes and frequently makes the mistake of simply being human. Here, Holmes is the audience identification figure who makes mistakes, gives into his emotions(sexual and otherwise)and is looked on as a fish-out-of-water, while Watson is a stuffy, conservative man trying to lead a normal life who takes things way too seriously. It's an interesting twist, and thankfully obeys the golden rule of revamps: It does not in any way destroy the essential integrity of the characters. One could even say this version fleshes them out a bit. Robert Downey Jr. is an odd choice to play Holmes, but he handles the role well. My only complaint is that he never gets to wear Holmes's famous Inverness cape and deerstalker hat, although I'm sure this was an intentional move on the filmmakers part.
There are however, several flaws in the film's setup. For what is supposed to be an introduction, the film already feels like the umpteenth entry in a series, and makes the audience feel as if they missed a previous installment. This could be seen as either a good or a bad thing. Holmes and his supporting cast is so well-known that treating them as typical character archetypes(buddy cops, obnoxious boss, heroine on the wrong side of the law, depraved nobleman, hulking henchman, unseen criminal mastermind)keeps them from becoming caricatures, but it also keeps them from feeling like real, multi-faceted characters unique to their world; One could easily rewrite the film to be about James Bond or Batman. That is the film's biggest flaw, but it was easily overlook-able. And considering how stupidly most modern film-goers react to more complex and introspective characterizations(Christ, look at the bad reception 'Tropic Thunder', 'The Dark Knight', and 'Watchmen' got for their bizarre, satirical, nontraditional, or deconstructive looks at stereotypical characters), maybe this is a good thing.
I also have to give the film props for it's sets and atmosphere. The setting really does feel like Victorian London in all it's filthy, poverty-stricken glory. I also liked the old-fashioned look of some of the gadgetry, and the huge French henchman was pretty cool. For some reason, his big ears, crooked nose and grimacing brow remind me of Rondo Hatton as 'The Creeper', a supporting villain from the 1944 Universal Sherlock Holmes film 'Pearl of Death'. If that was an intentional reference, nice touch.
'Holmes' isn't perfect, but as an introduction to the character for a new generation, I have to say that it's the best I could have hoped for.~