"Sherlock Holmes"

Rating: 6/10 (6 April 2010)

"Sherlock Holmes" by way of Guy Ritchie sounds about as good a pairing as Michael Bay and the Old Testament, but the director's mainstream sensibility and testosterone-infused filmography color a surprisingly inoffensive adaptation, thanks in large part to the charismatic performances of Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law as Holmes and Watson, respectively. I have a hunch that longtime fans of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's intrepid detective may be put off by Ritchie's brawn over brains approach to the material, which paints its protagonist as ostensibly an Indiana Jones, but the film suffices as harmless fun if not a serious head scratcher.
Action invariably supersedes mystery, and unraveling Holmes' latest case leads to fisticuffs more often than not, but purists needn't worry that their hero has been stripped entirely of his intellect. Even in one of countless gratuitous fight sequences with "Matrix"-esque speed- ramping, Ritchie's Holmes is always portrayed as a thinker. He carefully calculates the impact of each of his blows, instantaneously deriving the quickest route to his enemy's defeat before its painful execution. The screenplay employs this method of doubling back on a scene to reveal the product of Holmes' clever schemes throughout, heightening sequences that might otherwise consist of purely expository dialogue.
Where I do take issue with the film, however, is in the mystery itself, which never packs the sort of revelations the genre typically needs to. The plot is centered on one Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), an occultist and murderer who is sentenced to death by hanging, only to return from grave shortly thereafter. Perhaps I pack my own skepticism in this interpretation, which is partly why I don't consider it a spoiler, but it was always clear to me that Blackwood was an illusionist. His feats of supposed magic don't seem incredible enough to not have a rational explanation, and as a result, the disclosure of their orchestration is less surprising than merely satisfactory. Fortunately, the sequence of events that lead Holmes to this predictable discovery is less transparent. In fact, often the contrary, though perhaps more due to staccato pacing and thick accents than legitimate intrigue, but it's nevertheless more fun to be one step behind Holmes than one in front.
Still, the film has plenty more going for it to make it worth a family or friendly outing. Hans Zimmer provides a memorable score, and the production design creates a surprisingly authentic turn-of-the-century London, especially in comparison to other big-budget period blunders like Peter Jackson's 2005 adaptation of "King Kong," which took at best a half- hearted approach to recreating the thirties. Ritchie's team impresses with moody interiors and muddy streets only occasionally blemished by over-indulgent CGI cityscapes. The chemistry between Downey Jr. and Law compensates for a disappointing script, and keeps the film from feeling like a slog.
"Sherlock Holmes" is neither a triumph nor a disaster, and while 2009 may have brought us plenty of better blockbusters, it delivered just as many worse. "Holmes" has enough charm and wit to recommend for an impromptu cineplex Saturday, especially heading into what looks like a tepid January. It turns out the world-class sleuth and Guy Ritchie make a decent pair after all, and with an ending that clearly assumes a sequel, the greatest mystery is not if they'll re-team, but when.