Sherlock Holmes Has A Lot of Bad Complimented By A Lot of Good

Rating: 7/10 (26 December 2009)

The Bad
1. The villain - I truly thought that Lord Blackwood was a terrible villain. There was nothing about him that really intrigued me. Sure, he is a "sorcerer." Sweet (no idea that Lord Voldemort invaded the Sherlock Holmes universe before going after Harry Potter). There are a few good twists revolving around Blackwood. But in a Sherlock Holmes movie, I would have preferred to see an antagonist more along the lines of Jack the Ripper as the source of Holmes' cases. Mark Strong turns in a convincing but forgettable performance as Blackwood. His character is not very well developed and does not get a large amount of screen time. In better scripts, such as The Dark Knight with the Joker or Silence of the Lambs with Hannibal Lector, it is effective to use the villain sparingly. In SH, on the other hand, I often nearly forgot all about Holmes' nemesis. I realize that the writers were going for some originality with using a supernaturally driven villain. I will admit that I haven't read the books and my Holmes knowledge only goes as far as legend and Wikipedia. However, Lord Blackwood seemed all wrong for this movie.
2. Rachel McAdams (Irene Adler) - She is gorgeous. Her looks alone will be enough to encourage any man to buy a ticket. Her performance and character, on the other had, were nothing to write home about. Adler's part in the movie is fairly ambiguous. The script finally informs the audience of her motives at the end in some short dialogue, but by that point I did not even care anymore. Rachel McAdams' Irene Adler was so stale and poorly written that I ignored her presence in most scenes. I will say that this is more the issue of the script than McAdams. She seemed to be trying her best to bring the character to life and she flaunts her beauty to keep to audience focused. Sorry, Rachel. Irene Adler is too awful of a character for even your face to win over fans.
3. The Script - LONG. And it is only a two hour movie. That should give you an idea of the surplus of blandness in the script. If I were to give Guy Ritchie some advice for the director's cut, I would probably tell him to cut out thirty-five minutes of the movie. Adding additionally footage to SH would put even the most caffeinated person to sleep. There are some great elements to the script with the witty dialogue. Having said that, the story is at times incomprehensible and quite frankly boring. After the first fairly entertaining hour of the movie, prepare for forty minutes of draaaaaaaag. Sherlock's solutions came a little too late to save this screenplay.
The Good:
1. Downey Jr. and Jude Law - Please, everyone, stop saying that these two are miscast. Both actors (given what they had to work with) were excellent. Robert Downey Jr. sports a good enough British accent while convincingly portraying the genius, sarcastic persona of Sherlock Holmes. I would say that Holmes' monologues of explaining the gray areas in the case are some of the best parts of the film. RDJ does a great job of convincing audiences that Holmes can be a martial arts expert while at the same time possessing a strong aptitude for sleuthing (I don't know if this film's depiction of Holmes is accurate for the original Sherlock, but this mediocre script called for it and RDJ delivered in what could have been a highly laughable character). Jude Law's Watson is refreshing in that he is actually very helpful to Holmes. Unfortunately, his character disappears in the last thirty minutes of the movie (he comes back for the final scene). However, Law has enough screen time to please audiences with his performance. As has been said many times before on this thread, the chemistry between RDJ and Law is wonderful and is easily the highlight of the film. They play off each other very well and it seems like the two of them had been friends for years (which is overly impressive in that the two actors had never met before the commencement of filming SH). Oh, and also, they are not gay. I don't know why people started that rumor but I really did not get that impression from the film. They are partners in crime solving, but definitely not partners in life.
2. The set direction/costuming - London looks absolutely incredible in this film. It seems like the movie was going for maybe a more visual experience than a true Sherlock Holmes experience. The sets and costumes of Victorian London are Oscar Worthy and should be recognized come award season.
3. Guy Ritchie - Well, it wasn't a great film. But it wasn't as bad as some of the stinkers he has put out since Snatch. I would say that with the big budget success that this film is destined for, Guy Ritchie could be on a path to better films. I'm sorry for those of you who enjoyed Swept Away and Revolver, but I am going to go out on a limb and say that Ritchie has been in a bit of a slump. His handle on RDJ, Law and the overall setting of the movie showed me that he might be coming back into his Lock, Stock and Snatch form.
So there are a few of my thoughts. It is at times a fun film with quick dialogue and intriguing action sequences. But at the end, I did not care about 90 percent of the characters, Sherlock may have thrown one too many Judo Chops and Lord Blackwood probably should have just stayed dead in the grave. It would have at least given a better villain a chance to challenge the always entertaining Holmes and Watson duo.
Grade: B- (or just below 7/10 stars)