Hit-and-Miss Casting, terrible plot.

Rating: 7/10 (8 January 2010)

To say that Sherlock Holmes was disappointing wouldn't be an exaggeration, but it would be misleading. Ever since the trailers for this film began bombarding movie theaters months ahead of Christmas, I was already one of those assholes that "has-read-the-books" and would be hard-pressed to be satisfied by any on-screen incarnation of the great detective.
So, I guess I wasn't expecting a whole lot, not from Robert Downey Jr. playing another brilliant man who abuses substances and is generally snarky and quirky, not from Jude Law playing a prissy, long-suffering friend. Not even from Guy Ritchie, not really, because a dark romp in the alleys of London seemed right up his, er, alley.
I think the main issue with this movie was that people weren't at the movie theaters to see a movie about Sherlock Holmes. They, myself included, were there to see Robert Downey Jr. play Sherlock Holmes in a movie. I got what I wanted, certainly, and perhaps that's some inspired casting right there, but it didn't feel right. With actors that I love, it's really easy to tell which movies they truly acted in, because I'll end up knowing its them up there on screen, but think in terms of their character instead of who they are in real life. In those movies, I don't get this feeling of not being able to lose myself in the movie, and detach myself from their persona as an actor.
None of the lead actors melted into their characters enough to make me believe that I was watching Sherlock Holmes, Dr. Watson, Irene Adler, or Lord Blackwood instead of Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Maggie McAdams, and Mark Strong. While I was entertained for the most part, I feel that this was a definite flaw for this film in particular, because of how iconic the characters are and also because this film is so removed from the modern world we live in. It's a period piece, but the costumes and settings and all the painstaking work so many people took to make this film look (kinda) realistic didn't really matter, because I'm still watching Maggie McAdams up there and not the woman that she's supposed to be portraying.
I will never agree that Robert Downey Jr. was a good choice for the role of Sherlock Holmes. He's physically nothing like the part, and call me a stickler, but I feel that there is a something to be said for how an author wanted his character to look. Here's what Arthur Conan Doyle said about Holmes: "His very person and appearance were such as to strike the most casual observer. In height he was rather over six feet,and so excessively lean that he seemed to be considerably taller. His thin, hawk-like nose gave his whole expression an air of alertness and decision." Looks withstanding, RDJ did a decent job undertaking a demanding role. I loved watching him sass throughout the murky streets of London, even if, when taking a big step back, his portrayal of Holmes was bordering on slapstick and made the poor guy seem almost like an idiot savant, unable to socialize in public without insulting people left and right.
Jude Law was the best of the ensemble, hands down. He was a pretty good Watson. I loved that Watson was finally portrayed as a capable character and not merely a useless sidekick that Holmes ends up explaining everything to. He limped well, he spoke well, he punched well and sliced up the baddies nicely. In particular, he was a tremendous relief as a foil to Downey's over-the-top eccentricities. I definitely appreciated most, if not all of his screen-time. His part in the bromance (best part of the movie) was also very well-done. Thank you, Jude Law.
Mark Strong was terrible as Lord Blackwood. I'm not familiar with Strong's filmography, but I'm going to blame his terrible acting mostly on his terrible character. Blackwood is supposed to be a menacing person who comes close to besting Sherlock Holmes. Instead, he ends up the least terrifying character in this movie. Watson's fiancé Mary seemed to have more nefarious tricks up her sleeves than Lord Blackwood. It also didn't help that he looked like an Evil Steve Carell. Whaaaaat? They should have just gone with that and made the villain devious (with a decent plot) and weird and FUNNY instead of just lame.
Having Irene Adler work for Moriarty and then cast Maggie McAdams as Irine Adler was a stupid, stupid, idea. Adler in the original Doyle story was kick-ass, and Holmes pined after her because of her brains. Adler in Richie's film was dull and nowhere near the femme-fatale she was supposed to be. For the most part she was just there and ran around with the boys for no reason except to become a damsel in distress and mess everything up.
Now we get to the worst part about this movie: The PLOT. Sherlock Holmes has, and always will be, plot-driven, no matter what Guy Richie wants to think. The whole point of a detective story is a clever plot for the audience to go "Oooohhhh" at the end and applaud the smart detective for being so smart. Everyone goes home happy.
I'm sorry to say that I literally laughed out loud at how stupid the plot was for this movie the first time that I saw it. I couldn't help myself. Why. Why, God, why, would you rip off of Dan Brown when you have Arthur Conan Doyle as source material? I can't imagine that RDJ did not laugh in between takes when he had to talk about the map of London and the signs that the occult symbols represented. Are you kidding me? The movie was actually going okay until that happened and then it lost all credibility.