No shirt, Sherlock

Rating: 8/10 (25 December 2009)

This is an entertaining film, but it adds nothing to the canon of filmed versions of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's detective. As some have mentioned casting Robert Downey Jr. was certainly interesting, but Downey seems insecure with the role (and the accent). He's enjoying his performance much more than the audience.
Jude Law is—as ever—reliable in what he's given to do. His exasperation with Holmes' peculiarities seemed a little intense for what would have been a lifelong acquaintance. But it doesn't help to compare the Sherlock Holmes enterprise with this particular film.
If I were casting this movie, I'd have put Mark Strong as Holmes (he has the stature, composure and profile) and Downey in the role of Lord Blackwood. But here again there's no point in wishing this film and its concept were somehow different. We have to look at what's on the screen.
It's basically a "Classics Illustrated" version of Doyle's detective. Pow! Bam! Boom! being operativea lot. The washed out gray palette is appropriate (and right out of Tim Burton's "Sweeney Todd"). Dirt is everywhere, even under Holmes' fingernails. The "mystery" here is of the Indiana Jones variety, and, in fact, the whole tone of the movie has that kind of daring do. The opening sequence is right out of Martin Campbell's "Casino Royale." And while this film isn't badly directed, it's just nothing new.
It would be nice to see Guy Ritchie get serious. He has talent, but he doesn't trust it. He wants to shock us, and, I guess he doesn't go to many films. Because today, the audience really can't be shocked. Downey rips off his shirt and has an extended "boxing" brawl to hone his. Well we're not sure. But it gives Ritchie the opportunity to do something that has nothing to do with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. And that isn't shocking; it's just silly.
"The Seven-Per-Cent Solution," "Sherlock, Jr." were interesting shifts in points of view of this famous character. Ritchie's point of view is truculent, and it winds up looking, if not childish, sadly adolescent.