While it may not think (or detect) as hard as it thwacks, the cheeky sense of thrills and fun makes Ritchie's Holmes a delight nonetheless

Rating: 8/10 (21 January 2010)

From the moment of its conception, Guy Ritchie's self-declared 'rough and tough' take on the world's most famous detective has been no stranger to controversy. Between its casting of an American as Arthur Conan Doyle's timeless character to the reimagining of the decidedly cerebral series as a vehicle for comedy action, sidelining the mystery and sleuthing facets, it has seemed that the film's publicity has been fated to devoting as much time to justifying itself as promoting. Nonetheless, while debates regarding the film's action slant remain largely a matter of personal taste, there can be little question that, if taken as is, Ritchie's film offers a tremendous concoction of qualities seldom before associated with a Holmes film: a fast paced, tastefully witty and exhilarating bundle of thrills and dashes of mystery, whose greatest strength (unlike most of its predecessors) is its refusal to take itself overly seriously, instead opting for a welcome, freewheeling sense of fun.
That the film is hardly as profound as it could be is unmistakable, and it is true that the oversimplified plot could easily have merited from an infusion of much more mystery and complexity, with most plot twists being largely predictable and the climactic wrap-up becoming a bit silly, lost in a mess of pseudo-scientific jargon and Deus-Ex-Machina (as well as a sequel-baiting teaser ending what somewhat oafishly apes Batman Begins' more tasteful finish). Nonetheless, it is hardly the case that the film has no brain to back up its brawn, as the screenplay, while offering the odd contrived patch, deftly winds the action together with skill and class, underpinning the central narrative with intriguing thematic veins involving the onset of industrialization and the 'new age' of London nearing the turn of the century. There is even a feasible justification for the inclusion of the gleefully vicious fight scenes and elaborate choreography through the ingenious touch of Holmes logically planning out each move in the ensuing fight through voice-over, making the gruesome mayhem which follows feel appropriate rather than superficial.
Of course any film directed by Guy Ritchie could hardly be found to be lacking on the style front, and despite Sherlock Holmes being easily his most mainstream effort to date, his characteristic flair is not lost in the transition. Ritchie's 19th century London is a gorgeously gloomy and murky creation, with each cobblestone street and seedy alley dripping with Gothic ambiance. Ritchie similarly shows a distinct skill in pacing, astutely abstaining from any clunky, unnecessary character introductions and instead plunging the audience straight into the action and keeping the pace brisk throughout while allowing for plenty of quieter (and often amusing) character moments in between pulsing action sequences. Capped by the ever reliable Hans Zimmer's plucky and energetic musical score which excellently compliments the overall tone, the quality components amassed make the film, simplistic or not, feel far more than a guilty pleasure.
Nonetheless, it is clear that the heart of the film lies with the incomparable Robert Downey Jr. as the titular detective and Jude Law as his stoic partner Watson. Apart from pitch perfect, charismatic characterizations (superbly counterbalancing Holmes' flamboyant eccentricities with Watson's icy sarcasm and composure), the two demonstrate the most hugely enjoyable interplay and 'buddy-banter' seen in ages, and their interplay alone makes the film worth a watch. Unfortunately Rachel McAdams falls below par, her disappointingly flat performance lacking the necessary venom or sultry spark to make her femme fatale Irene Adler function, let alone come across as convincing as an adversary for Holmes (especially considering Downey Jr.'s typically grandiose and nuanced work in comparison). In contrast, Mark Strong is effectively spectral as occult-dabbling aristocrat Lord Blackwood, and while his character may feel underused, Strong hisses and looms his way into a memorable presence nonetheless. Finally, Eddie Marsan glowers with typical class as perpetual foil Inspector Lestrade.
While the film may not do too much in the way of taxing the viewer's intellect nor offer much of a mystery akin to Conan Doyle's classics, there remains an elusive something about the sight of Downey Jr. whimsically plucking a violin, piecing together abstract elements into a cohesive narrative while greeted by Law's world-weary frown that nonetheless leaves the viewer with a firm sense of the essence of the classic detective tales remaining intact, albeit with a scrappy sense of humour, thrills and self-effacing fun. In fact, Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes feels somehow appropriately attuned to the concerns of the time of its release: somewhat under-thought but reflective nonetheless, all the while rapidly propelling itself along and shooting for enjoyment rather than long term resonance. But with enjoyment of such a high class, seasoned calibre, it is resoundingly hard to object, and Ritchie's film accomplishes its goal of unabashed entertainment with undeniable success.
-8/10