Want to know what a knowledgeable Sherlock Holmes fan thinks?

Rating: 9/10 (3 January 2010)

First, bravo to Guy Ritchie for pulling it off. I'm not only a traditional Sherlock Holmes fan. I wrote a new Sherlock Holmes story for a screen writing class back in 1995, and read every one of Conan Doyle's original stories, as well as re-watched the entire British television series starring the unmatchable Jeremy Brett as part of my research into the character.
So with all this psychological baggage in hand, I went into the show with a less than optimistic expectation. For example, I initially thought that whoever decided to cast Robert Downey Jr. in the role of Sherlock probably didn't have the slightest idea about the character Conan Doyle intended. That said however, I will admit Robert Downey Jr. did indeed succeed in doing the part justice given his exceptional acting talent. Nonetheless, there were other more "suitable" choices out there that would have been entirely in keeping with the classic depiction. And since Jeremy Brett is no longer with us, others like Charles Dance, who appeared in Michael Collins which starred Liam Neeson, should have been on the "A" list of contenders because of his intended resemblance to the character. Another "no brainer" candidate would have been Hugh Laurie of Dr. House fame.
Remember all those years when everyone wanted Pierce Brosnan to play James Bond, but he was unavailable because of his television contract obligations to play "Remington Steel"? Was Hugh Laurie your first choice but was unavailable? All Hugh Laurie would need is to have his hair dyed black and slicked down with oil, and he would have suited the role perfectly, with a ready-made fan base to boot.
Otherwise, as one experienced writer to all those who worked on the script congratulations. Many witty lines, a few inside jokes, and a generous dose of trivia elements only the well-read Sherlock Holmes fan would likely pick up and appreciate, like the main character's ability to speak French owing to his partial French ancestry, or Dr. Watson's first name (John), or Watson's future wife's name (Mary), or Sherlock's brother's name (Mycroft)... and one could go on.
But then there was the injection of a non-Sherlock Holmes influence in the way of a big bad guy akin to the giant in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Was that a Guy Ritchie homage to the film that first got him into film?
But the foregoing are not the reasons I'm not giving this film a 10. It's because of the film's over-reliance on "action" sequences to tell the story, while de-emphasizing the intellectual dimension of classic Sherlock Holmes stories. If Ritchie could have brought the same amazing genius he was able to effect in "Revolver", by allowing us to hear more of the inside of the mind of the main character working out the guts of the problem, than just in certain slow-mo fight scenes, he could have done no less here, for the mind of Sherlock Holmes is a story dimension onto itself.
The depiction of London was superb of course. It caught the flavour and set the right mood, especially Tower Bridge under construction.
Finally, just a few other small hiccoughs. I found was that the viewer is really never given enough clues to piece the solution to the story for himself, unless of course one was a veritable student of chemistry. I'm not sure if Conan Doyle would have approved of leaving so few clues for the reader or the extremely rapid pacing of the story. But it was still an entertaining film to watch, and as I said in the opening, Guy Ritchie and cast pulled it off.