Sherlock Holmes movies are back from the dead

Rating: 8/10 (29 December 2009)

Speculation and debate around the 2009 film version of Sherlock Holmes (a simple title used for countless movies based on Arthur Conan Doyle's detective) centered on the controversial choice of Robert Downey Junior, and the genre-shock-inducing decision to make Holmes, in effect, into an action hero. Happily neither of these choices turns out badly. Holmes was rather a man of action, though not to the same extent, in Conan Doyle's stories, and this element, in tandem with his well-known mastery of disguise, make for a logical, interesting, broadening element to his character. Best about this, though, is that the action scenes, which are well realized and entertaining without detracting from the story or going on too long, afford through creative means an original way into Holmes's character in early scenes. In a couple of the fight sequences we experience action first slowed down - before a repeat in normal speed -- in which we hear Holmes' telegraphic internal monologue as he uses his powers of observation and deduction to determine exactly how to defeat his opponent.
Downey is extraordinary as Holmes. His performance has an intensity that makes it almost impossible to take one's eyes away from what he is doing. Holmes here is aloof and superior not out of intentional rudeness but the mere fact that he is operating on a level so much higher than everyone else intellectually that he cannot be bothered even to consider such things as politeness, tidiness, and grooming. At the same time he has moments of complete vulnerability that make for a fascinating and nuanced character. He's extremely obsessive, to the point of being almost unable to function, and in constant conflict with Jude Law's well-played and rather strung-out Dr. Watson. This conflict is well and subtly written, so that even while in some scenes it is only hinted it, it becomes the real centre of the film. It's good, strong drama, helped by a script full of well-written and witty dialogue. We can believe that the two men are not speaking, yet would easily die for each other, which is a difficult picture to paint on film. Rachel McAdams is magnetic as Irene Adler, whose character is rewritten from Doyle to further stretch the Holmes persona in fascinating ways.
In fact, almost every element of this film is extremely well realized -- which brings me to the one that I think isn't. Of all things, the plot seemed entirely unsatisfactory. For much of the film, this is not a problem since for long stretches this story about the greatest mystery character of all is not a mystery at all but lavish character drama around the new feud between Holmes and Watson. When the plot does come in, it turns out to be in several over the scenes revolving around sketchy plot that involves a Lord coming back to life through black magic to gain godlike powers and lead an international conspiracy. It's flimsy and seems silly, and only leads up to the resolution that Holmes very quickly explains how all the instances of supernatural powers, totally unbeknown to even the most observant audience member, could have been simulated through natural means. The only reason the flop of a plot can be forgiven is that the drama between Holmes and Watson can be followed instead, and the rest of the production, from music to special effects and action sequences, to the stylized design of the extra-grimy Victorian London, are so unified and exceptional.
There are strong hints (or bids) at a sequel involving Professor Moriarty; I think that development would be welcome.
So the main failing of this movie is what is typically expected from a Sherlock Holmes story -- the mystery plot. But for character conflict, excellent acting, the fun of some thrilling action in a lushly-designed Victorian-style setting and an extremely memorable visual production, it's wonderful. On those terms, I'd highly recommend it.