A Refreshing Blockbuster

Rating: 9/10 (1 January 2010)

2009 was a poor year for film. I don't think there was a movie I have seen that I could give a perfect review to other than Tarantino's "Basterds". I think the problem with 2009 and this whole millennium is that it has been defined by a breed of film that we haven't seen before. 2009 was the worst year for it. Countless fluff films have been packaged as sure fire blockbusters. I don't know what to call these pictures but it is it's own sub genre brought to life by the comic book superhero film. None of these films have been overall original, almost all of them have taken a book, comic, or video game and pervert the source material. Many look slick but are sloppily made or edited with rapid cuts to the point of being eyesores. Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes is a part of this 'blockbuster' fluff genre. I think 'Sherlock Holmes' though is an example of pulp entertainment done with originality and fun. The difference between 'Holmes' and say a 'Transformers' is that Guy Ritchie respects film and film-making. Ritchie has a style that is uniquely his. Although 'Sherlock Holmes' isn't overall original or great in terms of general film-making it knows it's purpose and succeeds at it. Guy Ritchie and Robert Downey want us to have fun at the movies and boy do they ever succeed. Most importantly he has taken 'Holmes' and made it original.
I confess I am not a huge fan of the Holmes mythology. I kind of like some of the background but I could only give you a Cliff Notes synopsis if I was asked to explain it. Maybe that's why I liked 'Sherlock Holmes' so much. It doesn't assume you've read everything and although it alienates some fans it really was the way to go. This isn't Sir. Arthur Conan Doyles story, it's his character and in the long run Guy Ritchie respects that. A lot of the reviews of Ritchie's film criticize it for taking a lovable character and destroying it. I'll tell you this much though I'm glad Ritchie made the film his own. I don't think mainstream audiences would like or accept a Rathbone if we were given one. It's like saying all the Bond films should follow Ian Fleming's exact design. I think 'Holmes' is very faithful to the spirit of the character. Downey plays him picture perfect as a brilliant yet often eccentric genius which he always was. When you have an actor as talented as Downey headlining your cast you have to give him something to work with and breath distinct life into. Rathbone could only do Rathbone. If someone tried to do Rathbone today it would turn this rich character into a cliché. Downey has made the character his own and I salute him for it.
I really like the plot. It skates dangerously close to over the top with elements of supernatural enemies. Holmes however is given the task to take this Lord Blackwood and bring him back to being a man. Holmes is still a super sleuth and not a super hero despite some complaints. The chemistry between Downey and Law mulling over the mysteries really are genuine fun. Maybe Holmes is the hero this generation needs. I've seen Incredible Hulk, Terminator sequels, and the horrendously disappointing Watchmen adaptation all based on incredibly intelligent stories. Downey's Holmes while eccentric and knowing a thing or two about Karate still uses his brain to solve problems. Guy Ritchie doesn't think his audience is stupid. He may stage some over the top sequences but in the end the mystery is still afoot and the enemy won't be stopped by Michael Bay explosions.