Sherlock Holmes Was Better Than I Expected

Rating: 8/10 (28 December 2009)

The game is a foot Watson, and not so horrid a spectacle as I expected.
As a fan of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes, I had deep misgivings about seeing Guy Ritchie's updated 2009 film based on the previews. I feared that he may depict a Holmes that utilizes brawn more often than intellect.
However, my fears proved mostly unfounded (only "mostly" because there is one gratuitous boxing match, featuring Holmes, placed in the screenplay to introduce the character of Irene Adler to the story). Most of the fight sequences are in genuine service to the plot, and several are performed after we hear Holmes plan each blow upon the person to be attacked. This intellectualization and economy of violence eased my fears.
Another of my concerns was that the Sherlock Holmes previews had a supernatural / horror element, which to me was the antithesis of Holmes' application of the scientific method and use of deduction in criminal detection. Being a fan of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, I am familiar with the duality that existed in Holmes' creator, where Conan Doyle was trained as a doctor, but became a believer in the supernatural later in life, after suffering a depression following a string of close family deaths. However, even in the last set of Holmes short stories, "The Casebook of Sherlock Holmes", Conan Doyle wrote a case that proved that no vampires were involved in the crime at the heart of "The Case of the Sussex Vampire". So, in my mind, even in later life, Conan Doyle's belief in psychics and the supernatural did not overwhelm his faith in logic and science.
Mr. Ritchie's version of "Sherlock Holmes", in an original story written for the screen by Michael Robert Johnson, Anthony Peckham and Simon Kinberg, blends science, deduction, cults and the supernatural in a story that borrows a little from Dan Brown's conspiracy style plots.
In the end, science and intellect win, and this more than anything else redeems the film from the minor detours from Conan Doyle's Holmes. For example, in one failure in accurately portraying Holmes, to create a cute moment, the 2009 version of Holmes pulls a stolen jewel from Irene Adler's necklace that eventually becomes an engagement ring for Dr. Watson. In my reading of Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes, the famous sleuth would never take a stolen jewel from Irene Adler and give it to Dr. Watson. In one of the original Conan Doyle Holmes cases, "The Case of the Blue Carbuncle", Holmes sets upon finding a rare blue jewel and when he finds it, he wires the original owner that he has it. Holmes wires the owner of the jewel despite his rare action of allowing the guilty to escape on Christmas, because it was not his job to remedy Scotland Yard's deficiencies. Conan Doyle wrote Sherlock Holmes with a heart, but with a strong moral core that does not include passing stolen jewelry.
Proper recognition should go to Mr. Ritchie, and his film editor, James Herbert, for an excellent editing job on the film. The film flows from scene to scene with style and panache. I knew I was in good hands from the opening sequence, where the studio logos are blended into the brick streets of London, seamlessly leading into the opening action sequence with Holmes, Watson and Inspector Lestrade in hot pursuit to prevent a murder.
In regards to the actor's performances, I was most impressed with Jude Law's portrayal of Dr. John Watson. Other professional films critics found Jude Law's portrayal to be ineffective. I, on the other hand, found Jude Law's Watson to be the cleanest and best update of all of the Sherlock Holmes characters in the 2009 film, because it was modern, but not a drastic departure from the literature. As written by Conan Doyle, Dr. Watson was never the bumbling portly Watson portrayed by Nigel Bruce in the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes films. In the books and short stories, Dr. Watson was thin, tanned, and has a strong, stout neck.
Robert Downey Jr.'s portrayal of Sherlock Holmes was mixed. Mr. Downey did an excellent job portraying the intellectual side of Holmes, but the choice to make Holme's physical appearance slobbish was inaccurate and deeply unattractive. In Conan Doyle's "The Hound of the Baskerville", Sherlock Holmes is described as having "cat-like" love of personal cleanliness, so portraying Holmes with a lack of personal hygiene was a serious and unnecessary departure from the original character. Further, even if Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Downey purposefully intended to depart from Conan Doyle's classic character and make Holmes a filthy mess, I disagree with the choice on a practical film level. I found Mr. Downey an unattractive hero and unpleasant to look at. I wanted to cut his hair, give him a shave, and scrub him down with antibiotic soap. In general, a hero still looks attractive if he or she starts the film clean, becomes grimy during the course of the adventure and is clean at the end. Mr. Downey is a mess throughout the entire film.
I enjoyed the portrayal of 19th Century England, and the shots a top an under-construction London Bridge. Each scene is handsomely decorated and the environment felt authentic.
In total, I found "Sherlock Holmes" (2009) to be a relatively successful attempt to rejuvenate the famous consulting detective.