This is yet another Hollywood film interested purely in style over substance, storytelling or intellect

Rating: 3/10 (11 January 2010)

After watching Sherlock Holmes one has to question whether the director Guy Ritchie or the three credit screenwriters had read any of the original stories written by Arthur Conan Doyle. If they did it must have been purely to see how they could simplify and dumb down almost every aspect of the original vision. This film shamefully replaces the slow burning and tense mysteries in favour of violent fist fights and shootouts, leaving Holmes and Watson now as a pair of action stars, more on par with John McClane than anything Doyle imagined. It is a complete disregard for Doyle's work as Holmes was rarely a man of action. He was someone who spent a great deal of time alone, thinking about cases and then delegating tasks and adventures to his associate Watson. His reluctance to send Watson out into the field was because of the possibility of danger. In discussing Holmes' lack of communication as well, Watson states at the end of the book "The Hound of the Baskervilles": "Partly also from his professional caution, which urged him never to take any chances". Those who cherished the books will be dismayed with the removal of all of the subtleties, while those who are unfamiliar with the detective will just be misguided about his nature.
The character of Watson also suffers significantly under this new envisioning. Watson is left with little to do but become a fast fighting sidekick. He is given very little chance to show his intellect and value for reading clues. As with Holmes, he was never a brawler, but in this film he must one of the most violent doctors imaginable. Despite Holmes' meddling with the engagement there is also no hint of the homosexual tensions between the two men. The friendship is more the equivalent of a Hollywood buddy comedy or an odd couple, with Holmes as the messy one and Watson as the proper man who can't resist the adventure. The simplification of the characters, in trying to turn the film into the next Bond or Bourne movie for the MTV generation, suggests the filmmakers have little credit towards younger audience members, refusing to challenge them with anything beyond a highly formulaic action film. One of the producers was Joel Silver, and given his involvement with the likes of The Matrix, V for Vendetta and Swordfish, he must have been a prominent supporter of this new action-orientated Holmes.
By replacing much of the mystery with an emphasis on action, Sherlock Holmes' narrative is largely irrelevant. There are the obligatory double crosses and a master villain supposedly involved in supernatural magic, but hardly any of this is particularly intriguing or mysterious as it never adds up cohesively. A character named Blackwood can only be evil and any revelations about him are difficult to care about. Mark Strong's villain really lacks motivation, simply joining the lengthy queue of those who wish to take over the world. The rest of the performances suffer from this weak narrative too. Jude Law and Rachel McAdams, both capable actors, have largely wasted roles, the latter failing to convince as the femme fatale. Yet most disappointing is the casting of Downey Jr. As flawed as the script is, the casting of Downey Jr. is just illogical. There is nothing remotely English about his behaviour or his mannerisms and his attempt at an English accent renders every few lines of his dialogue almost inaudible. Though he might make the occasional cheeky remark to display his arrogance, his performance still lacks the quiet confidence, the restraint, the properness and self-assurance of Holmes as a thinker, not an action star. The attempt at comic touches, like having him wear a fake nose or a false beard or eye patch, are unfitting with the essence of the original character. That Downey Jr. has been nominated for a Golden Globe in the Best Comedy or Musical Category for this performance, is further evidence that Hollywood award ceremonies are beginning to favour less deserving mainstream cinema.
Ritchie has declined to use few of the structural techniques that Doyle employed in his stories. Instead, he embraces the same hyperkinetic action styles and aesthetics that were popular with his flashy films Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch. Holmes often imagines in slow-motion how he is going to attack the body parts of a henchman and then proceeds to perform these kung fu moves in real time. Brief flashbacks are also used to quickly present expositional plot points, showing how Holmes collected a clue to solve something. The rapid editing worked in the two gangster films by representing the frantic and spontaneous lifestyle of the British hoods. The speedy editing techniques here not only feel anachronistic but they emphasise Ritchie's preference for action over plot or mystery. The clues are also rarely as smart or as clever as the ones of simple, but plausible logic, from the books.
Fans of Doyle's stories will be thoroughly disappointed and perhaps angry at the treatment here of the original works here. There has been a deliberate effort to simplify the essence of Sherlock Holmes into a dumb, formulaic action blockbuster. It is a pity younger viewers might leave this film thinking that this is indeed true to Doyle's written words. Even those who are not familiar with the original works will gain little from the derivative fight scenes and the miscast actors, as this is yet another Hollywood film interested purely in style over substance, storytelling or intellect.