Canby Herald Online

'Sherlock Holmes' is more action than mind games, but worth the watch

Movie Review

• By: John Baker  
• Published: 1/7/2010 4:55:07 PM

Sherlock Holmes -

As a devoted Sherlock Holmes-ophile, I was prepared to hate the latest film variation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's cerebral detective.

If it isn't Jeremy Brett or Basil Rathbone, you've lost me. I'm rather snooty about who plays Holmes and was therefore suspicious that Robert Downey Jr. would not be up to the task of portraying Holmes in Victorian England.

I was right — and wrong.

Make no mistake, the new Sherlock Holmes offering borrows liberally from at least four Holmes sagas and should be considered an action movie first and foremost - because that's essentially what it is.
If you're fine with that, read on.

Downey is a very physical Holmes, participating in a handful of brawls and donnybrooks, many of which his trusted companion Watson, played superbly by Jude Law, partakes in as well.

While there is the momentary homage to Holmes' mental nimbleness - often in segmented flashbacks — this is not your father's Sherlock Holmes film and the many moments of mental exercise we're used to seeing from Holmes are few and far between. If you can handle that, you'll like this film tremendously. Shockingly, I did.

Downey and Law deliver performances that are much more kinetic than their predecessors. Law, particularly, plays Watson with much more flair and physical prowess than those who've come before him — and pulls it off wonderfully. At one point, he pops Holmes square in the nose, and then smirks at the satisfaction it brings him.

The plot is a bit rambling as director Guy Ritchie mixes and matches characters from several stories, including Irene Adler, the only woman Holmes ever had feelings for in previous stories; Watson on his way to the altar; and a shadowy puppet-master whom we discover at last is Professor Moriarty.

But that's fine because the movie has a wonderful pace to it and a bit more of edginess between Holmes and Watson than we're used to seeing. They care for each other, but the differences in their lifestyles cause overt conflict and, at times, anger.

The pairing of Law and Downey is a good one as each plays off the other, particularly in a movie that requires  more physical performances than Rathbone or Brett ever dreamed of having.
The dynamic duo must stop a madman from poisoning the members of the House of Lords — except those handpicked members who belong to a secret society that will restore England's power and order in the vacuum.

That they do it with flair, cunning and a few knuckles to the chin of some of London's villains is at first surprising, but ultimately satisfying in this new film.

Rachel McAdams is fine as Adler, Holmes' mental match, though it's hard to get a real read on her character as a bit player in this saga. Mark Strong does very good work as Lord Blackwood, Holmes' antagonist (at least through three-fourths of the movie) and the rest of the cast produces the kind of feel that takes you back to 221 B Baker Street with a smile.

I came away from this film anxious to see it again, a stark contrast to my initial feeling that they were screwing around with something sacred and I'd be hard-pressed to think anything but ill of this film.
If you don't mind Holmes and Watson mixing it up with fists and clubs far more than using the keen intellect they are known for, you're going to be pleasantly surprised at this film. If you're a purest like me, you may be surprised to find that it is okay — after all, very few can portray Holmes the way Brett and Rathbone did, so why try.

  (log in to rate)