Sherlock Holmes – Review
Using my Holmesian deduction, I may have cracked this case of Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes. It is a generational film, by and large, a film that will please the newer generation of movie goers, the ones that feel cozy with a steady dose of action set pieces, married in with some CG. The older generation might feel like this version is too stylized for its and their own good. Like I said, by and large, those are the separating qualities, but surely this film hinges on more than that. It does. Sherlock Holmes isn’t Guy Ritchie’s best film, and while the man is accused for style over substance, Ritchie added a certain English attitude that would have been lost in the hands of an American, that those elements help keep the character the one those Sir Arthur Doyle fans loved so much.
For all of the huge action pieces the film has, and they are nicely staged, especially a beautiful looking slow-motion explosion, it’s the little things untouched by CG that makes this a pleasing film. Despite all of the toys a modern filmmaker has, as opposed to the directors in the Basil Rathbone era, Ritchie keeps the character true to the source material, yet touched just enough to be, or seem, fresh. Robert Downey Jr. is a fine choice, especially for this far more grittier London. If anyone can play neurotic, is Downey. Displaying those three important Holmes qualities: astute observation, clever and quick deductive reasoning, and keen knowledge of forensic science, Downey also lashes out the quips at a rapid-fire pace. The banter between Downey’s Holmes and Law’s Watson, are as good as any in previous Ritchie films.
One of the appreciative elements in this Sherlock Holmes, is the look of London. No offense to prior filmmakers’ attempt on Holmes, but the stuffy, postcard version of a Victorian London needed to stay in the past. Ritchie’s London feels right; it’s dark, gritty, and sad. Why shouldn’t it be? While the film takes place in corridors, cemeteries, and underground cellars, one must know a little of the historical placement of the film, to truly accept Ritchie’s take. Yes, Ritchie has made a career out of tough guys, backstreet brawls, and street minded films, the film here takes place in 1891, a semi-distinctive time frame. Just three years prior, in real life, Jack the Ripper stormed into London giving birth to a new, violent age of crime and murder. Placing that reality in a fake Victorian London, would seem naive. Kudos to the look and authentication of the film from Ritchie and the art department.
This Sherlock Holmes is a lot of fun, but one can’t help but wish the story was up-to-par with everything else. It’s deceptively simple, a primer course for the promised “bigger game” that is afoot. The satanic plot is fine,as is the more action friendly Holmes and Watson-a Batman and Robin team, yet this sort of “Sherlock Holmes Begins” attitude might serve us better after the sequel. Trust me, it’s elementary that Moriarty is coming, my dear readers.
Rating: 
