Sherlock Holmes (2009) User Reviews (761)

It saddens me ...

[paperback_wizard · 9/10 · 26 December 2009]

... not the movie, but the number of self-professed Holmes aficionados who apparently have no knowledge of Holmes. For the record, Holmes was a miserable, irresponsible drug addict who did indeed sleep on the floor, insult his best friend, experiment on his dog, and never ever wore a deerstalker's cap (at least, not until television was invented). He was a brawler who practiced martial arts and was as likely to slum around in the filthiest of rags as he was a suit.

It wasn't until after Doctor Watson took him in hand that he truly refined himself and became a "respectable" member of society. And yes, we can tell that this movie takes place THAT early in their relationship because Watson has not yet married his wife (the retconning did annoy me, too, by the way, but you just can't avoid a little re-imagining here and there).

Speaking of unavoidable, Irene Adler, Holmes' one uncapturable (is that a word?), simply had to be cast as a potential love interest. The flirting, the romance, and the near-make-out session were irresistible to the director (and to all of the audience who're honest with themselves).

That being said, I felt Robert Downey, Jr. played Sherlock Holmes to perfection. His characteristic caustic attitude towards Lestrade and even Watson at times was exactly how I'd imagine him. He gives several summations of his observations and deductions that brought Holmes to life in an almost unparalleled way. His fight scenes (preceded the first few times by superhuman calculations) show both the mental and physical sides of Holmes in ways that Watson's notes can't quite convey, but at which they constantly hint.

As for Watson himself, Jude Law delivered a wonderful performance. I was a little skeptical of how well he fought, given Watson's wartime injury, but his character and demeanor were entirely on the nose. His loyalty to Holmes despite his frustrations with him could not have been captured more expertly, I feel. No one, no matter how patient or forgiving, could endure Holmes forever without the occasional confrontation. The original Holmes, after all, was not above insulting his best friend or even deriding his deductive capabilities at times. Nevertheless, Watson never could abandon his friend in his time of need.

This version (or vision, if you will) of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's greatest creation may be more swashbuckling, more thrilling, and more edgy than any other incarnation, but that doesn't make it any less faithful to the original. Aside from a little revisionist history in the cases of the female leads, nothing is that far out of the ordinary; and no amount of references to Madonna will change that.

Hugely enjoyable, I seriously wasn't expecting to enjoy it as much as I did

[TheLittleSongbird · 9/10 · 23 May 2010]

First of all, I wasn't sure whether I wanted to see this movie initially. It looked entertaining enough, but I was wondering is it going to be an entertaining and stylish movie or another generic block buster? My answer is this, and you can probably tell by my summary, I thoroughly enjoyed it, it is not the best movie I have ever seen and it has its faults, but the thing is I thought it was fun, witty and somewhat original too.

Those who didn't like it as much as I did will probably question whether I have any knowledge at all of Sherlock Holmes, whether it is the books or the countless interpretations of the character and his stories. The answer is yes, I really like Conan Doyle's stories, they are clever and insightful and Holmes himself is a very intriguing character with a distinct personality, and I am a fan of both Basil Rathbone and Jeremy Brett. If I had a preference I would say the latter but only marginally, Rathbone was excellent, he was sophisticated and gritty but Brett had that towering presence and generosity about him that made me like him a little more.

Back to this film, I liked how it was filmed. I for one found it stylish, innovative and clever. The camera work is really good, even in the fight scenes which were suitably gritty and invigorating, and the sets, costumes and locations look as though they took their time with it and to make it true to the period. I also enjoyed the score, it was jaunty and somewhat tongue-in-cheek. Guy Ritchie's direction is solid as well, it is tight, assured and Ritchie does seem to know what he is doing, so we were treated to some fun set pieces.

The pacing was fine for me, in fact although people may disagree I for one was surprised at how quickly in general the film went, even if it did slow down towards the end. The script was very witty and smart, there were a number of times when my whole family and I laughed, and a lot of it was Holmes's dialogue, plus I liked the idea of the plot, it was an original (if a little convoluted at times) and it moved along briskly. I will talk later about what didn't quite work, but in particular the final solution is interesting. It may be one you need to rewind a few times in order to completely understand though. I also think it was a good idea to put Moriaty as a background character, the ending is highly suggestive of a sequel, and if there is one that would be a perfect opportunity for Moriaty to flourish with the right actor, some good dialogue and some good character development.

Finally the acting. In general, I was really impressed. Robert Downey Jnr, an actor who I like a lot, gives a very strong performance as Holmes. He plays Holmes as an avid boxer, as a keen martial artist, as intelligent being a master of logic and deduction and as a master of disguise, while tormenting his housekeeper in a playful manner and sometimes acting as selfish and self-destructive. Downey Jnr. delivers his lines pretty much brilliantly, sometimes saying them quite quickly, especially when Holmes is deducting but I loved his deadpan delivery. Jude Law is perfect as Watson, he plays him as young, intelligent, authoritative and there are some great moments when he tells Holmes off. The two do share a unique and effortless chemistry together and that really showed on screen and one of the reasons why the film was so enjoyable for me. Another strong performance is Mark Strong as Blackwood, a real villain he is, mysterious, cold, dark, suave yet charismatic yet deserving of one or two more scenes, and I liked Eddie Marsan's Inspector Lestrade.

Despite all these strengths there were two primary weaknesses. While the plot was great and moved along briskly, there were some scenes that came across as rushed and unexplained, especially when Holmes and Watson save Irene Adler from being killed in the factory, that just felt like an action set piece and little else. Rachel McAdams I didn't like so much as Irene. She looks really pretty, with the lovely authentic hair style and her dresses were eye popping, especially the pinkish-red one which suited her perfectly, but acting-wise she looks stiff and unconvincing in her part.

Overall, just plain fun. Whether you see it or not is up to you, if you don't like it that's fine, this film's not for everyone. But I am going to conclude to say I loved it, it was entertaining and smart. 9/10 Bethany Cox

Downey and Law are on the case

[C-Younkin · 8/10 · 22 December 2009]

Do Guy Ritchie and Sherlock Holmes fit? Why, it's elementary my dear movie fan. This is one of the most entertaining thrillers of the year and the fantastic Downey Jr. and Law are a big part of the reason why. They take top honors as the years best bro-mance, arguing like an old married couple while deep down knowing that they'd be lost without each other. Downey is Holmes and Law is sidekick Dr. Watson, embroiled in a plot where the black-magic-practicing Lord Blackwood (a perfectly grave and menacing Mark Strong) has risen from the dead after being sentenced to hang. Rachel McAdams also shows up as Irene Adler, the only criminal who has ever gotten the best of Holmes.

Downey Jr. brings quick-wit, cunning, and a scruffy toughness to a role long seen as stuffy and dry, while Law a distinguished charm that, at times, spills over into testy aggressiveness (which is funniest at Holmes most annoying). Both toss off the one-liners with ease. Ritchie's directorial style also comes through, from the dark, grimy Victorian- London production values to the violent boxing and martial arts matches. Holmes' mindset (such as the steps he takes to neutralize a suspect, interpret clues, follow the deceptive) also brings out Ritchie's ability to create an ultra-stylized flashback. There are also a few really thrilling action set-pieces involving a boat and an unfinished bridge. The plot, by three screenwriters, is a little on the convoluted side but it gets the job done with plot-twist on-top of plot twist. With all the brutal violence and style, you can be sure this isn't your Grandpa's Sherlock Holmes, but it will have you drooling for a sequel nonetheless.

They Finally Got It Exactly Right!

[SylvesterFox007 · 10/10 · 27 December 2009]

Nearly hundreds of actors have played Sherlock Holmes and his sidekick Dr. Watson, and it may seem rash to call Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law the best Holmes-and-Watson-duo so far. But I've been a Sherlock Holmes fan my whole life, and most of the portrayals I've seen of the character only focus on an aspect or two of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's character. In Guy Ritchie's film, as in Doyle's "canon", Sherlock Holmes is an avid boxer, a martial artist, a dabbler in many sciences, and a master of disguise. Most importantly, he's an expert in logic and deduction. He playfully torments his housekeeper Ms. Hudson (Geraldine James) and shares an antagonistic but symbiotic relationship with police Inspector Lestrade (Eddie Marsan).

The movie opens with Holmes and Watson apprehending serial killing Satanist Lord Blackwood (played broodingly by Mark Strong). Blackwood is executed, but when he seemingly rises from the dead, the deductive duo must determine whether it's a supernatural occurrence or if there's a logical explanation. It's exactly the type of mystery Doyle would have devised, with plenty of twists and opportunities for Holmes to show off his genius as he races to stop a plot to take over England and (gasp!) America. Everything from the experiments Holmes performs in his Baker Street flat to his climatic revelation of the mystery on the Tower Bridge seems perfectly in line with Doyle's writing.

One of the only departures from the canon that bothered me was Sherlock's introduction to Dr. Watson's fiancée, Mary Morstan, played as a delicate English rose by Kelly Reilly. In the stories, Mary was Holmes' client in "The Sign of Four" before Holmes first encountered Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) in "A Scandal in Bohemia." Then again, the continuity of the stories was rarely important to filmmakers, or even to Sir Arthur, so I'm just nitpicking.

As a film on its own merits, "Sherlock Holmes" is almost perfect. The movie's opening shot grabs you, and Guy Ritchie's directing stays gripping all the way through the end titles. His version of Victorian London is moody and atmospheric. Hans Zimmer's quirky score blends well with the film's tone and Downey Jr.'s off-kilter Holmes. Meanwhile, Jude Law transforms Dr. Watson from the bumbling comic relief of most movies into a cool, competent sidekick. Perhaps owing to his own considerable acting chops, he's the rare Watson who manages to be as interesting and watchable as Holmes. When he leaps into action, he relies on a sword-cane and a trusty revolver, while Sherlock favors a riding crop (which die-hard fans will recall was his preferred method of self-defense in the canon). Rachel McAdams manages to tweak Sherlock's classic adversary into a feisty action heroine. All the while, another familiar adversary skulks in the shadows.

Even when Sherlock Holmes feels a little bit more like James Bond, he doesn't feel any less like Sherlock Holmes. Ritchie finds a way to depict Sherlock's fighting as a mental exercise as much as it's a physical feat. In the same way, though "Sherlock Holmes" is grander and more commercial than Guy Ritchie's usual films, it doesn't feel any less like Guy Ritchie.

Actor, and Placement

[RResende · 4 January 2010]

Somehow, i've always avoided the cinematic (or TV) presentations of Sherlock Holmes. I find the character fascinating, but i always felt it was more invested in literature, not cinema. His deductions, the way he surrounds the worlds he investigates are a feast for thinking minds. Even when the deductions are over the top (which happens often!) one can't stop smiling at the cleverness. More than that, the character is a perfect piece invested in a clever, irresistible and fascinating world. London. That part is visual, and a good ground to invest a cinematic world. But, unlike for example anything by Agatha Christie, Doyle's cleverness is rooted in pure deductive logic, not on the mechanics of the world. Notice that Christie's crimes are many times a matter of understanding how things happened, spatially (murder on the orient express is the zenith of that). I suppose Doyle formed his mind before cinema had any significant impact on how our minds work.

So the challenge for any modern filmmaker, and actor, who wants to update Holmes, is to make the character more cinematic, more appealing. Several tricks are used here, most of them successful, even if straightforward. One is the most obvious, making Holmes an action character (which actually is in its original dna, even though TV productions usually ignore that). This might be a flop, and make the version laughable, but by now there is a sense of irony and self awareness in Ritchie's films (sincer Lock Stock) that allows him to support a xxi century action figure in Holmes clothing that actually is watchable. A minor trick here is the association of the deduction with the very process of physical fighting, which creates some Matrix moments. Well, their watchable, though not particularly interesting. In the greater arc, there are good action sequences, because, as any competent action these days, considers the elements of the surrounding space, and uses them.

But there are two big things in this film, which take it to new levels of interest.

One is the acting. Jude Law is a clever guy, an interesting actor whose greatest quality is how he merges anonymously with the context he is intended to integrate. He willingly becomes a piece of a larger tapestry, and that really is something to look upon. There are not many actors who can claim they can do this competently. But the king of the game is Downey Jr. He is the gold piece in the puzzle of updating Holmes. There certainly will be a before-after Holmes character, with this film. The man is capable to work his performances on several directions, and each of them is a perfect link to its surroundings. So he gives in to Ritchie's demands, and introduces humour, irony, and self-awareness in the character, to make it usable for the director's winks at ironic action. He invests totally on the creation of a character who merges with the textures of the context, while being distinct from it. And while doing it, he folds us into his game, so we do everything with him, side by side. We deduce, we smile, we run, all with him. So, if the film hadn't other qualities, Downey Jr would still make it worthy, because he, alone, solves one the most basic problems with any film: to find a channel audiences can safely cross into the game someone (director) proposes. He is one of the best ever.

But there is another great thing here, which i suspect has a lot to do with several guys involved in the process of making the film. The result is an incredible sense of placement. London, XIXth century. All those dirty muddy streets, all the dirt. The fascination of the inner locations, namely the midget's laboratory. How those sets are usable, in the action scenes. That's all competent, more than competent. It's perfectly rendered, carefully photographed, it sounds overly artificial, but it's a matter of taste, i suppose. But what was really striking was the use of the London bridge. Notice how it is announced, early in the film, with a similar perspective to the one we'll get in the end. Than, the great sequence, when Irene Adler goes through the sewage, goes up, and we end up with a close up of her, in an unidentified location. The angle opens, we move away, and we are set up in the location for the final fight scene, which in its own merits is interesting enough. So, this was a unique way to actually use an establishing location, instead of merely showing it. I mean, how many films have shown the Eiffel towers? countless. How many actually use it? not so many. This is one of the best London cities we've seen lately.

My opinion: 4/5

http://www.7eyes.wordpress.com

"Death is only the beginning."

[gigan-92 · 10/10 · 23 January 2012]

A+

If there is one genre I began to detest over the years, it was the 'buddy-action' flicks. You know the movies where two guys who aren't exactly friends are forced to form an uneasy alliance which leads to hilarious escapades. It's only been done a thousand and one times, note the long line of duos: Bruce Willis & Samuel L. Jackson ("Die Hard 3"), Will Smith & ("Wild Wild West"), Chris Tucker & Jackie Chan ("Rush Hour"), and let's not forget Jackie Chan and Owen Wilson ("Shanghai Knights"). Though many (but certainly not all) of the aforementioned films are indeed funny, few have any real lasting qualities and even fewer a challenging storyline. The best they can often do is throw an alluring female co-star between the two leads, but I digress.

This film however, stands a monumental achievement. Firstly, the cast is really something else. Robert Downey Jr. as our titular character, and he does a bang up job playing a man who's a mystery in himself. Jude Law is entertaining and I'm glad Eddie Marsan was aboard. Mark Strong makes for a very impressive antagonist, and Rachel McAdams is a seductive femme fatale of sorts. The gloomy setting, 1800s London, couldn't be better realized and it definitely gives the film a darker tone.

Most importantly though, the story is truly a one-of-a-kind detective tale. It really is a pitting of rationality vs. superstition, and to my heart-thumping exhilaration for the majority of the film you would think good old logic had been defeated. Moving on before I spoil anything. The plot twists and turns menacingly, and leaves one astounded by the effort put into the writing.

Lastly, kudos to composer Hans Zimmer who did a very catchy leitmotif that fit the film perfectly. The gray-blue cinematography is great, and I've got to congratulate Guy Ritchie on his feat.

As the Crow Flies

[ferguson-6 · 7/10 · 27 December 2009]

Greetings again from the darkness. Great literature seldom makes for great cinema. The mediums are vastly different. However great literature, in the right hands, can make for very entertaining cinema. Such is the case with Guy Ritchie's interpretation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's greatest character.

Mr. Ritchie provides us with quite a departure from the Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce "Holmes and Watson". Here we get dazzling special effects and near super-human feats and stunts. Another twist is that this Holmes here is no meticulous, fastidious bore in real life. In fact, he lives more like a frat boy or rock star - replete with trashed room and bouts of isolation.

What is not missing is Holmes' world class attention to detail. The story here is multi-layered and actually very interesting, if not a bit high-minded and high-concept. The still-under-construction Tower Bridge plays a role in the film and the bleakness and gray of London is captured perfectly.

Of course, I won't reveal any details of the story other than to say the "good" guys are out to get a real bad guy here ... wonderfully played by the always solid Mark Strong, who may or may not be dead. That always makes for an interesting case! Support from Rachel McAdams and Eddie Marsan are fine, but Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law are the real stars as Holmes and Watson. As odd as it seems, they really do have a buddy factor that works well on screen. Downey's physicality has always set him apart from many contemporary actors ... he moves like a dancer and fights like a champion. Jude Law is often too pretty-boy for me, but he really does a nice job of capturing the reluctant sidekick with complimentary skills.

This is a BIG movie! It is made to be a rollicking good time with tons of popcorn munched. Smaller kids will not be able to follow the story, but anyone who has read a Holmes story (and isn't against a little artistic license) should see the film. It is extremely entertaining and fun to watch.

Sherlock Holmes for the remake generation

[joestank15 · 9/10 · 25 December 2009]

Sherlock Holmes - Based on the books by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the popular detective is portrayed by Robert Downey Jr. His loyal companion Watson (played superbly by Jude Law) is getting married and Holmes is none too happy. Their antics are put on the shelf because Lord Blackwood (ice cold Mark Strong), a powerful man of the occult world, has committed a series of murders. When he is hung, he rises from the grave and promises to drastically change the world with himself as master. With the future of several countries at stake, it is up to Holmes to stop Blackwood. Downey Jr. disappears into the role like the character does with various disguises. He is completely believable as a detective whose deductive skills are so powerful that, without focus, mundane situations are overwhelming to his psyche. The film and role are his.

Holmes is portrayed as a borderline manic depressive eccentric who cannot function unless he has a goal to accomplish. In other words: Robert Downey Jr. The film has fun exploring the part of Holmes left untouched by the films done by varying Television productions for many years. Namely: the physical side of Holmes. Yes, Holmes is a boxer, stick/sword fighter, and a martial artist. It was in the books, and it is done in this film as well. He flung Moriarty down a chasm with jujitsu in one of the stories for God's sake! It always bothered me that Holmes's eccentricities and drug-use seemed to be shelved on the screen in favor of a more well-put together stern man who would never deign to get his hands dirty. Holmes was never meant to be a symbol of stiff-upper lip Britain, yet that's what he became. The obvious reasons behind these choices were probably finances (or lack thereof concerning fight co-ordination) and censorship. It's funny how interpretations work. Icons are taken down such a strange path that, when someone decides to bring them to where they started, the old looks new. Batman was always noir. Bond was a quipless suave killer. Holmes could fight.

A down and dirty Holmes is more interesting (surprise!) to a 21st century audience than an omniscient uppercrust man eternally in a bathrobe. This Holmes is fairly true to the original character. It may not be true to the Holmes some people have in their heads, but that version cherry picks elements of Doyle's original creation. Actually this Watson is not as close to the original version (younger with no limp), but this Watson ties Holmes to reality, is less of an audience fill-in (read: a dumb shmoe) and kicks some major ass.

The film is riveting with only a few parts that actually lag. Huge explanations are saved until the end. We realize we have seem more or less all that Holmes has seen, and yet he gleaned far far more with his powerful intellect. Guy Ritchie's directing is vast and yet detail oriented. It's fairly comprehensible yet there is enough in the dialogue and character relationships to warrant future viewings.

Sherlock Holmes is smart and entertaining, a combination which always works better than either adjective by itself. This is an invigorating re-boot that reminds us why the detective is such an icon. Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law have perfect chemistry like an old married couple. Mark Strong plays a chilling villain and one lament is that, as part of the film is spent trying to find him, his performance is surprisingly brief. Rachel McAdams is the one part of casting that feels disingenuous. She's not quite devilish or sensuous enough to be the one woman that outsmarted Sherlock Holmes. Still, a thoroughly entertaining film for the head and heart. I look forward to the inevitable sequel. A-

Sherlock Holmes retold......or a reliable adaptation.

[Sleepin_Dragon · 7/10 · 22 August 2021]

How many of us that adore the world of Sherlock Holmes, don't romanticise about the stunning Jeremy Brett series, or the modern dizzying cleverness of the Benedict Cumberbatch series.

This film would have come as a massive surprise to both sets of fans. First off the visuals, it's a breathtaking affair, it's atmospheric and gothic, the blockbuster feel works incredibly well. Secondly, the humour, it's packed full of laughs, lots of witty lines and plenty of sarcasm. Thirdly, the acting, is tremendous, Downey and Law are sublime, it's a great cast.

Overall, it's taken me some time to get used to it, initially I loathed it, as time has developed I've grown to enjoy it, and now cannot wait for the third film.

The core essence of Holmes is actually captured here, plenty of what's in the books is brought to life, the darkness of the character, we're not given a member of the social elite, but a troubled, charismatic, fantastic slob.

My only real issue is the plot itself, which is perhaps the most over the top element here, and that's saying something, enjoyable, but a little hard to follow.

Crazy, complicated and fun, not my idea of Holmes, but a fun watch nonetheless. 7/10.

'Sherlock Holmes' is a Fast-Paced Whirlwind Adventure

[superflysamurai13 · 9/10 · 23 December 2009]

-----It came as a surprise when Guy Ritchie was chosen as the Director of 'Sherlock Holmes.' Known primarily for his work on indie crime films, such as 'Snatch' or last year's 'RocknRolla,' Ritchie had never taken on a mainstream franchise film, the likes of which 'Sherlock Holmes' promised to be. Thankfully, Ritchie was able to mesh the two genres on some level, with his trademark style of film-making ever present in his latest outing. The result is a film that will surely prove the most popular take on the character outside of Conan Doyle's original novels, and will also likely spawn a franchise.

-----Sherlock Holmes and his partner Dr. Watson have been successfully solving cases throughout England for years. Their most recent case was that of Lord Blackwood, a man who murdered in the name of his black magic. Finally hanged for his crimes, it comes as an unpleasant surprise when he literally rises from his grave. And so it is up to Holmes and Watson to find him and stop him before his killing spree devours the whole of England.

-----Robert Downey Jr. is right at home in the role of the infamous detective. Swapping out futuristic armor for a pipe and fiddle, he plays another character with the wit and confidence of his Tony Stark persona in 'Iron Man.' This makes sense because, to some degree, what is 'Sherlock Holmes' if not merely the Tony Stark character set back about a hundred years? Regardless, Downey Jr. is excellent, providing an effervescent wit and supreme charm to his latest role. Jude Law plays his right hand man, Dr. John Watson, in a role much smarter than past incarnations of the Watson character. The two are more equals than hero and sidekick, and their chemistry is indelible. Even when the narrative becomes a bit erratic, the pleasure of seeing the two stars' continuous verbal quarrels is worth the price of admission alone. Together they inspire numerous laughs and clever rebuttals to an unrelenting degree, allowing many of the jokes to pass unrealized, saved for the treat of a second viewing.

-----'Sherlock Holmes' has a method completely reminiscent of Director Guy Ritchie's earlier films. In the style of show first-explain later, Ritchie has effectively applied his trademark fast cuts to the mind of his lead protagonist. Much as Watson is often catching up to Holmes' various schemes, so must the audience sit in question for a large portion of the film, waiting for Holmes to reveal his motivations. Particularly similar to his work on last year's entertaining 'RocknRolla,' along with many of his other films, Ritchie takes the first hour of his endeavors laying out the dots to be connected in his lengthy but fast-paced crescendo throughout the second half of the film. With 'Holmes,' he has compromised nothing, rather managed to find a better balance between build up and climax. With various fistfight intervals dissecting the chaotic mystery, Ritchie keeps the audience entertained even when they're unsure about the direction of the plot. That being said, many viewers will begin to question their purchase throughout the films first half hour, as the story puzzles more than entertains. But rest assured, a satisfying finale follows, with so many pieces coming together that a second viewing is a necessity to begin dissecting the intricacies of the case being solved, if that only means better understanding Holmes' course of action.

-----Visually Ritchie has constructed a film in the shadows, only occasionally getting out into spanning shots of daylight England. This, like the rest of the film, settles into place as the film develops. His infamous lightning cuts allow no slow moments, even when the pace would typically meander in the hands of a lesser Director. Holmes also riddles off explanations so rapidly that audiences can hardly pick up on all of what he is saying, or all of the nuanced humor during the interplay between Watson and him. Unfortunately much of the laugh-out-loud humor as been divulged in the trailer, but a film should not be penalized for the faults of its advertising campaign. The musical score is supplemental to the frantic convolutions of the film's earlier scenes, providing a spirited tune that rides the energy of fiddling and poses as anything but generic. The locations are likewise smart, the costumes are admirable, and the effects are gritty, proving to be another benefit of having an indie Director helm an event film. Ultimately there are no blatant shortcuts in the way of computer generation, only clever sets and a brilliant Art Direction.

-----'Sherlock Holmes' is refreshingly less conventional than one might guess, even if some viewers may find themselves a bit lost by Ritchie's unforgiving cuts and unrelenting energy. It jumps right into the tale, no origins told and no flashbacks necessary, relying on Holmes renowned history. Furthermore, many subtle elements of the various characters' past interactions are left for the audience to deduce in the fashion of Sherlock Holmes himself. And while the film may not be the grand epic some may have hoped for, its sheer entertainment value is undeniable. From the moment the credits roll it's apparent that 'Sherlock Holmes' cannot be full appreciated in one screening, and will likely grow in favor upon further viewings. It further presents itself as a gem of home entertainment in the long run, as a film that can be enjoyed on any occasion in any company, even with its hefty two-hour-plus runtime. This is a byproduct of the wonderfully gritty action Ritchie brings to the tale, and the uncompromising portrayal of the classic characters by the films superb leads. 'Sherlock Holmes' won't be quite what you expect, and you may even be dismayed by the films feisty narrative style, but more often than not you'll be completely entertained by the characters on screen in this fun addition to the loaded Holiday season.

So tired of subjective "best ever" reviews

[jeremyfredrikson · 7/10 · 11 January 2010]

I am so very tired of people reviewing movies, which are subjective by nature, as blanketly "best ever" this and "best ever" that. That's simply a case of small minds and big egos at work. There are so many great Holmes films and portrayals out there, that it's asinine to declare any one film or one actor as "the best". Most reviewers who rave about this film claim how it finally got "it" right. Got what right? Your personal interpretation of Sherlock Holmes in your mind? What about Jack's mind? What about Sally's? Some go so far as to claim this film merits something extra because it debunks the very debatable myth that Holmes never wore the famous deerstalker cap. For the record, Holmes was described as wearing a hat made of "cloth" that was an "ear-flapped traveling cap" in the story Silver Blaze. Original illustrator Sidney Paget saw that as meaning a deerstalker in his mind and an image even more famous than the writing on the page was born. Sounds like Paget made a pretty sound deduction too if you ask me. Regardless, if you personally don't think Holmes ever wore a deerstalker in the stories would facts like that alone or in combo boost a film so much as to make its interpretation "the best". Equally valid claims can be made that Basil Rathbone, Jeremy Brett, Arthur Wontner, Douglas Wilmer, Peter Cushing, Clive Merrison, and others depending on your taste are the best. The question is, was the movie any good on its own and were the performances fun. I don't give a hoot if it was exactly how you pictured Holmes in your mind or if you thought it was better/worse than other Holmes' films or that it somehow isn't as authentic because it wasn't a verbatim dramatization of a Conan Doyle tale, etc (Jeremy Brett fans, you know what I'm talking about). If you liked the movie, great. If you like other Holmes' a lot better, more power to you. I personally think the new Sherlock Holmes film took a lot of hinted at bits of Holmes' personality and skills from the canon and gave those characteristics the spotlight. That's fine. Those aren't the qualities that took reign when I read the stories, but who cares? Why would I want to see the exact same thing I saw when I read the books? That would make for a monotonous world. Hurray for everybody's various interpretations and subjective and wonderfully different tastes! There are no gospel truths about movies or books or art, so please just say you "liked it a lot" instead of it was "the best". That's so unhelpful. Just tell me what you liked about it as a film on its own without comparing it to any books, or other versions/interpretations. That's like saying one food item is "the best". It's ridiculous. On a final note, this new interpretation is a welcome addition to the world of Sherlock Holmes. It doesn't diminish any of the older films or television series. It stands on its own as another fun ride for fans of mystery, action, and those who love many things Sherlock.

Tremendous!!! One of my favorite movies of the year.

[Potty-Man · 10/10 · 25 December 2009]

What a ride. "Sherlock Holmes" left me giddy. I absolutely loved it. It was thrilling, funny, stylish, fast-paced and brilliantly acted.

Downey Jr. is a delight to look at. He eats up the screen. He gives the character all sorts of mannerisms and nuances which really bring Holmes to life like never before. The chemistry and interplay between him and Jude Law is hilarious.

I wasn't a big fan of Rachel McAdams's performance, but it didn't detract from the experience. I felt she just didn't bring as much to the table as the others. (Kinda like Katie Holmes in Batman Begins.)

Guy Ritchie really outdoes himself here. The way he uses the camera, the motion, the fluidity, the snappy pacing - I loved every minute of it.

A really fantastic movie. Well done.

Lavish production packed with action , intrigue , suspense and amusement

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 5 February 2010]

It's a good film inspired on splendid novels about Sherlock Holmes character written by Arthur Conan Doyle , including two first-range nasties with malignant aims as Mark Strong as Blackwood and Doctor Moriarty , furthermore one woman , Rachel McAdams , as a suspicious young with mysterious purports .

In the flick appears the usual of the Arthur Conan Doyle's novels : Dr.Moriarty , Mistress Hudson (Geraldine James), Inspector Lestrade (Eddie Marsan) and of course Doctor Watson (Jude Law) , the perfect counterpart to Holmes . Holmes along Watson will solve unanswered mysteries and Sherlock undergoes some risked experiences to resolve the cases using even his habitual disguise . It's a nice Holmes film with gripping London and sensational setting . A genuine ripping yarn very intriguing . The movie blends suspense , thriller , detective action , cloak and dagger , mystery and is pretty interesting . It packs an exciting amount of surprises with great lots of entertainment . This is a classy and effective romp with a strongly casting . Robert Downey Jr.'s interpretation is magnificent , he's a Sherlock for modern times , of course very different to Basil Rathbone considered the best Holmes in the cinema , likeness to Peter Cushing and Jeremy Brett in television. Robert Downey as Holmes plays in a clever , broody and impetuous manner , as whimsical detective is top notch , he's in cracking form acting as a two-fisted fighter . He makes an unique perspective on his life revealing a complex personality . He's finely matched in battle of wits with Blackwood-Mark Strong . The stars have a splendid fight towards the end on the Tower of London , plus Holmes tries to battle against his arch-enemy Moriarty but with an amazing final surprise . Although Basil Rathbone will be forever identified as Holmes , however Sherlock is also played by Robert Downey as an intelligent , cunning , broody and impetuous pipesmoking sleuth but addicted to the cocaine . Dr. Watson here isn't a bumbling and botcher pal generally represented by Nigel Bruce but an clever and astute partner perfectly incarnated by Jude Law . The film has a creepy atmosphere , it's in glimmer color with lights and shades that originate strange setting . Set design is of first rate , the movie is very atmospheric , the dark , shady and dirty slums of London are very well designed but with excessive use of computer generator images. Screenwriter Michael Johnson provides the original plot , creating the basis for this particularly storyline . The film boasts a beautifully cinematography by Philippe Rousselot and a haunting score by Hans Zimmer in John Barry style . This big budgeted production by Joel Silver sparkles with polish and wit and the ending is as exciting as moving and being well directed by Guy Ritchie .

A very simple (and boring) plot...

[fabian_2401 · 1/10 · 1 February 2010]

Many people complains about the plot being confusing, but I found it very simple: Two ninjas, Sherlock and Watson (the former said to be very clever) have a fight each five minutes of the film. In-between fights they try to solve a very difficult case about a bad guy (Lord Blackwood) that, as Count Dracula, has the power to get into the minds of the people and make them cause riots and protests everywhere in Victorian London. Although the bad guy’s ambitions are merely political, he also murders women as a hobby and that’s why he is captured by the two ninjas, then prosecuted and finally hanged.

Many people go to see the execution, but nobody (not even the clever ninja) notes that the rope from which the bad guy hangs stays loose around his neck. The other ninja, said to be a physician, takes the pulse of the corpse directly on the neck, and realizes that the rope didn’t leave any mark whatsoever in the dead guy’s neck. Admired by how soft these new ropes are, he says nothing and declares him dead.

The bad guy wasn’t dead, but he was buried the same under big blocks of granite. This was a very hard task because these blocks were actually very small pieces glued together lightly so that the bad guy could break them from the inside of his grave and it must have required quite a lot of people to put these fragile blocks in place so delicately as not to unglue them. Fortunately for the bad guy no one working at the cemetery noticed this.

The film goes on very slowly after that. Anything they investigate is immediately followed by a long fight.

Very often Conan Doyle writes about cases that although they look supernatural at the beginning, a sound and rational explanation is provided at the end.

Guy Ritchie decides to change this tedious scheme, so that a crescendo is built till the last frame. To achieve this Guy Ritchie applies the rule that if a case looks supernatural, the explanation should be more supernatural than the case itself.

So, at the end, we are faced with magical substances (that couldn’t be found till now even in the Pandora moon) like a kind of clear, odorless liquid, that people take as water, which ignites readily and violently with just a spark, distilled cyanhydric acid that kills much better than the relatively pure counterpart so easy to obtain, an antidote thanks to which you can breathe hydrogen cyanide with no ill effects, small sized remote controls made in 1880, and many, many more. No ridicule is spared in explaining what has happened and how.

Such a display of fantasy for nothing; at the end the clever ninja cannot explain how the bad guy managed to get into the minds of the people and organize riots telepathically. Maybe there was also a magical gas that was released by the bad guy and caused this, but unfortunately this is not shown in the film.

Entertaining, Sophisticated, Gritty - A New Breed of Sherlock Holmes

[OnFireJC · 8/10 · 25 December 2009]

Opening on Christmas Day, Sherlock Holmes showed itself to be worthy as a blockbuster hit. To be frank, I came with an expectation that the movie would be terrible. But I was proved wrong.

Sherlock Holmes seems to be like the new James Bond: gritty, hardcore, and always ready for a good fight. He is not only intellectually sophisticated but also quite a brawler. Watson his side kick who is his loyal friend is always there to save his dear partner from harm's way. Irene plays the notorious thief and lover of Mr. Holmes. She is a wily character who keeps the reader guessing her motives.

The cinematography of the movie was special because it showed parts of the film as Holmes' future logical deductions. The movie also used the tradition method of explaining the Sherlock Holmes deductions after given the facts and clues.

Sherlock Holmes' evil nemesis play his part well. There were many humorous antics and displays of ingenious traps. The other minor characters also added to the crude humor and laughter.

Overall, this movie deserves to be watched. It comes with sparkles of spontaneity and fun. And it may even leave you wanting a sequel! Give it a try!

A Fun Ride, Even For An Old Rathbone-Bruce Fan Like Me

[ccthemovieman-1 · 9/10 · 24 February 2011]

I stayed away from this for a long time because I'm an old codger who loves the old Basil Rathbone-Nigel Bruce Sherlock Holmes movies and from the trailer, I thought this was going to be another far-out Robert Downey Jr. flick that would be more science fiction/FX movie than a good Holmes mystery. Well, it was....BUT the movie was still very entertaining and I really liked it......and I'd certainly watch it again.

Yeah, it was a little weird seeing Holmes and Watson duking it out numerous times like they were members of The Expendables, but once that was accepted, I could settle back and enjoy the action, the dialog, the special effects, the fascinating characters and sharp picture and visuals, making it all surprisingly-fun ride. All the major characters in here were very entertaining, and all the while, Holmes still retained his incredible powers of deduction, which were a hoot to hear.

So, for older people who expect a very sedate Holmes and Watson, either skip the film or loosen up and just be ready for two hours of wild entertainment.

Entertaining Adventure

[claudio_carvalho · 7/10 · 8 May 2010]

In London, Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) and his partner Dr. John Watson (Jude Law) captures the follower of black magic and serial killer Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) that has already killed five women when he is near to kill his sixth victim. Blackwood is sentenced to be strung up and Dr. Watson attests his death. However, Blackwood mysteriously returns from the afterlife and Inspector Lestrade (Eddie Marsan) summons Sherlock Holmes to help the Scotland Yard in the investigation. Meanwhile Dr. Watson intends to get married of the gorgeous Mary Morstan (Kelly Reilly) while Sherlock is visited by his former lover Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) that has a secret agenda.

This unconventional Sherlock Holmes story is an entertaining adventure by Guy Ritchie. The hero is very different from the traditional and austere Sherlock Holmes created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Therefore, the story could be from two detectives ahead of time living in London in the end of the Nineteenth Century instead. The purist fans of Sherlock Holmes will certainly hate the heresy of Guy Ritchie. For those that just expect a funny entertainment, this film is pleasant. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "Sherlock Holmes"

Refreshing to a fresh eye...

[midnight-keyz · 8/10 · 22 December 2009]

As you can tell from the first review, you probably have to be a big reader or fanboy/girl of Sherlock Holmes in order to be displeased. I was pleased almost the whole way through this movie without caring much about character. Still, even though Sherlock Holmes sometimes was a bit too 'ambiguously gay' and had an annoying modern-like personality, he continued to be funny, strange, and as intelligent as I thought Sherlock should be. Jude Law did a good job as well as others on the cast.

I loved the plot. It was obvious to me at times how the story would unravel, but then it hits you again in the end. It was a subtle hit, however. Anyways, my favorite part of the story was mainly the broad scheme of things and the people involved. Sherlock goes deep enough into the world of conspiracy to keep me interested.

My only gripe with this movie is sometimes the humor. A lot of the 'humor' came out during conversations. People would laugh at the wittiness spewed by the main characters, and it just felt too much like a modern sitcom. Today, American society and culture is infected with internet memes, battles of quick wit, and straight-faced jokes that provoke a lame laughter from me (one not deeply felt.) You could compare what I am saying to the dialogue in 'The Big Bang Theory.' Hollywood could maybe tone down a bit on dry and clever jokes, especially when they poke out during unnecessary times.

In conclusion, I enjoyed this movie enough to rate it an 8 out of 10, and although I did complain more than I gave praise, I just didn't want to give away all of the good parts. Go see this movie. It's fresh, isn't based in America, and doesn't trail off there either. There are twists, excellent action scenes, lots of fun moments, sweet investigation, and some analogous material better discussed in a forum of theorists.

Downey Jr. helps "Holmes" entertain in a livelier, more modern way

[Movie_Muse_Reviews · 7/10 · 25 December 2009]

The grandfather of the mystery genre -- and film's most adapted character -- is none other than the great detective Sherlock Holmes, so if one were to apply Holmes' own deductive reasoning skills, a modern reinvention was a matter of time. English Director Guy Ritchie ("Snatch," "RocknRolla") applies his witty and gritty crime thriller style to the first mainstream 21st Century version of Holmes, one that will likely appeal to a younger crowd and those less familiar with previous incarnations of the iconic sleuth.

The reason is the new "Holmes" is much less concerned with the quality of the mystery and more focused on breathing a new quirkiness and style into the character and his top-notch detective work. The script hopes you'll be hooked on the reveal of how Holmes figures everything out and not so much the crime/mystery itself. In other words our new "Holmes" is about creating an entertaining diversion in the form of clever logic, high-brow humor and old-school science -- it uses mystery conventions but to a showier end. Wisely, Warner Bros. has trusted the responsibility of delivering this amusement to one of the best and hottest comedians out there in Robert Downey Jr.

Downey Jr. continues to impress in his turn as Holmes, managing to employ his same wit and charms while creating a unique character that makes you feel as if you're watching Holmes, not RDJ with yet another accent. This Holmes is not merely a wise detective of old, but the quirky type, suggesting some insanity behind the genius. RDJ makes him much more colorful and entertaining and takes attention away from an okay storyline.

The mystery surrounds Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), who appears to have supernatural abilities derived from an ancient magic. He creates terror in London appearing to have risen from the grave and committed a couple murders. Holmes and his dear friend Dr. Watson (Jude Law) are on the verge of ending their partnership because Watson has plans to settle down and marry when the crafty Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) gets them deep into the Blackwood case.

The supernatural angle didn't work well for the latest Indiana Jones film and it doesn't exactly do well here. "Sherlock Holmes" Ver. 2009 is a little more Dan Brown "Angels & Demons" and a little less "Se7en." This is fine for those who can look to Holmes for a more mainstream romp than what an older crowd might hope to be a rigorous exercise in fine mystery and logic. Again, the fewer the expectations, the better.

As for the lean and mean Guy Ritchie depiction of Holmes, it's not entirely unfounded. The script creatively draws the connection between Holmes' intellectual prowess and how he might use it in a physical bout. It adds another dimension and ups the entertainment factor of the character. It might feel like it's giving a character steroids to put on more of a show, but the appeal would be too narrow if Holmes were straight-laced. Credit, however, has to go to Downey Jr. for making this vision work. His banter with Watson and ability to use classic Holmes logic to a comic effect is infinitely enjoyable.

It does take a bit of settling in to understand exactly what direction this new Holmes is going in, but it works thanks to RDJ and picks up as the mystery thickens and Holmes' limits are tested. McAdams' character lacks enough strength to stay memorable and as much as I like Strong, his character lacks dimension too. But the rebirth of Holmes will be a nice Holiday escape for the modern audience and those willing to keep an open mind. It's not your grandfather's "Sherlock Holmes" but can you think of any reason why it should be?

~Steven C

Visit my site at moviemusereviews.com

"Crime is common. Logic is rare."

[classicsoncall · 8/10 · 5 October 2018]

I was about ready to question the legitimacy of Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) adding martial arts skills to his repertoire, but a few other reviewers set me straight on that point. The camaraderie between Holmes and his partner Watson (Jude Law) points to a decidedly more equitable relationship between the two than was ever exhibited between Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce, or any of the other pairings I've seen from the Thirties and Forties. The whole idea takes a little getting used to, and in the hands of a less capable director than Guy Ritchie, might not have worked out quite as well. Ritchie applies a lot of the smart-alecky type of humor evident in such earlier efforts as "Snatch" and "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels". Robert Downey Jr. takes to his role well by applying some of that old Tony Stark arrogance and comes off as a master tactician. That is, if you find credible such mental feats as describing the path to the headquarters of Sir Thomas Rotheram's (James Fox) Temple of the Four Orders while blindfolded. While generally enjoying the story, I kept wondering whether the name of Professor Moriarty would ever wind up being mentioned, and on that point, Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) provided a clue near the end of the story as well as capably setting up a sequel. For fans of the old time Sherlock Holmes flicks, this one might appear a bit jarring for one's tastes, though I found it rather entertaining myself. It appears that a modern day franchise has been well established.

Entertaining if you ignore the title.

[mas2112 · 6/10 · 19 December 2010]

This movie is an action movie with the name "Sherlock Holmes" slapped onto it. Imagine if you walked into a movie called "James Bond" and you ended watching a movie like "Sex and the City". This is exactly what this felt like watching this movie.

Nonetheless, this movie was entertaining. Just disassociate the name Sherlock Holmes with the character in the novels by Doyle.

If the movie was called something else, I would have given it 7/10. However, I feel that this movie misled a lot of people into thinking they were watching a movie about Sherlock Holmes the detective, not Sherlock Holmes the action hero.

Ghosts in the Machine

[tedg · 26 December 2009]

Two really good things here, and one bad.

The bad is that though there are some good components, the thing never gels. Richie has only one formula for humor, and it doesn't work here — probably because illogically we want to think this is real. In his earlier works, Richie depended on his ability to create an alternative universe on top of movie clichés. Here he must build on something more fundamental and fails.

One good thing is how the writers mined what was behind the Sherlock phenomenon. At the time the stories appeared, there was a huge battle on for the hearts of the London street. It was — dare I say — where we are today with the Cairo street. Darwin had presented his theory, and a rush of other scientific discoveries were being made. It really seemed to many that the world was amenable to logic and that at some point logical deduction should come to understand human behavior.

Criminal behavior was seen as some sort of deviance from the healthy and this potentially easier to grasp. So within Londo (and Paris) a strong backlash of spiritualism grew. Magic was the antidote to science, pure and simple. The irony was that the creator of Sherlock was himself the most prominent of the champions of spiritualism. His fictional character was created as something of a cartoon joke. But Sherlock became so popular that Doyle found it impossible to kill him off — and write about more "real" things.

The failure of logic to describe human behavior continues to the present in our AI disappointments. (A smaller percentage of Americans believe the science of evolution than did the Londoners of 120 years ago.) So the story here is apt and shows both an understanding of this audience and that of the past. People really want to believe in magical stuff.

The more interesting thing is from a cinematic perspective. Suppose you understood the Sherlock stories, and you understood that they were centered on stringing causal agency so that it makes sense. Suppose you wanted to translate this to film: what is essentially a mental process. How would you do it? The standard for the last 75 years was to wait until the end where the detective's though processes were explained. As he or she would recount the reasoning process, scenes that you have already seen would be replayed so that they "made sense."

Here we have the first improvement on this in a mainstream film. We do see this standard device at the end. But we see variations on it all through the movie, including several times the "working out" what to do next. There are some sideways episodes as well, like the replay of how he stalked his lover in disguise — through a circus! This is really intelligent cinematic thinking. Hooray for Guy! This is enough for me to recommend this. But don't expect a successful film.

Downey is great, as always. Rachel McAdams has a strange role to play. Her character really does appear in the original stories as a love interest, but she seems too manipulatable here.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

Guy Ritchie & Robert Downey Jr. reimagines Sherlock Holmes

[SnoopyStyle · 8/10 · 23 February 2014]

Robert Downey Jr. is the legendary Sherlock Holmes. He plays the character as a superior-minded, physical, arrogant for good reasons, and manic. Dr. John Watson (Jude Law) is his loyal assistant who tries to deal with Holmes' eccentricities. They catch serial killer occultist Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) and put him away in prison. The mysterious grifter Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) is Holmes' equal, and comes to him with a murky proposition. When Blackwood seemingly returns from the dead after his hanging, Holmes must pick up the chase once again.

This is a more action oriented Sherlock Holmes in director Guy Ritchie's hands. He is not the cool calculating academic sleuth that is traditional in the character. The three leads have great chemistry together. RDJ creates an unique Holmes. Ritchie has piled on a densely written story of quirky mannerism, and outrageous action. It can be confusing at times like most other Ritchie movie. But confusions aside, this is a fun manic movie.

Mediocre

[pasholy2001 · 1/10 · 20 July 2010]

I'm rating a 1/10 to counterbalance all the 9/10 reviews. This movie was just another stupid, boring action movie. I might of given it more stars if it wasn't named "Sherlock Holmes".

1. The characters in the movie were not Holmes and Watson. Maybe Dr. House and Jackie Chan. I read some reviews saying that this is the best portrayal of Holmes you've ever seen, seriously? Yes, he was eccentric, but he wasn't a smug, childish, karate champion, witty.... He was a proper British gentlemen. Why does he always have a stupid, baffled expression in the movie? You know the one with his eyes wide open.

2. I have to agree with another reviewer, Conan Doyle mostly had believable explanations. Not some remote control, flammable water, and lot's of other junk that they didn't have in the late 1800's.

3. I hate that everything nowadays has to be an action movie. Holmes and Watson were not crime fighting ninjas. I've read many Holmes books and I've yet to find one where he goes around kicking ass all over the place. Next we'll see a Jesus movie where there are lots of explosions.

This movie is good for the masses, but not if you are an actual thinking human being.

Sherlock Holmes Was Better Than I Expected

[dennis_chiu1 · 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.