Energetic Direction and Nicely Acted; But the Screenplay is Very "ELEMENTARY" and Predictable...

Sherlock Holmes was created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and this character has clearly become a household name in the books of detective thrillers. Once again, Hollywood intends to re-imagine/revive/ re-issue the beloved detective under Guy Ritchie’s direction in 2009’s “SHERLOCK HOLMES”. Many folks would describe this movie as entertaining, fun and a piece of diversion. Diversion is such a loose word to use to describe a movie; after all even a shitty movie can be diverting as long as it isn’t pretentious. Well, Ritchie’s “Sherlock Holmes” isn’t shitty but it sure isn’t appetizing either.
 

London, 1891. Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) and Watson (Jude Law) had just prevented the human sacrifice of a young woman by Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) and had the criminal delivered to the authorities led by Inspector Lestrade (Eddie Marsan). Some months later, Holmes is just bored with having no mystery to solve that he often goes to unusual lengths to amuse himself much to the chagrin of Watson. Much to Holmes’ surprise, Blackwood had requested to have a talk with him before his execution and what he revealed was something Holmes won’t be able to prevent.
 

After his execution, Holmes gets summoned to Blackwood’s grave site and an undertaker had seemingly witnessed Blackwood’s resurrection. The police baffled, the public frightened, Blackwood had dabbled in the black arts that a black resurrection may indeed be possible. Holmes and Watson sets out to solve the mystery; but thing get more complicated as Watson now has plans to marry a beautiful woman (Kelly Reilly) and Sherlock’s old flame Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) had resurfaced. Can Holmes and Watson keep things together to prevent the disaster that Blackwood had predicted?

          

                          
 

I won’t waste any time telling you that 2009’s serving of Sherlock Holmes is a departure from the classic detective stories and purists will no doubt be disappointed. This movie was exactly what I expected; gone are the head-scratching mysteries that made the Holmes name famous. The detective skills displayed are pretty perfunctory and there is nothing quite impressive with the way Ritchie defines the character. Instead, the audience is treated to an experience to something that feels very rehearsed as the film does cast any doubts that Holmes would solve the mystery quite easily. We see the Holmes persona looking through a room doing his deduction and pre-plotting his moves to stay two or three steps ahead in a fight that may prove to be quite entertaining. However, the fun of Sherlock Holmes is the experience of being involved with the clues and the viewer has a chance to solve the mystery themselves. Well, the movie goes into flashbacks as to how things are resolved but it all made for Hollywood flash and style that I never cared much about the resolution; it all seems so predictable and quite frankly very dull.

        
 

                      
 

In place of an involving mystery, the direction goes into some rehearsed action scenes to try and distract us from the hollow plot. Yes, there is a lot of action to be had with “Sherlock Holmes”; the encounters are pretty fun and diverting. I liked Holmes’ encounters with several big men and when he gets his back against the wall, he becomes funny? I guess Ritchie wanted to tone down the violence in order for it to be accessible; this is a common practice with Hollywood films, be a crowd-pleaser and give the viewer what you think they want to see. The set designs are pretty good and the costumes appear to look like a blend of modern and contemporary styles. I liked it, but I missed the classic “pipes” used by Holmes but I really don’t miss the hat. 

          
 

To its credit, the film is well-acted. Downey makes for a charming persona as our eccentric detective; I thought he managed to grab the show and provided a lot of energy. I have second thoughts whether I should say that Downey had become an actor who acts the same in every movie, but I think he managed to dig deep to portray an English sleuth. Jude Law makes for an exciting partner albeit, his character wasn’t as well written as Holmes. His character fell to the usual foils as to experiencing thrills alongside Holmes or settling down; I thought the substantial plot arrangements became overshadowed by the usual devices that became a little boring. Rachel McAdams is beautiful as Irene Adler; she is convincing that Holmes would be infatuated with her yet, the script fails to establish a connection between them save for the sexual tension. Her character feels a little too forced and insignificant. The villain Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) is your usual “obsessed with conquering the world” but he proved to be too underwhelming and the stakes felt very empty because of the lackluster script.

                  
 

“Sherlock Holmes” provides mild entertaining fun. I liked some aspects of the film and I enjoyed the way Ritchie showed the devotion between Holmes and Watson as genuine partners in crime-busting. I guess in many ways, the film is a “buddy flick” and a usual serving of popcorn entertainment. Despite the flaws, the film does manage to take off in the second half when the direction became quite energetic. The problems with Ritchie’s “Holmes” isn’t about the energy or the performances; it all just feels very “elementary” or in this case, very predictable and underwhelming.
 

Recommended with Caution, RENT IT first. [3 stars]

This Review is a Lunch.com Exclusive