With carriagesthundering over the cobblestones of Victorian London’s gas-lit streets, a darkbackdrop of hard-edged computer generated surfaces, Sherlock Holmes is closer, visually, to Dark Knight than The Hound ofthe Baskervilles. Unlikely director Guy Ritchie, with the help of RobertDowney Jr. (Holmes) and Jude Law (Dr. Watson), is determined to interpretArthur Conan Doyle’s deathless detective for the 21st century.
To unhappypurists, it must be said that every generation gets the Sherlock Holmes itwants. During World War II, Basil Rathbone was fast-forwarded into the presentto battle against the Nazis. In the 1970s and ‘80s Conan Doyle’s allusions tothe detective’s cocaine use emerged from the shadows. In the new film, Downey plays Holmes foran eccentric superhero, his acute powers of observation applied to unmatchableskills in the martial arts. Of course, in the Conan Doyle stories, Holmes didmore than think, smoke a pipe and saw away at his violin. He was occasionallyforced to fight. But in Sherlock Holmes,the fighting threatens to overwhelm the pleasure of Holmes’ cerebral exercisesas he beats down platoons of goons with well-aimed kicks and jabs. Downey’s Holmes isviolent and a bit deranged as well as powerfully intelligent.
Theliterary Holmes might be appalled that in this movie, spectacle trumps logicwhenever they meet. Would the grandmaster of a secret society ignite adissident member and send him hurtling like a torch through a window to thestreet below, revealing their hiding place? Cartoonish violence and CGI mayhemrule the day, albeit skillfully edited with edge-of-the-seat pacing.
Thestory wasn’t written by Conan Doyle but is a pastiche with many elements drawndirectly from his work, including Holmes’ love of disguises and horror ofmental “stagnation.” It begins with the capture of an aristocratic serialkiller, Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), whose murders are human sacrifices onbehalf of an underground ring of occultists. Although hung for his crimes,Blackwood appears unwilling to stay dead and continues to stalk London. Like somereal-life occultists of the era, he seeks a historic world transformation undera new order. For him, the death of “insignificant” people is the means to anend. Can Holmes unravel the plot before the plot unravels society? And of whatuse are his powers of deduction (and his karate prowess) against a man whoconquered death?
Downey elevates the movie aboveits lurid, pulpy screenplay. Returning the character to his bohemian roots inConan Doyle’s imagination, Downey’sHolmes is disheveled yet dashing. His eyes are dark pools of sadness, flashingwith indignant, piercing intelligence at the fools around him. Often moody andsullen, and sharp as a fencing master in thrusting repartee, Downey invests Holmes with a compellingpresence. Likeable as Watson, Law isn’t the bumbler portrayed by Nigel Bruce inthe classic 1930s-‘40s movies but a reasonable man increasingly put-off by his friend’sdangerously bizarre behavior. Ferret-faced Eddie Marsan (excellent as thedriving instructor in Happy-Go-Lucky)is engaging as Inspector Lestrade and Rachel McAdams is sufficiently fetchingas Irene Adler, a master criminal-kickboxer-love interest grafted onto thestory largely for the sake of boosting the female demographic. Frankly, thepresence of Downeywould have been enough to insure interest from all genders. The othersupporting characters are confined to one dimension.
Workingwith Downey andLaw, a better team of screenwriters could have been responsible for a greatHolmes film. As it is, Sherlock Holmesis an exciting chase through the sooty, filthy streets of Victorian London anda series of thrilling cliffhangers. Here’s hoping the sequel will be as smartas the lead character and the actor who plays himassuming Downey will find time in between making IronMan movies.
