Bob Dylan famously sang "The times, they are a-changing," and while that was about the turbulent 1960s, it's appropriate for nearly any time since things rarely remain static. And with such change, older generations commonly cry out, "Isn't anything sacred anymore?"
While that could refer to the loosening of religion, it's usually intended as a complaint about things that once had a standard, or at least the appearance thereof, from the grumbler's early days and now have been altered or adulterated by younger folk who don't appreciate the venerable status of said items.
That's exactly what you'll likely hear about the latest big screen adaptation Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's most famous literary creation. Or it might be something along the lines of "this isn't your daddy's Sherlock Holmes" or perhaps something a bit more colorful from the diehard purists.
Whatever the description, there's no denying Guy Ritchie's "Sherlock Holmes" has given the venerable English detective, his friend Dr. John Watson, Irene Adler and more something of a drastic, big screen makeover. But then again, this certainly isn't the first time, as the history of the cinema is littered with other less than one-hundred percent reverential adaptations.
They range from the "when they were kids" Barry Levinson/Chris Columbus "Young Sherlock Holmes" (that went special effects crazy in the third act) to even some entries in the Basil Rathbone/Nigel Bruce series such as "Sherlock Holmes in Washington" (where the title character battles Nazis).
This latest effort -- penned by Michael Robert Johnson, Anthony Peckham and Simon Kinberg -- does manage to be reverential at times, and contains enough familiar characters, behaviors and such that fans will at least recognize who and what's appearing before their eyes. But there's no doubt this is a Guy Ritchie film, a reality that brings along with it both good and not so great elements.
On the positive side, the film looks gorgeous and benefits from the filmmaker's usual visual flair. And those who've liked the director's previous, gritty crime dramas such as "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels," "Snatch" and, most recently, "RocknRolla" will find plenty to like in such regards, although they may feel Ritchie is holding back a bit with the usual on-screen shenanigans and flights of fancy storytelling moments.
There will be those, however, who may feel just the opposite, believing the director has bastardized the famous literary character by turning him into an action hero. Most notably, that includes several sequences where we see and hear a narrated preview of one-way fisticuffs that are about to ensue, followed by the real thing where Holmes dispatches opponents with amazing fighting prowess and ease.
I'll admit it's somewhat fun (as I've liked, to varying degrees, most of the filmmaker's prior work, notwithstanding "Swept Away" with then wife Madonna), but there's no question that it doesn't really fit in with the rest of the film. That also holds true for the villainy at play, not from the usual suspect, Moriarty (although he's literally in the shadows, apparently waiting for "Sherlock Holmes II" to appear), but rather an evil fellow by the name of Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong, somewhat underused).
His evil plans become more grandiose and larger than life as the film progresses, sending the story into "Wild Wild West" type territory (and I'm not talking the fun TV show, but the bloated and increasingly preposterous big screen dud adaptation of that). While things are eventually explained (in the usual, "let's rewind and look at the facts" detective manner) and do make sense, they give off the vibe of the storytelling getting out of control as that unfolds.
Fortunately, the film's strongest offering lies with its lead performers, namely that of Robert Downey Jr. as the title character and Jude Law as his constantly irritated sidekick, Watson. While the latter has to play the straight man in their "odd couple" type pairing, it's the former who seems to be having the most fun and thus delivers the most entertaining character.
Downey is nearly always good no matter who he plays or what sort of character he embodies, but his combination of reverence to the source material as filtered through new nuances makes him nothing short of enjoyable to watch. Rachel McAdams plays his love interest and formidable in her own right ally, but she has a hard time keeping up with her costar who takes the venerable character and completely makes him his own.
That, and some of those usual Guy Ritchie directorial touches and flourishes were enough to entertain me, but I'm no diehard Holmes aficionado, so viewer response may wildly vary (and I'll admit the "Wild Wild West" vibe of the third act increasingly put me off). Even so, there's just enough to earn a recommendation and hope that next time -- if there is one and Downey and Law can be convinced to reprise their roles -- things stay a bit more elementary. "Sherlock Holmes" rates as a 5.5 out of 10.
![[Logo]](/images/underground_header.jpg)
![[Braveheart]](http://www.screenit.com/images/posters/movies/braveheart_small.jpg)
![[Heaven Ain't Hard to Find]](http://www.screenit.com/images/posters/dvd/big/heaven_aint_hard_to_find.jpg)