Since I like Robert Downey Jr. so much (especially his post-recovery incarnation), I had to exercise a bit of self-control in keeping my rating to a more modest 7 stars rather than an immodest 8 stars.
Guy Ritchie has directed a solid film featuring a vision of Holmes that adheres to Arthur Conan Doyle's original vision: brilliant, eccentric, unkempt, and erratic. But unlike Billy Wilder with /The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes/(1970), Ritchie -- perhaps out of respect for Downey Jr's real-life recovery -- is reticent about one aspect of the famous detective's personality: his penchant for recreational drugs.
The movie has a pretty good -- if also pretty predictable -- story-line centered on exposing the occult, i.e., the revealing of things hidden. The appeal of the Holmes genre is not the surprise plot twist (after all, if one is constantly expecting a plot twist, then one can hardly call it a surprise when the next plot twist turns up). Instead, the appeal of the books and films lies in the satisfaction received from learning just how Sherlock deduces the truth behind each and every mystery. That Downey Jr.'s Holmes gets to the truth in elementary fashion is certainly part of the appeal of this film.
Still more appealing is the way in which Downey Jr. conveys the conflicting emotions that underlie Sherlock's stiff upper lip. Even though the film follows a narrative arc that requires no character depth or development, Downey Jr. provides both. The same cannot be said for Jude Law's Dr. Watson, but that's not Law's fault: the film (as with the entire genre) is not about Dr. Watson, after all. In fact, Law does a fine job in the supporting role.
On the other hand, Rachel McAdams is miscast in the role of femme fatale, unable to hold her own in matching Downey Jr.s considerable acting chops. As for the antagonists, none are compelling, with the main villain, Lord Blackwood -- a sort of watered-down Anton LaVey -- being the least compelling of all. Fortunately, Blackwood won't be a main character in the sequel; let's hope the same is true for McAdams.
Perhaps the most significant accomplishment of this latest addition to the Sherlock Holmes movie corpus is the way in which it captures London in the last decades of the 1800's. With the Tower Bridge (in the process of being built) serving as both backdrop and stage, the viewer's vicarious experience of Victorian-era England rivals that of any cinematized Jane Austen novel.
Guy Ritchie has directed a solid film featuring a vision of Holmes that adheres to Arthur Conan Doyle's original vision: brilliant, eccentric, unkempt, and erratic. But unlike Billy Wilder with /The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes/(1970), Ritchie -- perhaps out of respect for Downey Jr's real-life recovery -- is reticent about one aspect of the famous detective's personality: his penchant for recreational drugs.
The movie has a pretty good -- if also pretty predictable -- story-line centered on exposing the occult, i.e., the revealing of things hidden. The appeal of the Holmes genre is not the surprise plot twist (after all, if one is constantly expecting a plot twist, then one can hardly call it a surprise when the next plot twist turns up). Instead, the appeal of the books and films lies in the satisfaction received from learning just how Sherlock deduces the truth behind each and every mystery. That Downey Jr.'s Holmes gets to the truth in elementary fashion is certainly part of the appeal of this film.
Still more appealing is the way in which Downey Jr. conveys the conflicting emotions that underlie Sherlock's stiff upper lip. Even though the film follows a narrative arc that requires no character depth or development, Downey Jr. provides both. The same cannot be said for Jude Law's Dr. Watson, but that's not Law's fault: the film (as with the entire genre) is not about Dr. Watson, after all. In fact, Law does a fine job in the supporting role.
On the other hand, Rachel McAdams is miscast in the role of femme fatale, unable to hold her own in matching Downey Jr.s considerable acting chops. As for the antagonists, none are compelling, with the main villain, Lord Blackwood -- a sort of watered-down Anton LaVey -- being the least compelling of all. Fortunately, Blackwood won't be a main character in the sequel; let's hope the same is true for McAdams.
Perhaps the most significant accomplishment of this latest addition to the Sherlock Holmes movie corpus is the way in which it captures London in the last decades of the 1800's. With the Tower Bridge (in the process of being built) serving as both backdrop and stage, the viewer's vicarious experience of Victorian-era England rivals that of any cinematized Jane Austen novel.