adonis98-743-186503 Detective Sherlock Holmes and his stalwart partner Watson engage in a battle of wits and brawn with a nemesis whose plot is a threat to all of England. Even tho the casting of Robert Downey Jr as Sherlock Holmes proves to be alright the film as a whole is just meh. Director Guy Ritchie turns Sherlock Holmes into a somewhat buddy comedy starring Junior and Jude Law where there's explosions, one liners and lots of comedy that just doesn't work for me as a whole. It's not a complete failure of the movie but i think Junior should stick playing Tony Stark and Iron Man rather than Holmes especially since their making a 3rd one pretty damn soon for some reason i guess. (5/10)

areatw I'll admit that I'm no Sherlock buff but I thought this was a fairly good film adaptation of the classic character. Despite a few naysayers, I thought Robert Downey Jr. delivered a convincing and entertaining performance as Sherlock - no actor could have pleased everyone playing such a popular character. The plot is decent, if a little shallow, and is aided by a smart and witty script.The best part of this film for me though is the first class cinematography and production value. Everything looks so classy and expensive and I've never seen London look as good as it does in this film. Honestly, this film is worth watching for the visuals alone. This adaptation of 'Sherlock Holmes' gets a lot more right than it does wrong and for the most part I enjoyed it.

YourFamilyExpert Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's classic crime-solver has been portrayed on film more than any other literary figure. The new version, starring Robert Downey Jr. as Holmes and Jude Law as Watson, has marketed the sleuth as an action hero instead of an intellectual. To my pleasant surprise, the film itself is true to its source material and Holmes' legendary mind is front and center in the narrative. The recreation of turn-of-the-century London is exquisite in its detail and the story builds steam as it goes on (indeed, I found myself enjoying it more and more as it progressed).Downey, an American, flawlessly portrays the British lead, while Law's Watson is portrayed as less of a sidekick and more of a partner. The two have fantastic buddy chemistry, and their good- natured bickering is a delight. Parents should be aware that this PG-13 film, while very light on offensive language and sexuality (a woman's bare back is seen, as is a man's bare chest in a different scene, and there is one innuendo) does have a good deal of action violence and some blood. Also, the storyline involves the occult, which is displayed as evil and to be combated, but its portrayal may still make some uncomfortable. Sherlock Holmes comes recommended to those who enjoy action films with substance.

aramis-112-804880 In older movies (specifically where Holmes is played almost to perfection by Basil Rathbone) Watson comes off as a senility patient in Holmes' care. By the time Jeremy Brett played Holmes to perfection (read the stories) he and his Watson(s) were equal partners. Now Jude Law plays a sensible young Watson with his life together and his wife in hand, while Holmes is reduced to crawling around on the floor.The BAD: Robert Downey Jr is a good actor but he's not playing Holmes. While in private Holmes was not the neatest of men (see Brett) in public he was immaculately dressed, as Victorian gentlemen were. I apologize for saying it, but Downey ought to know something about playing a drug addict; but Holmes was not an addict, he took cocaine and morphine to reduce the ennui when he had no cases to hand. Conversely, when he had a case, he might spend days without eating, sleeping or dressing neatly while thinking. Calling this movie by the name Sherlock Holmes is a misnomer. . . or, rather, let us say Downey is playing a great Victorian detective of the same name.But I'm a weird one. When I first started reading the Holmes stories in the 7th grade, way back in the early 1970s, I never liked Holmes much. I was a great fan of Doctor Watson and, until Brett's Holmeses came along I was disappointed Watson always looked a bit of an idiot (the worst being Stewart Granger's HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES with Bernard Fox as an absolutely brainless Watson).SO . . .The GOOD: Watson. He's young, energetic, masculine. Intelligent and not squeamish, as would be a man who went through Victorian medical schools. Good nerve, good shot, as a military doctor who performed surgery saving lives under fire. He only shacked up with Holmes the way young people today share rooms and houses, because they hadn't gotten their careers going. But Watson has his wife in hand, so he and Holmes won't be two middle aged men living together in a few small rooms.Curiously, Watson met his wife through the real Sherlock Holmes, so that's another indication this is just another man by the same name, since Holmes and Mary Morstan have not yet been introduced.Also GOOD, while so many movies and TV shows have talked about Holmes' abilities at deduction, this is the first time I've ever seen it filmed so the viewer can follow his reasoning. Kudos.OVERALL, an enjoyable romp through Victorian London with the true Dr. Watson and a fellow named Sherlock Holmes. Downey and Law are both good actors who work well together; you believe they're a team. The movie has some very good ideas I haven't seen used before, it's exciting . . . but the fast cutting and execution of clues I think are meant to keep the viewer from getting a step ahead of Holmes by confusion rather than fair play. And while pastiches have often taken on supernatural elements, and in real life Arthur Conan Doyle, Holmes' creator, became a wacky spiritualist, Holmes himself told Watson, "The world is big enough for us. Ghosts need not apply." Great movie for Watson fans (like me). But the pendulum has swung from the Rathbone/Bruce era of smart Holmes and dumb Watson; through the Brett area of an equal partnership; to now Watson being letter-perfect and Holmes being a basket case. It's time for the pendulum to swing back a bit.