To consider the latest Sherlock Holmes film canonical enrages the mind and inflames the soul. Robert Downey Jr. proves to be perhaps the most accurate interpretation of the literary hero but the plot is daft and dilettante. The sophistication and subtlety of Conan Doyle’s short stories are butchered by scenes of excessive violence and bludgeoned by overt symbolism.
The atmosphere and setting of the film are sensation. London’s dark side, seen through Holmes Bohemian eyes is spellbinding and the soundtrack suits the action perfectly (the story about the “broken” piano is also fascinating). I could easily enjoy several films in this rebooted franchise if the screenplay featured more of the pen and less of the sword.
The film sports its share of humour, suiting its whimsical premise, a good part which is attributable to Downey’s performance. He seems ideally suited to the role and I find his Holmes much more compelling than Basil Rathbone’s portrayal. Holmes is not a by the book detective like Matlock or Jessica Fletcher; Downey deftly depicts how the sleuth has consciously chosen to throw the book away because of its constraints.
I’m not going to say that this is a bad film because it doesn’t follow the short stories and novels by rote. A requirement of mysteries is that they must be mysterious so it is necessary to “tweak” the plot or begin with a totally new story. Simply rehashing A Scandal in Bohemia would be boring but including Irene Adler (pertinent Conan Doyle quotations to describe the relationship between Holmes and the lady include “To Sherlock Holmes she is always the woman” and “‘I have been beaten four times – three times by men, and once by a woman’”) adds depth and interest to the tale.
But this is a bad film because the story is superficial. The House of Lords is merely an object unless those who are threatened are made into meaningful characters. Hence, the climax lacks tension. I also felt that the solution to the mystery should have been foreshadowed more discreetly rather than revealed all at once at the end. Many of Conan Doyle’s stories followed this format but it is not the best way to use the medium of film, which can impart so much more visual and auditory information than black and white text.
Lastly and of least importance, the identity of the devious man shadowing Holmes should not have been revealed. As Holmes said in The Final Problem, “there’s the genius and the wonder of the thing! The man pervades London, and no one has heard of him. That’s what puts him on a pinnacle in the records of crime.” His attributes should have been left to the few deductions made during the film and no more; unfortunately the denouement of the film merely sets up a sequel. Based on the reputation of this fellow, if Adler actually uttered his name to the authorities, she would have been killed immediately. The fashion that Batman Begins introduces the Joker as an antagonist is far more elegant. *½