Review of Sherlock Holmes (2009) by Johnb — 29 Mar 2010

I'm having a difficult time understanding why the lower end of the critics believe this to movie to be so deficient. Is this the best crime drama since the dawn of time? No. Is this an exact replica of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's famously brilliant short stories and novels? Of course not.

But if it where either of the two it would probably be not nearly as entertaining. For those of you who remember, I'd like you to imagine making an exact replica of the "Encyclopedia Brown" series on screen.

It would be the same with Sherlock Holmes. Both accomplish their tasks of solving the crime by sheer powers of deduction. I imagine it would be quite tiresome after awhile, just watching someone analyze the facts to reach a conclusion.

For that, you could take a Logic course at your local community college and achieve the same effect. Guy Ritchie brings to the series a fun and engaging aspect to Holmes that allows the viewers to be simultaneously entertained and intrigued by Holmes tendency towards the criminal (readers will remember things such as his opium addiction) and his genius as the detective.

The film was ultimately an entertaining portrayal of a classic character intended to amuse, bedazzle and intrigue us. I believe Guy Ritchie accomplished just that. That isn't to say that the movie is without fault.

Some moments seem a little far-fetched than others and the tension between Adler and Holmes could have been played up a bit. This, however, does not diminish the overall quality that I believe the movie to have.

To those expecting a movie portraying a brooding mastermind in the dark solving the crime in a quiet and matter-of-fact brilliance then you clearly have come to the wrong place for entertaining cinema.

If you expect a well-balanced mix of action, humor, and, of course, mystery, then I believe "Sherlock Holmes" is well worth the viewing.