It's all knotted together, then unraveled with brio, by Holmes and Watson. There are fisticuffs galore, fiery combustion aplenty, and, yes, my dear reader, clever deduction.
Martin Roberts
May 09, 2011
Proof that Guy Richie can still make good films, though it's not without flaws.
There's plenty of fun and entertainment to be had from Guy Ritchie's take on the character for both fans of Doyle's work and for those just getting to know Holmes and Watson.
Ritchie provides big dumb fun, but it's hard to imagine worse casting than Bob Downey, Jr. Maybe Verne Troyer or RuPaul. Downey's self-important bluster and lousy accent ruin the film. But pleasing score from Hans Zimmer's team.
David Edelstein
December 28, 2009
By now we've seen so many good, bad, and indifferent Sherlocks that it's almost a relief to get something different, however wrongheaded. And there's no such thing as too much Downey.
The plot races and roars through a deliciously grungy combination of real sets and CGI for all sorts of big-action scenes in and around turn-of-the-century London.
The very idea of handing him over to professional lad Guy Ritchie, to be played as a punch-throwing quipster by Robert Downey Jr., is so profoundly stupid one can only step back in dismay.
Downey never winks -- heâ(TM)s too much of a pro for that -- but like the man heâ(TM)s playing, heâ(TM)s much, much smarter than the movie heâ(TM)s in.
Purists can, and certainly will, spend much time arguing how much is true to the material and how much was changed but the rest won't, and shouldn't care. The fact is, Sherlock Holmes is just down right entertaining.
Despite a few laggard moments of slow going, Ritchie has pulled off an entertaining coup in giving us a Holmes for the 21st century by digging back to the 19th century original and adding a few bells and whistles.
