Eye Candy #43 - "Sherlock Holmes"

Sherlock Holmes: The latest entry in Robert Downey Jr.’s career revival, here he is the titular detective, a frazzled, compulsive, possibly autistic savant dedicated to his work and little else. On the eve of the wedding of his staunch companion Dr. Watson (Jude Law) and the evident dissolution of their partnership, Holmes finds himself involved in a plot involving the dead returning to life, evil cults, murder, an old flame who happens to be a thief (Rachel McAdams), and ginger midgets. Directed by Guy Ritchie, this is easily his most accessible work (i.e. you don’t need subtitles to understand what the characters are saying). I appreciate that Downey makes Holmes his own – gone is the Meerschaum pipe, gone is the deerstalker hat. Downey’s Holmes is obsessed with his work and adrift emotionally without it. He’s unkempt, unshaven, at the mercy of his powers of perception which he can’t turn off and at times almost seem overwhelm him. The script is almost too intelligent for its own good (I would swear some of the banter is written by Tom Stoppard) and at times feels unnecessarily overcomplicated. The cast is solid, and Downey and Law have good chemistry together. Law’s Watson is no comic foil, but rather a seasoned soldier who is more than willing to mix it up in a fistfight. There are some nice artistic flourishes (for example, when Holmes analyzes his next moves in a fistfight is a nice Ritchie-esque touch). But the film feels like it’s missing that extra something to push it over the top. It’s entertaining, it’s good, but not great. And they’re already setting up a sequel. I would say this film is lodged somewhere between 3 ½ to 4 stars, but it’s fun for what it is. Woodchuck sez, “Check it out.”