Nearly hundreds of actors have played Sherlock Holmes and his sidekick Dr. Watson, and it may seem rash to call Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law the best Holmes-and-Watson-duo so far. But I've been a Sherlock Holmes fan my whole life, and most of the portrayals I've seen of the character only focus on an aspect or two of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's character. In Guy Ritchie's film, as in Doyle's "canon", Sherlock Holmes is an avid boxer, a martial artist, a dabbler in many sciences, and a master of disguise. Most importantly, he's an expert in logic and deduction. He playfully torments his housekeeper Ms. Hudson (Geraldine James) and shares an antagonistic but symbiotic relationship with police Inspector Lestrade (Eddie Marsan).

The movie opens with Holmes and Watson apprehending serial killing Satanist Lord Blackwood (played broodingly by Mark Strong). Blackwood is executed, but when he seemingly rises from the dead, the deductive duo must determine whether it's a supernatural occurrence or if there's a logical explanation. It's exactly the type of mystery Doyle would have devised, with plenty of twists and opportunities for Holmes to show off his genius as he races to stop a plot to take over England and (gasp!) America. Everything from the experiments Holmes performs in his Baker Street flat to his climatic revelation of the mystery on the Tower Bridge seems perfectly in line with Doyle's writing.

One of the only departures from the canon that bothered me was Sherlock's introduction to Dr. Watson's fiancée, Mary Morstan, played as a delicate English rose by Kelly Reilly. In the stories, Mary was Holmes' client in "The Sign of Four" before Holmes first encountered Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) in "A Scandal in Bohemia." Then again, the continuity of the stories was rarely important to filmmakers, or even to Sir Arthur, so I'm just nitpicking.

As a film on its own merits, "Sherlock Holmes" is almost perfect. The movie's opening shot grabs you, and Guy Ritchie's directing stays gripping all the way through the end titles. His version of Victorian London is moody and atmospheric. Hans Zimmer's quirky score blends well with the film's tone and Downey Jr.'s off-kilter Holmes. Meanwhile, Jude Law transforms Dr. Watson from the bumbling comic relief of most movies into a cool, competent sidekick. Perhaps owing to his own considerable acting chops, he's the rare Watson who manages to be as interesting and watchable as Holmes. When he leaps into action, he relies on a sword-cane and a trusty revolver, while Sherlock favors a riding crop (which die-hard fans will recall was his preferred method of self-defense in the canon). Rachel McAdams manages to tweak Sherlock's classic adversary into a feisty action heroine. All the while, another familiar adversary skulks in the shadows.

Even when Sherlock Holmes feels a little bit more like James Bond, he doesn't feel any less like Sherlock Holmes. Ritchie finds a way to depict Sherlock's fighting as a mental exercise as much as it's a physical feat. In the same way, though "Sherlock Holmes" is grander and more commercial than Guy Ritchie's usual films, it doesn't feel any less like Guy Ritchie.

I grew up reading Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's novels and I could still read them. This is because his novels can wake up imagination of the child and yet they have style and class to involve any adult into the story. I can say that this is the case with most of the Sherlock Holmes movies I had seen before I saw this one as they engage you by using the intelligent plot, first of all. 2009 Sherlock Holmes is a ridiculous attempt to turn a legendary detective into a Mission Impossible character and Dr. Watson into James Bond, Sean Connery style. Fast actions with special effects and very poor plot development are typical failures of this sterile Hollywood style project which has nothing to do with Sherlock. As I already mentioned partly, character of Dr Watson overpowers must dominating figure of Sherlock Holmes, which is sooo amateurish. Sherlock Holmes casting is a total failure, this guy matches Sherlock Holmes character as much as Sylvester Stallone. All in all, this is the bad time for Sherlock Holmes lovers.

The less I thought about Sherlock Holmes, the more I liked "Sherlock Holmes." Yet another classic hero has been fed into the f/x mill, emerging as a modern superman. Guy Ritchie's film is filled with sensational sights, over-the-top characters and a desperate struggle atop Tower Bridge, which is still under construction. It's likely to be enjoyed by today's action fans. But block bookings are not likely from the Baker Street Irregulars.

One of the comforts of the Arthur Conan Doyle stories is their almost staid adherence to form. Villains and cases come and go up the staircase at 221B Baker Street, but within that refuge, life stays the same: Holmes all-knowing and calm, Watson fretful and frightened, clues orderly, victims distraught, never a problem not seemingly insoluble. Outside is the fabled Victorian London, a city we all know in our imaginations. I think I became an Anglophile on those winter nights when I sat curled up in my dad's big chair, a single lamp creating shadows in the corners of the room, reading the Modern Library edition of the stories while in the basement I heard the comforting sounds of my parents doing the laundry.

Every Holmes story is different and each one is the same, just as every day has its own saint but the Mass is eternal. "Sherlock Holmes" enacts the strange new rites of hyperkinetic action and impossible CGI, and Holmes and Watson do their best to upgrade themselves. Holmes tosses aside the deerstalker hat and meerschaum calabash, and Watson has decided for once and all to abandon the intimacy of 221B for the hazards of married life. Both of them now seem more than a little gay; it's no longer a case of "oh, the British all talk like that." Jude Law even seemed to be wearing lipstick when he promoted the movie on Letterman.

Well, Holmes, like Hamlet, has survived countless interpretations. The character has been played memorably by Basil Rathbone, Jeremy Brett, Frank Langella, Peter Cushing, John Barrymore, James D'Arcy, Michael Caine, John Cleese, Peter Cook, Rupert Everett, William Gillette, Stewart Granger, Charlton Heston, Anthony Higgins, Raymond Massey, Roger Moore, John Neville, Leonard Nimoy, Christopher Plummer, Jonathan Pryce, Nicol Williamson -- and now Robert Downey Jr., who is not the least of these.

Downey's Holmes is at once more dissolute and more fit than previous incarnations. Holmes' canonical devotion to cocaine is here augmented by other drugs and a great deal of booze. Yet Holmes has the body of a lithe athlete, the skills of a gymnast and the pugilism of a world champion. He and Watson (who is, you recall, only a doctor, although one with clients who must be puzzled about his office hours) spring readily into action like Batman and Robin.

In a really very good opening sequence, the two burst in upon the fiendish satanist Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) in the act of committing a dastardly act. Blackwood is sent to the gallows and sealed in his tomb, only to reappear (to Holmes' undeniable satisfaction) seemingly still alive. This sets off a series of action set pieces in the streets of London, which have never seemed more looming, dark and ominous; I had the impression Jack the Ripper had just darted out of view.

After the initial apprehension of Blackwood, Holmes retreats to his digs. In Conan Doyle, this is often explained as "a period of study" and implied drug reveries. In Ritchie's version, he trashes his rooms like a drunken undergraduate; they lack only empty pizza boxes. This will not do. My Sherlock is above all fastidious. But never mind. Blackwood's resurrection gives him a new reason for living.

There is also interest from two women: Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams), of course, said to be the only woman to ever touch Holmes' heart, and Mary Morstan (Kelly Reilly), Watson's intended, who may be in for more than she knows. The advent of Mary on the scene sends Holmes into fits of petulance; how dare the doctor prefer a woman to his own fascinating company? Watson has always maintained quarters elsewhere, but in this film, the cozy confines of 221B make his other rooms seem more than ever like a beard.

The Conan Doyle stories are still read, and probably always will be. Most readers get to at least a few. But among moviegoers on Christmas night (traditionally one of the busiest movie nights of the year), probably not so many. They will be unaware that this "Sherlock Holmes" is cheerfully revisionist. They will be entertained, and so was I. The great detective, who has survived so much, can certainly shrug off a few special effects.

Sherlock Holmes has been reimagined with fighting skills as potent as his intellectual acumen.

The iconic British detective has undergone a makeover in the latest Sherlock Holmes, with little resemblance to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's literary character. Only his pipe-smoking remains intact.


Holmes as a lethal action hero would seem a natural assignment for a director such as Guy Ritchie (Snatch). And having proven himself a savvy superhero in Iron Man, Robert Downey Jr. would seem a wise choice for a character boasting equal parts brawn and brains.

Holmes is an even more slovenly shut-in than he was on the page. His grooming doesn't involve plaid coats or rakish caps. It also doesn't seem to include a razor. But he's an inventor and a guy who definitely pumps iron, in the dark confines of his rented rooms on Baker Street.

As for Dr. Watson (Jude Law), he's no longer a bumbler. He's a marksman, a risk-taker and a romantic gent with a fiancée (Kelly Reilly). But Watson's more substantive relationship is with Holmes.

Though the production design looks entrancingly authentic, neither Holmes, Watson nor others sound like they live in the 1890s. Worse, the plot is convoluted.

Holmes is on the trail of the lofty Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), whose dastardly deeds involve occult crimes and threaten the future of London. The detective is both hampered and assisted by Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams). There is more chemistry between Downey and Law than between Downey and McAdams. But there is not much point to her role except to show that woman can be action heroes, even in corsets and skirts.

Old London, achieved via superb visual effects, is breathtaking in its grimy verisimilitude. And Downey is charming. But his world is jarringly frenetic, in the manner of most Ritchie films.

Ritchie's device of playing back the process of Holmes' deductive reasoning is at first intriguing, then becomes intrusive.

While this incarnation has visual flair and attitude, it is too modern, and it blithely jettisons Holmes' wit and wisdom.

I suppose that visualy it's not a bad movie, and some of the effects are good.....but a Sherlock Holmes film it certainly is not. Although Robert Downey tries to copy the Holmes character as portrayed by Jeremy Brett, he fails significantly, and the pencil-necked, narrow shouldered, sunken chested Jude Law is laughable as the brave and determined Indian Army veteran Watson. It's like Ant and Dec meets Snatch!!!

Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes is an irreverent, comic-book take on the adventures of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's cerebral London detective. Robert Downey Jr stars as the beloved private eye who's been reinvented as something of an action hero who leaps out of buildings, dodges explosions, and gets down and dirty in a violent bare-knuckle brawl. Along with his relatively reserved sidekick, the dependable Dr John Watson (played by Jude Law), he still solves crimes for a living, but the pair spends most of their time bickering and sniping like an old married couple.

The film's silly plot involves the villainous Lord Blackwood (played by Mark Strong), who after being arrested and executed for satanic practices in the film's opening scenes, somehow engineers his return from the dead and hatches a nefarious plot to rule the British Empire. Holmes and Watson, of course, must stop him.

Ritchie's film is sheer popcorn entertainment with the kind of blockbuster trappings he's consciously avoided in the past - computer-generated special effects, big action set-pieces, and that pricey 19th century production design. The good thing is there's enough here for his hardcore fans to not feel completely alienated. There's a kinetic energy to the action scenes that's vintage Guy Ritchie, and occasionally he employs his trademark super-slo-mo to the hand-to-hand combat scenes that instantly remind you of the best bits in both Lock Stock & Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch.

But Sherlock Holmes is a buddy film in the end, and it's the fraternal bromance between Downey and Law that keeps you engaged. Both actors are in excellent form, and their witty banter makes up for everything else that's amiss, including a half-baked track involving Rachel McAdams as Irene Adler, a mysterious woman from Holmes' past.

Too much is happening all at once, and while that does throw you off occasionally, Sherlock Holmes is an enjoyable enough watch for the sheer charm of its two leads. Jude Law delivers a low-key yet elegant performance as Watson, giving his co-star all the room to shine. As the boozing, brawling Holmes, Robert Downey Jr is excellent. With the twitch of an eye or the subtle shift of a smile or a frown, he conveys a variety of feelings, and literally grabs the film from the word go.

I'm going with three out of five for Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes; at best it's a cheeky re-imagination of a British national treasure, but boy it's jolly good fun.

Guy Ritchie has never been one to underplay the homoerotic subtext of his blokey geezers-and-guns romps. But his latest picture, an irreverent comic-book take on Sherlock Holmes, positively throbs with sexual tension and tacit longing between the boozy, brawling bad boy Holmes of Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law’s dashing, pouting Watson. Traditionalists will no doubt be up in arms at the very idea that Holmes has anything other than the pursuit of criminals on his mind. But Ritchie’s larky, comic approach to Conan Doyle’s much-loved literary hero works unexpectedly well.

When they are not battling their way out of a sticky situation with more gusto than grace (“Nut ‘im!” bellows Watson, clinging to a Leviathan Frenchman with fists like Bayonne hams), they are bickering and borrowing each other’s waistcoats. The source of the tension is that, after years of comfortable cohabitation as gentlemen bachelors, the inconstant Watson has the temerity to move out. Worse still, he is planning to marry (Kelly Reilly, spirited but prone to simpering).

At the conclusion of what could be their last case together — the apprehension of the diabolical Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) — Holmes goes into a terminal decline, scraping sorrowfully at his violin and hitting the liquor with even more than his customary zeal. The news that Blackwood appears to have harnessed the dark arts and risen from the dead after his execution, thus calling into question Dr Watson’s diagnostic skills, couldn’t come a moment too soon for Holmes.

Ritchie has created a dynamic vision of dissolute Victorian London that has more in common with the work of Frank Miller than with Conan Doyle. His Holmes is reimagined as a contemporary creature — the insufferable, stuffy, know-it-all tendencies have been tempered with vulnerability and virility, the latter demonstrated in typical Ritchie fashion with a slow-mo, bare-knuckle brawl in a Cockney boozer. Downey Jr brings his trademark raffish charisma to the role, even if his dialogue sometimes sounds as though it was recorded under the influence of laudanum.

Holmes’s famous deductive powers are a little slapdash: chalk on a lapel indicates that the wearer is a professor, he states confidently. Why not a schoolmaster? A tennis umpire? A pavement artist?

But a touch of liberty-taking in the script notwithstanding, Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes is a riot. The director takes on a British institution with a swagger and a wink and the result is boisterous and unabashed fun.

Quite A New Spin On The Great Detective Stories. Some May Find Him Being Able To Defend And Fight In The Movie A Bit Unorthodox Comparing To The Older Books And Movies.

Yet Every Detail Of His Smart Remarks And Abilities Was Expertly Planned, All The Way Down To The Stance And Ways He Throws A Punch.

Besides The Good Acting The Storyline Was Just Allout Not Very Great, It Leads One Way Then The Other Then Back Again.

Expected A Bit More Out Of This Film,But I Have No Complaints, It's Still Well Worth The Watch!

This movie is awesome, it really depicts the way how Sherlock Holme's character is suppose to be, with alot of action and conviction but also humor and fun. The special effects compliment the scenes, the setting is great concidering it is in the really olden times. The stars did great to bring out their characters.

Sherlock Holmes is never less than entertaining throughout however, and the marvellous chemistry between the leads practically demands a sequel.A fun, action-packed reintroduction to Conan Doyle's classic characters. Part Two should provide more in the way of scope.

There is clear chemistry between the leads and watching them bicker is the film's strongest appeal.

Although different from the books, this movie delivers on a wide level. Both Robert Downey Jr.'s performance as well as the action packed sequences are right on point. The slow-motion coupled with the off-voice of the character's thoughts and calculations before the act actually happens adds to the sherlock holmes effect in an awesome way. The character has a delightful humour, making the movie even more enjoyable. In all, a treat for the eye as much as for the mind.