Review: Robert Downey Jr.'s wacky 'Sherlock Holmes' closer to 'Harry Potter' than 'Hound of the Baskervilles'

Courtesy PhotoRobert Downey Jr., left, and Jude Law are shown in a scene from "Sherlock Holmes."

Forget about deerstalker hats and 7 percent solutions. They have no place in the world of "Sherlock Holmes" as envisioned by director Guy Ritchie.

Instead this Sherlock -- portrayed by Robert Downey Jr. as a peculiar cross between an effete eccentric and a rough-and-tumble adventurer -- participates in bare-knuckle boxing matches, dives out windows into the chilly waters of the Thames and even allows his trusty associate, Dr. Watson (Jude Law), to sock him in the nose when Holmes goes too far. Obviously, we're a long, long way from the cinematic heyday of Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce.

In fact, despite its Victorian Era setting, Ritchie's "Holmes" has more in common with a "Harry Potter" extravaganza than "The Hound of the Baskervilles." The screenplay pits Holmes against Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), a devotee of black magic who not only manages to make mischief while locked up on Death Row but then proceeds to terrorize London from beyond the grave after he's hanged and then ostensibly resurrected. "Death is just the beginning," Blackwood promises and, wicked though he may be, he's certainly a man of his word.

Filmmakers who have dared in the past to tinker with Arthur Conan Doyle's most famous franchise have typically faced hostile audiences. Director Billy Wilder tried it in 1970 with "The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes" and wound up with a critically acclaimed film no one paid to see. In 1985 producer Steven Spielberg hoped to launch a lucrative series with the flashy thriller "Young Sherlock Holmes," but not a single sequel was ever made.

Ritchie may have better luck. Once you get past the initial disorientation of seeing Holmes and Watson brawling with hired thugs and running through exploding buildings, it becomes slightly easier to appreciate the movie for what it is instead of worrying over what it isn't. It's wacky and offbeat, and it doesn't always work, but much of it provides an intriguing perspective on some familiar personalities.

Downey's Holmes may have the astonishingly acute senses and amazing analytical abilities of Conan Doyle's original creation, but he is also prone to lazing around his apartment in a ratty robe and ingesting weird substances while trying to piece together clues. Instead of being a bumbling second-banana, Law's Watson is dashing, level-headed and adept at switching between being Holmes' dearest friend and his severest critic.

Downey and Law quickly establish the volatile chemistry that fuels the partnership: The greatest unsolved mystery here may be exactly why Holmes is so determined to ruin Watson's planned marriage to a governess (Kelly Reilly). "You are terrified of a life without the thrill of the macabre," Holmes warns Watson during an argument, and it doesn't sound like he's merely talking about their casework.

The movie attempts to set up a different kind of rivalry between Holmes and opportunistic woman-of-the-world Irene Adler, who, according to Watson, is "the only adversary who's ever outsmarted you -- twice." There's not much of a payoff in this, however: The screenwriters paint Irene as a rather feeble femme fatale and a miscast Rachel McAdams struggles to give her a cohesive personality.

On the other hand, Eddie Marsan (the hot-tempered driving instructor of "Happy-Go-Lucky") is delightful as the intrepid but often clueless Inspector Lestrade, and Strong turns Blackwood into a suitably sinister presence as he combines sorcery and science for dark purposes. The sprawling, Dickensian backdrops of grimy, run-down 1870s London make such striking impressions they practically qualify as supporting characters themselves.

Although it looks at first as if Ritchie's trademark high-impact style, with its swooping camerawork and jerky slow-motion interludes, will overwhelm everything else, it actually works surprisingly well in the long run. It's another constant reminder we're not watching a traditional Sherlock Holmes tale -- this is more like "Sherlock Holmes vs. Voldemort," and Ritchie presents it as such.

E-mail the author of this story: yourlife@grpress.com