Action for action’s sake

Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes lacks cumulative build-up and the absence of suspense is glaring, writes Ervell E. Menezes

Holmes (Robert Downey Jr) and Watson (Jude Law) are an unlikely duo, always reparteeing with each other in a sort of one-upmanship and departing a good deal from their “elementary, Dr Watson” former selves

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s legendary detective Sherlock Holmes has been endowed with a new image "revealing fighting skills as lethal as his legendary intellect."

Based on a story by Lionel Wigram, it is an action hero we have who descends into the sewers of London and then up to the bridges in pursuit of the enemy and, of course, in cohorts with his sidekick Dr Watson in the new Sherlock Holmes that is working wonders at the box-office.

British director Guy Ritchie goes all out to flesh out this new persona of the master detective abetted by scriptwriters Michael Robert Johnson, Anthony Peckham and Simon Kinberg. It’s razzle-dazzle visuals from the very start and Holmes (Robert Downey Jr) and Watson (Jude Law) are an unlikely duo, always reparteeing with each other in a sort of one-upmanship and departing a good deal from their "elementary, Dr Watson" former selves.

For the plot we have thin one with Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) as the villain. In an occult-dabbling society, he comes back to life and whether it is witchcraft, alchemy or some other mumbo jumbo things keep happening, aided by FX to provide fetching visuals but many of the cameos are only too cursorily dealt with.

Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams), the only woman who had bested Sherlock, is a weak and unpredictable character and Watson’s romantic interest Mary (Kelly Reilly) is only a pale shadow. Inspector Lestrade (Eddie Marsan) makes his presence felt but the plot is too rambling to allow these cameos to develop. It is Holmes and Watson all the way so much so that even Moriarity (Ed Tolputt) is scarcely a mere mention. True the ambience of old London is graphically brought out but as the story progresses (scarcely the right word) the viewer gets caught up in the doldrums of predictability and it is action for action’s sake.

The story lacks any cumulative buildup and the absence of suspense is glaring. We just go from one act to another mindlessly with the "What’s next?" quite absent. One could even call it the Americanisation of Sherlock Holmes but the climax is almost a damp squib. I’m all for change and improvisation. Even irreverence. But change just for the sake of change is not acceptable. Give me the old, Brit stiff upper lip, pipe-puffing Sherlock Holmes any day.

HOME