It is difficult enough to gauge a movie on its own merits, but the re-introduction of a century’s old character and story arch brings the additional elements of continuity and consistency that is a hurdle for any “re-boot” (to coin a phrase from the vernacular). In this particular instance, the franchise has gone long enough without any attention that any attachment to stories or characters on the part of the viewer are easily over-looked, allowing the viewer to enter into the viewing experience with an open mind, a “clean slate,” as it were. That having been said, the writer has (for all intents and purposes) only a cursory knowledge of the source material and characters as they were originally written. Some might argue that an accurate assessment of this movie’s place in the Sherlock Holmes lore cannot be made without a firm grasp of back-story, origins and original concepts. Conversely, it might be argued that to critique the movie as an independent work and art form, the writer must be able to overlook or forget previous interpretations or incarnations. Or, as in the case of this writing, begin with an unbiased perspective and a blissfully ignorant state of mind.

Initially, there was some skepticism about a Sherlock Holmes movie directed by Guy Ritchie, since the character seemed dated and not very relatable in today’s world, and because Guy Ritchie is not known for the cerebral styled work that was sure to be required for such an undertaking. The first point proved to be moot, since Hollywood is finding all sorts of ways of recycling ideas and concepts for the next blockbuster. The latter proved to be an underestimation of Ritchie’s artistic and visionary capabilities. Revolver in particular illustrated perfectly his desire and ability to branch out from his trademark gangster flicks. Now, with Sherlock Holmes, he finally has a mainstream (read: PG-13) hit to tack on to his already impressive resume.

Ritchie’s style and tone translated beautifully into the Victorian London of Holmes’ adventures. Holmes exists in the same lived-in, grungy world that Turkish and Brick-top inhabit a century later, but that’s all set dressing and pretty colors. At its core, Sherlock Holmes can best be described as a buddy flick, a story about Holmes’ and Watson; hetero homeboys for life (character piece? Guy Ritchie’s forte, perhaps). The primary story arch and subplot are consistently overshadowed by their relationship with one another. The absent minded intellectual, lacking any sort of social grace, desperately needs a connection to the real world, a connection provided by his friend and compatriot, Dr. Watson. Watson, in turn, feels an overwhelming desire to protect Holmes from both the mischief he is sure to get himself into, as well as the mischief that normally seems to gravitate toward him.

Another element of note in Sherlock Holmes is the main story. As before, the primary story is not the main focus of the film, but serves more as an adhesive that binds the whole together. The classic mystery/crime drama presents an almost novel approach to the Hollywood blockbuster (which Sherlock Holmes is, both by design and in practice). It is certainly enjoyable watching any film which does more then bombard the viewer with shiny eye-candy.

In conclusion, Sherlock Holmes was a very enjoyable cinematic adventure on many levels. Acting, cinematography, dialogue et al are all top notch, facilitating both the viewers’ suspension of disbelief and the value of the work itself. Also, its always grand when the industry swerves (even if ever-so-slightly) from the proven formulae that have historically yielded them mass fortunes. As an aside, hopefully this will not simply be a re-defining of the formula: Ritchie needs to continue to innovate, instead of finding something that works and doing nothing else [Johnny Depp and his Captain Jack].