Holmes novels give adults a chance to have a good time. And in an agewhere so many of the movies are for ‘everybody,’ especially the family,the kids or teenage boys, I looked forward to some fun adultentertainment. But it didn’t take but a few seconds of screen time torealize this Sherlock Holmes movie was not going to be sophisticated.Pretty much right away Holmes is punching people in slow-motion.

I think the movie would have been better if it was set in New Yorkinstead of England because then Robert Downey wouldn’t have had toworry about talking with a British accent. Sometimes it was difficultunderstanding exactly what he was saying. Plus his haircut was nothinglike Sherlock Holmes’ haircut would be but he did have a pipe in hismouth at least two times so that was good.

Rachel McAdams is really pretty but I didn’t really know why hercharacter was in the movie.

Starting with why I hated it, this is not the Sherlock Holmes Iremember. Sure the name is used but do not expect to see the qualitydetective story and character as done in the past. What we get insteadis a distorted, cartoonish version of a great detective. The moviecould have used other characters instead of Holmes and Watson. Themovie would have been more appealing if it had in fact used a new pairof detectives. Ahhh, but Ritchie is going to make money thanks to thecurrently popular name of Robert Downey. In the meantime he gets torecreate, and even pollute the name of Holmes for the sake ofopportunity, glory and money. That is even more devious than a plotfrom Blackwood or Moriarty. Even worse, Holmes is not a man of greatconfidence and intelligence. He resembles someone who is everything andyet nothing. A lonely, alcoholic, schizoid with little regard for senseand sensibility, he seems more able to succeed thanks to luck andsurprisingly loyal friends. And yet he is an accomplished fighter,again with a great deal of cartoonish luck. How sad and pathetic. Thatbeing said, nothing really need be said about Watson.

Now for the good. The story, imagining this is not about Holmes andWatson but some other unkowns, was pretty good. I liked the mystery andthe evil Blackwood. I liked old London. I liked the fast pace inpicking up clues and developing mystery. The action was good and thehumor was OK. I preferred Watson over Holmes. Jude Law's interpretationof Watson was more appealing than Holmes( I even got to the point,where I didn't care much for Holmes). Well, that's it for the good.

If you don't care for the traditional Sherlock Holmes, you may verywell like this movie. But if you want to see the traditional Holmes andWatson get a clue and you will miss this slap in the face of tradition.

2 out of 10 for destroying tradition but a 6 out of 10 for a goodattempt at making a fun detective movie. That averages out to a 4,Lestrade.