What's Dan Watching - Sherlock Holmes

I've been a fan of Sir Arthur CD's creation, the amateur yet clinically effective detective Holmes, for quite a while. I do believe that I have read each of the published adventures several times and live in hope that I have missed one or two that I may discover. When it comes to fictional characters, I prefer those that have already accomplished the task of understanding themselves and are now setting about the activity of understanding their environment. The dramatization of the Sherlock Holmes adventures has been done many times before (I believe it starts and ends with the depiction performed by Jeremy Brett during the eighties/nineties, but that's merely an opinion), and I approached with trepidation a viewing of the latest attempt with Robert Downey Jnr. in the lead role.

Let me start with the positives. London of the late 19th/early 20th century is depicted superbly, and presumably accurately. A bustling city with many different social classes all coated with a fine film of grime. The story and pace is entertaining, the focus is on loud, ostentatious exhibitions of eye candy and talented actors playing with their characters. There's little to despise in the film, but sometimes a little can be a lot.

Frankly, I'm not sure why they decided to use the Sherlock Holmes stories as the basis for the film. Downey Jnr. clearly dispensed with any attempt to depict the detective in the traditional way, instead presenting a character who is more of a super hero. Think "Iron Man" without the gizmo's and gadgets and a barely plausible English accent. Was it more a marketing issue? Did they think it would drag more punters through the door if they connected the film with a well known character?

Perhaps I'm a traditionalist on the matter. Pig-headed!