I've been a Sherlock Holmes fan for 50 years, but I'm not a purist and have long felt that most large screen portrayals of Sherlock Holmes did him a disservice. Should Holmes and Watson be younger than their traditional casting? Certainly! Can Holmes be a man of action? Of course! His physicality was often implied and sometimes written very explicitly in Doyle's stories. I was looking forward to seeing a characterization of Holmes enriched with these under-realized elements.

But as eccentric as Holmes was, he was also a man of his times. Early in the film, Holmes goes to dinner with Watson to meet his fiancé Mary-- and he goes unshaved! Holmes may be a slob at home, but he would always be appropriate in public. Then, he insults Mary and Mary throws a glass of wine in his face-- again, two actions that would never take place in the society of the times.

Even so, I tried to put my reservations aside. I saw great potential in Robert Downey Jr's interpretation of Holmes, and appreciated Jude Law's re-imagining of Watson. The script, however, failed the characters. Holmes' intellect was mostly ignored; Watson's loyalty was portrayed as irrational. The new interest that Holmes' physicality could have added was undermined because it was overplayed.

Worse, the story was confusing and unengaging. About an hour into the movie, I realized that I was remaining in my seat only because of the ticket price. I was bored by the chaos.

The sets and art direction were excellent but ultimately lacked impact because of their unrelieved darkness.

My biggest disappointment is that this current telling of the Sherlock Holmes story, and the franchise that's bound to follow, will prevent any new re-imagining for years to come.