It's not terrible, just another lazy blockbuster. Casting Robert Downey as Holmes isn't a bad idea. And reminding audiences that Holmes wasn't entirely cerebral, that he was an accomplished boxer, is a legitimate way of broadening his character and his appeal. But Downey isn't a natural Holmes. He needs foils to bring out his edge or he seems too playful, too Wildian. The foils provided are not up to the job and the result is a lazy, disappointing film. It looks wonderful. Its re-creation of late Victorian London is convincing without being too realistically grimy. Very Hollywood but it works. The plot is adequate without ever challenging its intended audience. The problems lie in a script so anodyne that even Mark Strong can't overcome the villain's cardboard cutout qualities, in two crucial casting errors and finally in the over-reliance on action, for which read fight, scenes. Jude Law is much, much too bland as Watson. There's not enough contrast with Holmes. He's neither sufficiently irritating nor sufficiently irritated and it denies Downey's Holmes a proper frame. The result is a sort of buddy movie. Those issues pale into insignificance when we come to the casting of Rachel McAdams as Irene Adler. Who in God's name thought this was a good idea? McAdams is a good little actress and cast as a pretty little housemaid on the make, she might have done a decent job. But as Irene Adler, a woman smart enough and tough enough to thrive in that world, with an intellect to match Holmes' and a strength of character to make her irresistible to him? You've got to be kidding. All of which is probably why there are so many fight scenes. Without those, even the intended audience might notice the flaws. If you have a brain, don't waste your time on this. Watch BBC TV's recent Sherlock instead and see how it should be done. There are six of those, each one a feature length episode and the sixth is even better than the first.