With Sherlock Holmes, I've never read any of the old books, and I got my education pretty much from the movies. That'd be Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce, who I still prefer to Robert Downey and Jude Law. But I do concede that great liberties were also taken even with those beloved 1940s Universal versions. It makes sense too when people point out that we love Lugosi's Dracula and Karloff's FRANKENSTEIN, but they're not the true versions as written either, not by a longshot. It really makes you feel like you want to give this movie a fair pass too, if you honestly consider that we let so many older things slide. However, I think it's not so much that there are changes and modernizing per se; the question is more: have these updates and changes worked for you? I liked the score in this film, which kind of reminded me a bit of the music in Jess Franco's "El Conde Dracula", of all things. I thought it was good having the story take place in olden times, and I liked Jude Law as Watson. As for Robert Downey, he did not strike me as Sherlock Holmes - that is, not the vision of Holmes I have burned into my brain - but if one is willing to be more open minded in this case, he was enjoyable in the part in his own new way. I despised Rachel McAdams in this movie; she just came off as way too 21st Century-like for this era. My main gripes with the film are the same typical problems I find with so many newer movies... way too many climaxes (is it over now? How about now?), and that annoying "woooossshh!!" speed photography and trick camera shots the filmmakers seem so compelled to do today, mostly for flashback moments. ** out of ****