In Paul Byrne‘s 12.24 review of Guy Ritchie‘s Sherlock Holmes,which he calls “a travesty,” he says the following: (a) “Robert Downey, Jr.’s accent is ‘flawless,’ according to Ritchie, which either means he’s deaf or I’m the Prince of Wales,” and (b) “This is Holmes the romp — overplayed, overwritten and overwrought, a Sherlock for the age of the easily distracted.”

Jude Law, Robert Downey, Jr.

Hollywood & Fine’s Marshall Fine says, “There are plenty of reasons to dislike Guy Ritchie’s post-modern take on Sherlock Holmes, but here’s the main one:

“Unlike most heroes of American detective literature (Nero Wolfe being the rare exception), Arthur Conan Doyle‘s storied detective is not and never has been an action hero. Not that he’s averse to a bit of rough-and-tumble in the name of self-defense — but Conan Doyle’s stories are singularly devoted to his creation’s remarkable deductive skills, not his ability to outfight giants or outrun fireballs.

“If Ritchie, an intriguing film stylist, and producer Joel Silver (whose ham-handed fingerprints are all over this film) wanted to make a James Bond film set in Victorian times, why call him Sherlock Holmes?

“Elementary, dear reader: Because this is a shameless bid at transforming Holmes and partner Dr. Watson (Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law) into a franchise, a tentpole – and all of that other Hollywood jargon that means ‘a character who can be relied upon to make more than $100 million per film at the box office for years to come.’ Harry Potter films won’t last forever, but Holmes could be the gift that keeps on giving.”