For starters, a little contextual background. I’ve always enjoyed Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes books. I’ve gotten disapproving looks and responses in conversations where I’ve stated that I consider Doyle a far better writer than Shakespeare. I’ve just never cared for Shakespeare’s writing, but Doyle’s sense of character, dialog and style has always worked for me. I’ve read all the Holmes books at least once at some point, and very much enjoyed them.

Having said all that, I’ve never particularly loved most TV and film adaptations of them (the recent Steven Moffat series is quite good, though). Most of them seem too tied to the formality and setting of it all and miss a lot of the charm and playfulness of Doyle’s work. It’s all way too dignified and clean. When I heard a few years back that there was going to be a new Sherlock Holmes film as a big budget Hollywood event movie, I very definitely had my doubts. Then I heard that Guy Ritchie was directing it, and I nearly wrote it off completely. I had never liked any of his previous movies, and figured this would end up as yet another on the list of his films I didn’t like. But then I saw the cast list that was announced, and I began to have some hope. Robert Downey, Jr. has long been one of my favorite actors, even before his downfall and rebound (which made those years of his hitting rock bottom all the worse for us fans), and I looked forward to what he would do with the role.

One other thing that should be known about me is that when it comes to adaptations, reboots, sequels and other variations on existing material, I have no trouble with change. I’m perfectly fine with somebody making changes and making it their own. In fact, I often times enjoy those changes as much or more than anything else. If it works, I say, “go for it.” Much of the fanboy community gets all mad and outraged when source material is changed (“how DARE you change Starbuck into a female character!” – or even worse, the LOTR lunatics), but for me it’s more interesting that way.

So, when I finally saw the first Guy Ritchie Sherlock Holmes film, I was pleasantly surprised. Yes, it diverted from the source material in a great many ways, but it held to the core of the material rather well and gave it a new, edgier style. I was very happy that the wit and  charm had been properly captured, and I quite liked the more eccentric and grittier take on the main character. Downey had managed to come through with that “lightning in a bottle” kind of character defining performance, in much the same way Johnny Depp had done for Jack Sparrow. Put simply, I very much liked the movie. After seeing it a few times, I was hoping that it would get a sequel, and hopefully even a decent length franchise. So, I was happy when the second film was announced, and looked forward to seeing it.

I haven’t actually read any of the critic reviews of the film, but it looks like a number of them are lukewarm towards it (with exceptions in both directions, of course). Well, count me among those who absolutely loved it. Put simply, it was the most fun I’ve had at the movies this year, and as of this writing (with only a couple weeks left), I’m calling it my favorite film of the year.

Writing: Yes, like with the previous movie, there is plenty of creative liberty being taken with the source material. Like before, there’s a good amount of big action material, and huge things at stake (though the film does a good job pointing out how Holmes, and Moriarty as well, can make little difference in the larger things that are at stake). The edgy wit and fun dialog from the first film are not only recaptured for this second entry but, in my opinion, improved upon. This second entry is more action driven than the first, as the story drives it forward at a rather brisk pace (an attribute this film shares with the other fun action film that opened this weekend, Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol). Holmes and Watson are constantly on the move trying to catch up to Moriarty’s plans and get a step ahead of him. And Moriarty’s goals and plans actually lend themselves nicely to some big action scenes. It’s actually a rather nice story idea to wrap the material around, as it provides a great pacing engine to the narrative.

Production: Here is where I had one of my biggest doubts going into the first film. Guy Ritchie tends to be over-obsessed with visual style and I was dreading what he’d do to the material. Much to my surprise, the style works remarkably well with the clever way it plays with being in Holmes’ mind during (and before) action sequences. It’s a perfect way to break down his cause-and-effect and process-of-elimination approach to everything. The character is written (and perfectly portrayed) as an eccentric, borderline manic bipolar. The rapid fire planning and slow motion experiencing does a great job getting you into that mindset. And it’s a unique juxtaposition to the time period as well. You don’t usually see that kind of style and approach to material set in that era. It’s not the usual prim and proper portrayal of the source material and period. The gritty cinematography is, as it was before, great. In particular, I must thank them for not going crazy with handheld filming, as is the current obsession with gritty looking material. These films feature wonderfully smooth and well composed visuals. And for that, I’m thankful. Rather than just complain when films use way too aggressive handheld filming, I like being able to praise one for doing no such thing. To go along with the meticulous filming is the wonderful sound design. It’s particularly impressive during the rapid cut and slow-mo sequences.

Cast: As with the first film, I loved the casting. Downey & Law take Holmes and Watson to the next level. Downey utterly owns his performance. It’s perfection. Jude Law gets more to work with in this second film, and he really shines. He does a great job with the conflict in his character. He plays the reluctant nature of his character to Holmes’ crazy ideas quite well, but he also perfectly plays the flipside of the of the character who loves the experience all the same. Jared Harris does a fine job with Moriarty, giving it the needed twinkle of conniving intelligence. He and Downey play off each other very well. Noomi Rapace may not have turned in a scene stealing performance or anything (it’d be nigh impossible to do so surrounded by her fellow cast members), but it’s solid enough to work. Putting in excellent supporting performances are the fantastic Stephen Fry as Holmes’ also somewhat eccentric brother and the return of Kelly Reilly as Watson’s now-wife and Rachel McAdams as Holmes’ romantically charged alter-ego, Irene Adler. Another nice addition to the cast is Paul Anderson as Colonel Sebastian Moran (a character loosely borrowed from the classic Doyle materials).

Music: I very much enjoyed Hans Zimmer’s playful score for the first film, as I did for this second film. The two scores are about on par with each other for how much I like them. This second one does a better job with the quieter, thematic moments (which are actually fewer and farther between in this film than in the first), but it doesn’t have quite as much fun with the main theme. It does add a nice ascending twist for the second part of said main theme, though. Like the first film’s score was for its year, this is one of my favorite scores of this year.

It may end up being that I loved this movie more than most people, which is fine. There are quite a few movies that I absolutely loved in years past that weren’t as (or at all) popular with most other people. So be it.