Not so astounding, Holmes.

Yes, I'm afraid it really is that bad. I'm talking about the recently released film called "Sherlock Holmes". I have to put it that way rather than "the latest Sherlock Holmes film", because the film has nothing whatsoever to do with the famous detective.

I don't see myself as a purist when Holmes is concerned. I have seen, read and enjoyed all kinds of sequels, spoofs and "forgotten cases" featuring Holmes. And to be honest, much as I admire the detective's razor-sharp mind, he can be irritating at times. Both Watson and Lestrade have my sympathy for putting up with his arrogance. What's more, in this case, my expectations regarding the film's faithfulness to the original stories, or even to the spirit of the original stories, weren't high. There had been much talk about Holmes suddenly becoming a first-class pugilist and action hero. Well, well, I thought indulgently, Holmes is actually rather good at defending himself in the original stories. Anyway, even if Holmes is not very recognisable, a crime story in nineteenth-century England can never be an entire waste of time, can it?

This time, it is. It's like those trendy cynical films called things like "True Romance" who aren't romantic at all. The protagonist of "Sherlock Holmes", played by the otherwise charming Robert Downey Jr. who is nevertheless pretty insufferable here, is a disorganised, absent-minded, childish slob, who tries to sabotage his friend's engagement out of pique. Now, does that sound like Sherlock to you?

Which leads me to Watson, played somewhat surprisingly by a trim, handsome Jude Law. Personally, I don't think Conan Doyle ever intended Holmes and his loyal sidekick to be more than just good mates. But if the film had hinted at something more and depicted the two friends as an affectionate but bickering old couple I might have lived with it. The thing about Holmes is that he's asexual, so inventing female love interests for him - which has been done often enough - is just as wrong-headed as romanticising his relationship with Watson. Here, though, the two behave not like an old married couple but like a token gay couple in a rom-com. A squabble about a waistcoat is a case in point ("I thought we agreed it was too small for you"). That is just plain wrong - whatever they are, Holmes and Watson aren't honeymooners. By the way, there is a female love interest for Holmes, so it is perfectly possible to take or leave any homosexual subtext. She is Irene Adler, or she is called that, but like "Sherlock" she bears no noticeable resemblance to the character invented by Conan Doyle. This Irene is a femme fatale and gangster moll between whom and Holmes there is zero chemistry (at least that part is strictly true - Holmes only ever revered her for her mind). The only thing faintly Doyle-ian in the whole film was Eddie Marsan (a.k.a.Pancks to those of us who have seen the superb TV adaptation of "Little Dorrit") as Lestrade.

The biggest problem with the film, I believe, is that if you are going to invent freely on the basis of a legendary figure like Sherlock Holmes, you still need to have some references to the original before you take off in flights of fancy. I suspect this is why the "realistic" film about King Arthur with Clive Owen and Keira Knightley was not a hit, and why I would be surprised if the new "Robin Hood" film with Russell Crowe should turn out to be a box-office phenomenon. (Though I may be doing these films an injustice: the "this is the true, unvarnished story" spin they both used has put me off actually seeing them.) King Arthur needs his Round Table, Robin Hood needs his merry men and an archery competition or two, Sherlock Holmes needs his pipe, his violin (not just to pluck at) and his tidy, logical mind. Otherwise, why bother to tell a story supposedly about them at all? Do a film about a Briton fighting in the Roman army, or a rugged non-merry freedom-fighter, or an unshaved nineteenth-century detective who can kick ass, and call them something else.