Reviews

As a fluffy little actioner this was a passable film, but I abhor the treatment of the source material. The adversarial relationship between Holmes and Watson is intolerable. It's so distracting, not to mention, the diametric opposite condition depicted in the source material. Moreover, Holmes and Watson, within the source material, are most assuredly not distinct characters. These are the two halves of the same man, and therefore, Watson and Holmes simply can't be portrayed separately. Besides which, I don't see any reason to betray the source material in order to depict this stupid conflict as it goes absolutely nowhere, and has zero to do with the plot. Nah, this alone makes the film virtually unwatchable, and has severely damaged my 'like' of Guy Ritchie. I mean, Rock n Rola was a tight film, his best to date. This pig was a disaster.

Law and Downey had fantastic chemistry here. What the heck were 'they' thinking pitting them against one and other? Mark Strong continues to impress, is there anything he can't do? Is there a large-scale film he HASN'T been in this last decade? The Mary Morstan character played by actor Kelly Reilly was a total bust and her appearance was gratefully brief. Who is this chick? I don't usually pick on Hollywood types about their appearance but that is one ugly woman. Yeah, like a bow-wow like that could land a Doctor as handsome Law plays the character. Another massive distraction. Plus, I spent the whole time wincing at the scenes she tries to make an appearance in, and she's so clearly totally overwhelmed by Downey and Law she's got no business on a set with them. McAdams bordered on this as well. Star-struck much, ladies? And lastly, how she managed it I'll never know, but that was the worst fake-British accent ever!! Only wait! Reilly's British!! Am I the only one who thought her accent sounded like a 13 year old girl playing 'lady' with her teddy bear? Just wrong.

The conflict between Holmes and Watson isn't the only straight miss either. Sherlock Holmes has always been portrayed as a fastidiously neat, and tidy fellow. This quasi-Bohemian treatment was just dumb. Clinical scientific methodology simply doesn't work for slobs. Period. Wouldn't have even had to go there if they'd left the source material alone, remember, Watson is SUPPOSED to be the alter-ego.

Anyway, I thought Law, Downey, Strong, and McAdams were all on their A- game here. No complaints there. I suppose the film looked alright too, kudos Ritchie. But they simply strayed too far from source material and cast the thing just all wrong. Future mental note: When depicting one of English-lit's most famous fictitious characters, might want to get an Englishman to play the part. Duh.

This could have been the identical flick without all the crapping all over the source material folks. This 'reboot' trend will hopefully die a painful death soon.

I understand this is an unoriginal production. A rip-off of some one else's idea. A remake. That not withstanding it's amazing to me to see so many spewing utterly inane, clueless critiques. The script? Unimportant it was ripped off. The characters? Unimportant they were ripped off. It's all some one else's work.

Okay, really slowly now for the intellectual challenged. If Harry Hearst didn't murder the girls, how do pictures of them end up in his dark-room that his psycho wife led the police directly to? It's a stupid reveal because Hearst has been portrayed for the entire film as a liar. Duh. Remember? Hearst has a moment of clarity after he sees the pictures of the murder victims. He becomes convinced his wife set him up. Duh.

This movie isn't about a lawyer and a cop participating in an interrogation this is about a wife destroying a man she feels stole her youth from her for purposes of feeding on it. The amateur-hour ending is supposed to expose all of this but Monica Bellucci can't act, the remake writer couldn't write, and the director should stick to his kid's school plays.

This is a character study of Bellucci's character. This has nothing what so ever to do with the principles. They are a backdrop to a statement about the power of women. Notice too how this thing flopped in post-feminist western societies. This is an expression about the pure evil within women, and their unending power to destroy men. A motif that doesn't fly well in female-dominated cultures like America and the UK.

The ending is Harry figuring this out. And it clearly leaves him a little less than enthusiastic about his gal. He's so disillusioned by her poisonous swipe at him that he knows he'll never be able to look at her the same way again. A fate she was trying to condemn him to.

Pull out the noggins' folks. Morgan Freeman's character summed it all up once. You were spoon-fed this reveal in that Bellucci's character is discovered to be jealous and threatened by her own 13 year old niece. I mean duh!