My Dear Brad,
I´m going to assume that the promise of one Rachel McAdams was enough to keep you past that 15 minute threshold. Though I must say as much as I think she´s got a ton of potential as an actress and a hottie, she really drags this film down. It could be that Ritchie simply has no idea how to create a female character. His only previous attempt was Swept Away, and the 12 people who went to see it know how badly that turned out.
I´m glad you stayed so you can help me calibrate my opinion on this film. I must say that I agree with just about everything you write, yet I still enjoyed the film a bit more than you did. I guess I had the good fortune of accepting the "modernization" (or should I say abandonment?) of the Holmes legend. It definitely freed me up to just go with the flow. Had I known Ritchie was directing, I would have made this decision before I got in the car to head to the theater. He´s all about style over substance, and this film is no exception.
Regarding Moriarty, yes I think they were clearly taking baby steps, seeing if what they were doing worked, and will then bring in a top star for the role. The movie´s already grossed over $200,000,000 domestic. This was just the setup. They did the same with Batman, waiting to include the baddies we know and love until the second film.
I am of two minds here - I wish I were a more knowledgeable Holmes scholar, so I could verify how far they deviated. At the same time, I am better off not knowing. Actually, I think it´s pretty clear that not knowing is winning. Funny that you mention House MD (or as it is called here in Argentina, "DOCTOR HOUSE!"). After leaving the theater, Mati informed me that House was in fact based on Sherlock Holmes. That makes me appreciate the show all the more, but also leaves me all the more flat about this movie.
In the end, I am hard-pressed to make any profound statements about a movie that is so blatantly shallow. Again, I liked the acting by both Downey and Law, but there is nothing else to which I can grab onto in this film. I´d say I was disappointed if it weren´t for the fact that I wasn´t exactly hopeful going in. Can you wrap it up with some elementary conclusions?
Dear Dr. Drew,
I have a sex question and I am hoping you can help me. Every time I think about doing "it" I start to visualize Bea Arthur wearing nothing but a corset. How do I take it to the next level? Ooops! Sorry, this was an email I intended to send to Loveline.
I meant, err, that I ever time I think about doing 'it’ I begin visualizing Rachael McAdams. Anyhoo. Sherlock Holmes. That’s what we were talking about! Yeah, Rachael McAdams. Our old friend from the Arcade Fire. That was awesome! And she was nice to look at as well. :-) But I must confess she has not been doing much for me lately. The Family Stone. The Time Traveler's Wife. Enough said. I totally agree with you that Guy Ritchie has no idea what to do with actresses and that surely played a role in her mediocrity in this film.
So Dr. Drew, can I answer your challenge and wrap it up with some elementary conclusions?
- Sherlock Holmes is pretty clever
- Watson is a patient man.
- Rachael McAdams is a hottie.
- Sherlock Holmes will be equally, if not even more clever in Sherlock Holmes II
- When we see Moriarty next, he will appear with a celebrity face -- my vote is for Mr. Bean!
- A2B will not review Sherlock Holmes II
Those "scheiße" ladies reminded me of my Sherlock Holmes experience. At first glance I was intrigued, wanting to know more. But in the end, things got smelly and I was left with a bit of distaste.
Until next time my friend!