I don't mean to be mean:
This movie was so incredibly boring for me. I don't understand how people are giving it 8-10's on IMDB.
Generally, I think I can be pretty accepting, or able to see why some people like things which I dislike. There are old movies I like; I like a lot of Poirot, I like the Holmes stories, and some Holmes movies.
My complaints:
- I am exaggerating very little, to say, "the first 45 minutes of this movie are extraneous". It is an incredibly boring movie. It's like boring Masterpiece Theater. You could replace these actors/characters/plot in a million, different, boring, forgettable, scenarios. It's like a low-budget Hallmark movie or something.
- I don't want to watch 2 hours of Tweaker Holmes (or 90 minutes, whatever).
- What genre is this? It's not a mystery/detective movie. I'll accept drama. It seems like a historical drama; like Wishbone (the dog TV show for kids) for old British ladies. Except IIRC, Wishbone was creative, and fun entertainment.
- Holmes talks too fast
- Freud talks with a lisp/slur
- Holmes' rants in the throes of addiction quickly wear. Succumbing to addiction is out of character. He's also well-aware of why he uses cocaine in the stories.
- There is very little mystery/detective work. It's mainly Freud/Holmes bonding, which is fine, but it's not much of a Holmes installment.
- It's more of a Freud movie than a Holmes movie, yet titled as one
- Moriarty is teased throughout the movie.. but I have no idea to what cause? IIRC, it was Watson, Mycroft, Moriarty, and Freud, who gathered Holmes for treatment. This is obviously an anything-goes version of Holmes, but, uh, why use Moriarty this way.
- The train scene is very long; but after taking 60 minutes to get to the plot, I wasn't complaining about being on a moving train outdoors.
- We're supposed to devote 2 hours to caring about a formerly unknown, drug-addict, hooker. I'm not against saving her, but could we please get subplot? An alternate mystery/case?
- Actual dialogue: "they're not just horses. They're the most intelligent horses in the world. And they were trained to kill!" / perfectly flat "oh my God." That competes with Troll 2 for me.
My applauds:
- The sets were very nice
- The outfits were very nice
- Freud kills a guy with a musket (near the end). Also the other scene near the end, just for the shock/gag/chuckle/wtf ridiculous factor.
- Freud carries the movie for me.
- I know very little of filmmaking; so maybe it is in some ways technically well-made
People seem to applaud:
- Robert Duvall, Laurence Olivier, Vanessa Redgrave, Nicol Williamson, Alan Arkin (Honestly, Redgrave could've been played by anyone IMO, or any redhead. Williamson either chose incredibly grating showcases of addiction, or was directed incredibly poorly. I could overlook it, but they persist through such a significant portion of the film. Duvall was entirely forgettable and outside-of-view- what a waste of Watson).
- Herbert Ross- known for Play it Again Sam, The Turning Point, and The Goodbye Girl. I'm not familiar with any of that, aside from the Casablanca reference. I am obviously not interested in exploring Ross' works.
If you enjoy the movie, that's great. I think people should like as much as they can. But can you tell me what it is that makes you give it an "A" grade? Do you watch it with fast-forward? Does it do something particularly rare?
I don't judge acting very well. Maybe these people are very skilled actors? They seem very average here to me. Freud seemed the strongest; and his voice was pretty flimsy.
Maybe it's old people? Like, maybe this is a movie made for old British ladies who like period-dramas? If that's you, can you please tell me what unique stuff you like about this, which is hard to find elsewhere, and sets it up for the A?
Again, if you like it, I'm glad for you. I'd love to know what The Seven-Per-Cent Solution does well.