This film is another one of those efforts to show Holmes before he became the solitary and introverted individual he is in the canon, and it makes all the same mistakes.
First off, there is no set up in terms of context. What were the architects of this piece aiming to accomplish? Are they trying to show how Holmes might have been before the canon? Are they trying to explain how he became like he is in the canon? Or are they just trying to sex him up according to their own personal fantasies? I'm inclined to say all of the above with the latter being on the forefront of their minds... but since there is no prologue to say so, we'll be forever left wondering why.
Second, all they are doing here is messing with canon. Sure sure, not every Holmes movie needs to stay with the established stories and characters, but this was just gratuitous. In this movie Holmes is a womanizing alcoholic media attention seeking whiner, Mycroft is a damaged ex-drug addict cripple, and Moriarty seems to be the golden boy. This photo-negative representation of Conan Doyle's creation might have been effective if it wasn't so ham-fistedly delivered. We don't need to see Holmes have a threesome to get that he's living a young wild life.
Third, the underlying story wasn't all that interesting.
But, there were some redeeming qualities. The characterization of Watson as an inventor was very well done, and was acted well. Also, the manner in which Holmes and Watson developed their friendship based on professional interest (and even Holmes giving Watson credit for his deductions) was well done and thought out.
The acting was super. D'Onofrio and D'Arcy, despite the movie's foibles, were excellent. They could have only done better if there were a better script.
Lastly, I have to admit to enjoying the allusions to "the future". Phrases like "Serial Killer" vs. "Multiple Murderer", Watson being certain the pipe smoking will be mainstream and cigarettes will become illegal, and finally Moriarty giving his drug a name... "Something heroic..." was fairly clever.
So, there you are, 3 for and 3 against. That's 5/10 from me.
First off, there is no set up in terms of context. What were the architects of this piece aiming to accomplish? Are they trying to show how Holmes might have been before the canon? Are they trying to explain how he became like he is in the canon? Or are they just trying to sex him up according to their own personal fantasies? I'm inclined to say all of the above with the latter being on the forefront of their minds... but since there is no prologue to say so, we'll be forever left wondering why.
Second, all they are doing here is messing with canon. Sure sure, not every Holmes movie needs to stay with the established stories and characters, but this was just gratuitous. In this movie Holmes is a womanizing alcoholic media attention seeking whiner, Mycroft is a damaged ex-drug addict cripple, and Moriarty seems to be the golden boy. This photo-negative representation of Conan Doyle's creation might have been effective if it wasn't so ham-fistedly delivered. We don't need to see Holmes have a threesome to get that he's living a young wild life.
Third, the underlying story wasn't all that interesting.
But, there were some redeeming qualities. The characterization of Watson as an inventor was very well done, and was acted well. Also, the manner in which Holmes and Watson developed their friendship based on professional interest (and even Holmes giving Watson credit for his deductions) was well done and thought out.
The acting was super. D'Onofrio and D'Arcy, despite the movie's foibles, were excellent. They could have only done better if there were a better script.
Lastly, I have to admit to enjoying the allusions to "the future". Phrases like "Serial Killer" vs. "Multiple Murderer", Watson being certain the pipe smoking will be mainstream and cigarettes will become illegal, and finally Moriarty giving his drug a name... "Something heroic..." was fairly clever.
So, there you are, 3 for and 3 against. That's 5/10 from me.