...to give this film its proper title. Not exactly how you want to see this great thinking detective. Maybe have a sequel in a few years time with Sherlock reduced to a dribbling wreck in a wheelchair whose housemaid has to wipe his bottom for him?
As for the story, it's pretty weak. To think you've got a Sherlock Holmes mystery and the arch villain is a group of wasps. Talk about underwhelming.
I found all the little stories in this interesting, especially so on second viewing. Perhaps it's not strictly for Sherlock Holmes fans so forget those type of expectations when seeing it for the first time.
shareI thought the mental frailties were what gave it its only point of interest, to be honest...
"Your mother puts license plates in your underwear? How do you sit?!"
Old age and senility are pretty much the most frightening villains to somebody like Holmes. Who is basically a walking brain and not only relies on but takes all of his pleasure from his intellect. A million times worse than Moriarty, Milverton and an actual spectral Hound of the Baskervilles combined. So it was somewhat interesting (albeit not very much fun) to see Holmes grapple with it. It was, as Howlin Wolf said, the only point of interest in the film. Besides McKellan's performance that is, and Young Sherlock Holmes making a cameo. This would have been a much better film if the case from the past had actually been interesting. A Sherlock Holmes story without a mystery isn't all that great, and the biggest mystery in this movie is what was killing the bees. I don't guess it matters that Watson was dead as I don't think people would have been dying for him to publish "The Adventure of the Dumbass Kid Who Tried To Water a Wasp's Nest".
"Dan Marino should die of gonorrhea and rot in hell. Would you like a cookie son?"
To think you've got a Sherlock Holmes mystery and the arch villain is a group of wasps.
Maybe have a sequel in a few years time with Sherlock reduced to a dribbling wreck in a wheelchair whose housemaid has to wipe his bottom for him?