I wanted to but couldn't!

It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Great story, amazing characters, superb action, enthralling cinematography. Yes, this is something I am glad I spent money on.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

The detective film is an essential component in how movies work. I'm trying to abstract the components that work, what doesn't and why. And that is taking me through many detective films, and every Holmes film is a must. Putting Holmes in perspective: he was just at that period where science was news, a period roughly from Darwin to Einstein. The caché was less the scientists as celebrities, but the tantalizing notion that at some time there will be an explanation for everything including human behavior. The author of the Holmes stories took this as far as his own science of spiritualism, complete with notions of the fourth dimension.For these stories to work, then, we have to have two parts. We have the detective, the scientist. He has a collection of facts, a powerful ability to reason and an irrepressible desire to understand. This is not a detective that solves crimes by stumbling about valiantly, but one that collects facts and assembles them.And we need, absolutely need, a second component, the world. Holmes tries to master an understanding of the world as it works naturally. He can deduce that a man is a one legged tailor because the world is so ordered that observations mean something. This world has to be following natural laws. People have to be doing what normal people do.In other words, Holmes makes no sense in a world of unnatural dynamics, a world manipulated by powerful forces. There can be no conspiracy making things happen that naturally would not. You cannot have secret, all-powerful societies with grand plans that bend the laws Holmes works with.This movie is based on just that premise. So Holmes cannot be the Holmes we know. He is PI Magnum, or Sam Slade or someone else. (Moriarty has complex plans, but he is a lone genius and all he — and Mycroft — add is the ability for Holmes to have someone like himself in the world he sees.One thing they did do well, I believe. We are always getting the story that Watson writes after the fact. He is our representative in the story. They did well enough with this. That story has to unroll in the way that Holmes and Watson encounter it. They didn't do this well.

Being as I am a Sherlock Holmes enthusiast, I find very fascinating the idea of having the detective investigating the infamous Ripper murders. It is an idea that never occurred to Doyle or, at least, he never materialised on paper. The first Holmes adventure, A Study in Scarlet, came out in 1887, just one year before the murders. This is an impeccably atmospheric depiction of Victorian London with a top-notch cast of the sort you will hardly see in a film today, and the sequence of events is so suspenseful that keeps you engaged until the very end.But you mustn't take the conspiracy theory seriously, because it is totally ludicrous. I have never read the Stephen Knight book from which this film borrows the idea of the Royal family and the Freemasons' association with the mysterious killer or killers. But although it sounds fascinating and there must be people who truly believe it, when you think a little about it you realise its absurdity. The heir to the throne falling for a commoner and marrying her in secret? A so high and mighty a person as a Victorian royal could be, knowing that if the affair ever came to the public knowledge the Monarchy would be ruined? He might seduce her, (after all, many kings in the past used to have mistresses and they fathered bastards), but never get mixed-up with the girl to the point of marrying her. That is totally preposterous. And then, how the conspirators did know whom the girl had revealed her secret to? She moved among the East End crowds and could have told just anyone. How could the murderers know which persons in particular she had been talking to so they could silence them forever? Nevertheless, despite all of these questions that make the famous conspiracy theory totally implausible, if we watch the film just as the piece of entertainment it is, with a fascinating blend of fiction with real-life characters of the Ripper's time (Sir Charles Warren, Robert Lees, Mary Kelly and the Prime Minister Lord Salisbury), this is an excellent suspense film to kill a couple of hours on a Saturday night.

What more could you ask for in a film: Christopher Plummer, James Mason, Anthony Quayle, John Gielgud, Frank Finlay, Donald Sutherland, and Geneviève Bujold, and a great supporting cast? That's two Oscar winners and four nominees; a great cast!The film features warfare between the classes, clashing political programs, and widespread confusion abut sex and insanity. It touches on Freemasons and parapsychology, too. Plummer is excellent as Holmes, and Sutherland is really creepy as a medium.A thrilling tale of murder and politics.

When vicious murders begin occurring in the equivalent of London's red light district, who do concerned citizens turn to? Why Sherlock Holmes, of course! While the fictional detective wasn't actually around during London's gaslight era when these foggily lit murders took place, it makes fictional sense that eventually somebody would pit the notoriously named Jack the Ripper against London's most well loved detective prior to Miss Marple. If it couldn't be Basil Rathbone, then some other famous British thespian had to take over. In this case, it is Christopher Plummer, as far away from the Edelweiss of "The Sound of Music's" Salzburg as he could get.Plummer gives (in this reviewer's opinion), his best performance as the pipe smoking and argyle cap wearing detective. While I agree he is one of Britain's greatest gifts to the theatre and cinema, I often took pause with his slow moving speech and frequent stalls in reciting his lines. That is totally missing here, and he gives a relaxed and often humorous performance that isn't as hyper as Rathbone's but just as riveting. Just as outstanding is James Mason, taking over Nigel Bruce's role as Dr. Watson. While slightly bumbling, he isn't as eccentric as Bruce was, and as a result, is taken more seriously. In a nod to Mary Gordon (Mrs. Hudson in the Rathbone/Bruce films), the brief appearance of Holmes' landlady is hysterically amusing because of the bit actresses' resemblance to the wonderful Ms. Gordon.As the storyline unfolds, it is obvious that the writers are developing something more sinister than just the whims of a madman killing prostitutes. It is almost devilish in its innuendos as clues are dropped that give enough information to the viewers to guess what is going on, yet keep them intrigued as well. In smaller roles, Donald Sutherland, Anthony Quayle and Frank Finlay shine, while brief appearances by "Webster's" Susan Clark (whatever happened to her????) and Genevieve Bujold are extremely haunting.Why this film was overlooked at awards time is beyond me, especially for Plummer, Mason and its moody photography. Everything about this film is exquisite and with recent, more youthful looks at Holmes and Watson, this entry in the popular series is worth re-discovering.