With the help of a mysterious pill that enables the user to access 100 percent of his brain abilities, a struggling writer becomes a financial wizard, but it also puts him in a new world with lots of dangers.
The bomb-maker Claude Ravache is inspired by a real anarchist, François Claudius Koenigstein Ravachol, who was active until his execution in 1892. See more »
When Watson first goes to Holmes' flat, Mrs Hudson hints that she is concerned at Holmes' mental state but suggests a stay in a "sanatorium". This would instead imply he needed rest and treatment for tuberculosis, which is what was provided at a sanatorium. The word was only later, and especially in the USA rather than England, also used to describe a hospital for those with a mental illness. See more »
Dr. John Watson:
The year was 1891. Storm clouds were brewing over Europe. France and Germany were at each other's throats, the result of a series of bombings. Some said it was the Nationalists. Others, the anarchists. But as usual, my friend Sherlock Holmes, had a different theory entirely.
See more »
The Warner Bros/Village Roadshow/Silver Pictures logos, opening title, closing title and part of the closing credits appear in the pages of Dr. Watson's manuscript, with the latter two accompanied by illustrations of scenes from the film. See more »
One more proof that IMDBs voting system is utterly useless...
Having seen a few trailers for GoS, I actually wrote it off. Ritchie's first Holmes movie was okay, but not great. Still, I like his style plus i like Downey Jr., Law and Rapace. So, when I suddenly read many positive reviews from fellow moviegoers on IMDb I made a grave error: I took them for real. And bought the DVD. I should have known, that reviewers, that rave for one movie (but have, according to their history, never seen another) are most likely plants: pr-agencies, marketing- and one-review-industrial-accounts.
I paid dearly.
What's good about this movie? The direction is solid - even though it is the fourth (or fifth?) remake of "Lock, stock...". I'd wish that Ritchie would eventually broaden his visual and narrative style. Acting is okay. Visuals are okay.
So - what's wrong? Pretty much everything else. But the main problem is: This movie has no plot, no script no story. The characterizations - if any - are ludicrous. The story arc is incoherent. Worst of all: It is plain boring. I could have switched off anywhere in the movie and would not have missed a thing. Alas: the dog fell asleep on the remote.
It's a shame, that by now almost every new movie get's a terrific rating on IMDb instantly. Sure: it's an Amazon company and Amazon want's to sell. But is it really necessary to hype such trash? Can't we keep at least some decency? Myself, I have started to regard a good rating on IMDb more as a threat rather than a recommendation...
4 of 5 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?