Watson who is never seen left Baker Street when he married. Who did he marry? Holmes has lived past WW1 and WW2. The housekeeper’s son (Milo Parker of ‘The Durrells’) resents his bitch mother. Holmes is a bit of a sexist. Holmes is 93 or so. Holmes was in Japan for some reason. Humourless people talk. This was not a gratifying surprise. Holmes is going senile and has belligerence.
This doesn’t tantalise the imagination. The witless housekeeper who exists for no discernable purpose whines. This was not evocative and is written with staggering laziness. There are flashbacks with a glass harmonica and an angry, bitter, resentful, controlling husband who is fundamentally antagonistic. Holmes deliberately cultivated coolness and distance and this was a bad thing.
There are moral tendencies. The boring housekeeper annoys. This wasn't intensely engaging. It has grim dentation, no elegant mystery and is not a wacky curio. There is no melodramatic pathos and it is not compelling and frees itself from the demands of realism and probability. Mycroft is dead. Holmes never read Watson’s stories which he dismisses as penny dreadfuls. Watson died estranged from Holmes and TPTB spit on their friendship. Did Mark Gatiss write this crap?
This leaves one grievously disappointed. The housekeeper is pretentious. Holmes has rhetorical bluster. Holmes goes to a movie about himself. This is more dead than a coffin’s contents. This was utter tedium that is not even vaguely intriguing. Holmes thinks of a dead irritating blonde chippie. He shoots up or something. The utterly hateful housekeeper is dim-witted. This was ineptitude with too much talking.
“Very very wrong.”
“Is it food?”
“A person of dangerous beliefs.”
“With the hat and the pipe.”
“Question my truth.”
“Cloak his cowardice in a flag of sacrifice.”
“No particular fondness.”
“Done something terribly wrong.”
“Loiter you did.”
“John didn’t know me at all.”
This lacks gravity and any sense of impending threat. Mitch wears hideous yellow shorts on a beach; cue a terror attack that bears a resemblance to a real life attack. Mitch walks off being shot and has emotional injury and goes section 8 due to his big busted girlfriend dying. People get shot and its not elemental chaos just facile; Mitch over-obsesses and grows a comedy beard due to his galpal getting shot in her plastic chest.
This portentousness is based on a Vince Flynn novel; this is overplotted unnecessary incoherence with no emotional response. The ever-compelling Keaton is the grizzled mentor with no ethical concerns. David Suchet is in this. Who is the baddie and why should I care? Mitch is recruited by the CIA despite being an obvious mental case. He goes through bizarre training and there is mumbling and violence. At one point he is attacked by 2 dogs. I’m not sure what is happening or why.
The bad guy (Kitsch) wants potentially ruinous things to happen. This does not leave you engaged. Why did the maddeningly irresponsible idiot (Lathan) hire Mitch? This was not direct and profound. Keaton does quiet rage and the baddie doesn’t seem bright enough to concoct the movie’s machinations. There is a bad VFX bomb blast.
The baddie has vicious resentment and this movie is infuriating and inherently maddening. Nobody has ambition, competence or dedication. There is a sequel set up. This is not epochal. People have hearts full of wickedness and deep mutual loathing. Keaton out-badasses O’Brien by biting off the bad guy’s ear, chewing on it and spitting it in his face.
“Spare me your junior-year abroad moral opinion, would you, Rapp?”
“Where’s the new me?”