Change Your Image
tipplerunkus
Bewertungen
The Terminal (2004)
Spielberg's comic masterpiece.
Steven Spielberg has proven himself to be equally adept at at number of different genres, but comedy has been the one genre wherein success eluded him - "1941", his one flat-out comedy, was also his one complete artistic failure. "Hook" was a largely comic fantasy, but was neither entirely a comedy nor entirely successful (though it is a better film than some of it's most vocal detractors have implied). "Catch Me If You Can" was, before now, the closest Steven had come to comic success - but that excellent film is really as much drama as comedy.
While "The Terminal" has been marketed as a comedy-drama, this really is a true comedy, with some dramatic elements. Unfortunately, our society has been dumbed down to the point where people think comedy means "Austin Powers". Here, Spielberg had succeeded completely at creating another classic, and Tom Hanks creates the most endearing character he has played since "Forrest Gump". "The Terminal" is hilarious, touching, fast-moving and entertaining, and the biggest stretch Spielberg has faced since "Schindler's List". It is one of his most character driven works to date.
Sadly, we have reached an appalling mentality among many filmgoers, especially those who congregate on the internet, wherin any upbeat movie that makes you feel good is trashed, regardless of quality. Anyone of even moderate intelligence realizes that there is room for many types films, and a truly well-made "feel good" movie which is not shamelessly manipulative or contrived can be a great thing, which is exactly what "The Terminal" is, along with being the best film of the summer.
13 Going on 30 (2004)
Cute - but still a rip-off.
Watching "13 Going on 30", it's hard not mental view a different movie at the same time. That movie is, of course, Penny Marshall's 1988 hit "Big", which made a star out of Tom Hanks, bringing him his first Academy Award nomination. The new Jennifer Garner vehicle is clearly a remake of the Hanks vehicle with the genders reversed - and that's okay, since "Big" was really just a variation on an old theme to begin with. But "Big" transcended the genre with an intelligent, soulful script, and by allowing Hanks character to develop fully.
"13 Going on 30" is not a classic the way "Big" was. Jennifer Garner displays again that she has as much charisma and star prescence as any actress in Hollywood. She's already proven she can kick butt as well as an y Hollywood action star, now she proves can do light romantic comedy as well as Julia Roberts, Sandra Bullock or anyone else. There is no limit to how far she may go. Sadly, the script does not give her the opportunity to shine the way Hanks did in "Big". While she succeeds admirable at making us believe she is a 13-year old girl in a woman's body, we never see or feel what's going on inside as much as we would like. In "Big", the character grew and evolved - a kid in an adult's world, learning to become an adult so well he almost forgets he's a kid. In "13 Going on 30", she's just a kid. Again, this is not Garner's fault - she does the best she can with an adequate but uninspired (and woefully predictable) script which overplays using '80s music and hairstyles as a punchline.
WHat depth the film does have is provided by the relationship between Graner and Mark Ruffalo, who plays the childhood pal who had an unreciprocated crush on her. There is genuine warmth and sweetness between the characters, and Ruffalo really manages to shine in a fairly simplistic role.
Overall, "13 Going on 30" is worth a look for Garner fans, and for anyone seeking a pleasant (if not really satisfying) diversion. But it you want to see a really good movie on the same thing, "Big" is still miles ahead.
**1/2 out of ****
Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003)
A masterpiece of adventure filmmaking.
While Peter Weir's adaptation of Patrick O'Bian's superb novels strays from the source material, combining multiple novels into one, along with some material of it's own invention, it brillaintly captures the spirit of the books. Let's remember that there are 17 Aubrey/Maturin novels - Filming al of them ala Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" would have been absurdly impractical, if not downright impossible. I believe this film gives you a better sense of the overall series than simply doing a straightoforward adaptation of "Master and Commander" (the first novel) would have, and simply doing a completely straightfoward adaptation of "The Far Side of the World" (the tenth novel) may have been too confusing to audiences.
Crowe and Bettany are excellent in their respective roles. Crowe IS the Captain Jack Aubrey of O'Brian's novels come to life, in every respect. Bettany may not look like O'Brian's description of Stephen Maturin, but I can't imagine another actor capturing the soul of the character so well.
Weir's direction is flawless - who knew we was as good with action as with characters?
Patrick O'Brian wrote some of the greatest adventure novels ever put on paper, and Peter Weir turned them into one of the greatest adventure movies ever put on film.
From Justin to Kelly (2003)
I don't want to live anymore.
And I only watched the first 25 minutes. It is inconcievable to me that anyone could make a film this hopelessly, endlessly, mind-meltingly bad. This is not a bad movie - it's a war crime. Somehow the producers actually managed to cast supporting players bad enough to make Kelly Clarkson and even the talent free Justin Guarini seem good by comparsion.
The alleged "choreography" ammounts to nothing more than frantic flailing of limbs. Accents come and go with wild abandon. The songs are, to put it charitably, forgettable. I'm surprised "American Idol" judge Randy Jackson isn't credited as a writer, because the dialouge is that witless and badly phrased.
This is the worst thing humanity has ever done.
The Ladykillers (2004)
Not the Coens at their best . . . But still hilarious.
Even a lesser Coen comedy is infinitely superior to most of the other dreck that passes for comedy these days. Like last year's "Intolerable Cruelty", "The Ladykillers" may not be perfect, but it's awfully funny.
In fact, this film has moments that rank up their with the funniest the Coens have ever done. In some respects, it felt to me like a cross between "O Brother, Where ArtThou?" and "The Big Lebowski". Unfortuantely, it falls victim to some the same excess that made "Lebowski" my personal least favorite Coen film - but at least the plot is less meadering and more focused.
Tom Hanks plays a character unlike anything he has done before. The supporting cats is adequate, though I found myself wishing some previous COen regulars like John Goodman, Steve Buscemi, John Turturoo, etc, and had played some of those roles - much like I wished Goodman had played the role of Gus Petch in "Intolerable Cruelty." The standout supporting performance comes from Irma P. Hall, who can hold her own with Hanks in a way few top Hollywood stars can.
For Coen fans, this is a must-see, even if it's not going to alter your top five favorites. For non-fans, this won't convert you. It has a MUCH darker edge than "O Brother", and is just as eccentric.
Second Sight (1989)
Bad beyond all reason.
A comedically talented cast and the writer of "Dead Poet's Society" somehow combine to make a startlingly unfunny, shockingly amateurish waste of time. There is really very little else to say, except that this problem belongs on the IMDB's bottom 100 list.
John Silver's Return to Treasure Island (1986)
A buried treasure.
Admittedly, it's been a long time since I saw this, and no doubt my memories are a bit rose-colored, but I loved this mini-series. The idea of doing a sequel to one of the all-time classic adventures stories was outrageous, but the filmmaker's treated the material with respect and created something that actually added to the original material. And Brian Blessed, in my opinion, will always be the definitive Long John Silver. This one should be on DVD.
The Wicker Man (1973)
It's anazing how gullible audiences can be.
The fact that "The Wicker Man" has achieved a cult following among people who actually think it's a good film is nothing short of astounding, and is a powerful testament to the human capacity for self-delusion.
"The Wicker Man" is nothing more than Z-Grade "Mystery Science Theatre 3000" fare, with lots of nudity thrown in for good measure.
The Last Samurai (2003)
Dances with Samurai
Few films in recent memory have inspired as much ambivalence from me as Edward Zwick's action epic `The Last Samurai'. Zwick has made his best film since 1989's `Glory', a truly gripping and visually stunning effort. But `The Last Samurai' is frequently undermined by it's extreme similarity to Kevin Costner's `Dances with Wolves'. In fact, the mid-section of `Samurai' could be considered a virtual remake. Admittedly, I am perhaps overly sensitive to this - `Dances with Wolves' is one of the films that most influenced my views on film, and will therefore always stand out in my mind. But to anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Costner's film,. the similarities will be distracting (the decision to have the Tom Cruise character actually keep a journal which is used as the films voice over narration ranks among the worst ideas in movie history).
The third act of `The Last Samurai' corrects that problem. While at this point the film actually shifts into something more akin to Mel Gibson's `Braveheart', it is far less blatantly so, and at this point Zwick's movie takes off and assumes a life of it's own, with dazzling action scenes and strong performances from Tom Cruise and Ken Watanabe. In fact, the film plays so well at this point that it's tempting to completely overlook it's earlier missteps, which speaks very highly of Zwick's abilities as a director (as well as the abilities of two-timeOscar winning cinematographer John Toll. who will probably win his third statue for this one)..
Other than it's derivative nature, the biggest flaw to `The Last Samurai' is that it never clearly demonstrates what exactly the samurai are fighting against. Whether or not you agree with `Dances with Wolves' take on western expansion, you have to admit that IN THE FILM, the Sioux are clearing being mistreated, and their plight is made clear. In `Samurai', we are told that the Japanese Emperor is listening to advisor who `act in their own interests', and that a proposed treaty between Japan and America is `not in the best interest of the Japanese people.' And yet, we never really see or hear exactly why this is true.
In the end, `The Last Samurai' is really a dressed-up action movie, and as such, it's one of the best we've had all year. If you are able to get past the `been there, done that' feel of the mid-section, there is much to enjoy, and despite my reservations I give the film a strong recommendation.
Dick Tracy (1990)
Fun, stylistically innovative, but sluggish and indulgent.
Warren Beatty's "Dick Tracy" is a stylistic triumph. Certainly, no one has ever quite so literally put a comic strip on screen. Vttorio Storaro's cinematography combines with strong costume and make up design for a look mesmerizes you at the same time it's distancing you from the characters.
The fact the characters are cardboard cutouts with little personality (aside from the over-the-top cartoon villains) doesn't help you warm up to them, either. However, Beatty shouldn't really be criticized for this - after all, he's merely being true to the source material. A more interesting or charismatic Dick Tracy wouldn't really be Dick tracy, would he?
The film's prinicpal weaknesses are it's somewhat sluggish pacing, and the over indulgence of Madonna's Breathless Mahoney character. The two elements go hand in hand: Countless musical montages showcasing Madonna's mediocre vocals (this was before "Evita" turned her into an actual singing talent) to Stephen Sondheim's catchy songs work at times (particularly the arrest montage to "Sooner or Later"), but at other times slow down the action to the point of severe annoyance. Madonna's performance is by far the weakest in the film: While Beatty, Pacino and the others embody their characters perfectly, Madonna is never anything but Madonna, and she's never quite as sexy or appealing as she or the movie seem to think. It's hard not to imagine what this movie might have been with the in-her-prime Michelle Pfieffer crooning Breathless' torch songs.
However, it should noted that these faults keep "Dick Tracy" from being a great movie, but certainly don't stop it from being a good one. Beatty's direction is impressive, for the most part, and he certainly created the feel he was going for. He also assembled one of the most impressive casts ever to grace a comic book film. Most of the actors seem to be having fun, and most of the time, the viewer will, too. But the sluggish pacing, lack of wit (except for a few lines from Pacino which feel like ad libs) and the distracting prescence of Madonna keep it from equalling the very best films of the comic book genre. Beatty deserves an A for effort.
Jason X (2001)
Hopelessly, hilariously bad.
"Jason X" is one of the most ridiculously, delightfully dreadful films to come out of Hollywood in the past five or more years. There is not a single moment in this film would could possibly be seen as remotely scary to even a 7 year old. The acting and writing are beneath contempt. And this film features some of the lamest, most contrived excuses ever to show topless women on screen.
However, if you're in the mood to laugh at a bad movie, "Jason X" delivers some serious entertainment value.
The Bourne Identity (2002)
Possible the worst book adaption of all time - but not a bad little thriller if taken on it's own terms.
I don't think I have ever felt more conflicted about a movie than I did about this one. Tony Gilroy's script absolutely mutilates the source material, Robert Ludlum's gripping, intricately woven novel. The simplified, dumbed-down version of the story seen here is down right painful to those who know the real story. The change to the central premise of Jason Bourne's identity is roughly equivalent to remaking "Citizen Kane" and saying "Rosebud is . . . a flower . . . or something" (okay, the book isn't as good as "Citizen kane", but it's the best analogy I can think of).
That said, had I seen this film without ever having read the book (or seen the Emmy nominated mini series, which may be a little hokey put retains far more of the intelligence of the plot), I have no doubt I would have quite liked this film. It's a good little thriller. Matt Damon, one of the most talented of the current crop of overexposed young actors, surprises again by making a credible action hero, as does director Doug Liman (who would have thought the "Swingers" guy could do action/suspence?).
If you aren't familiar with the real story, see this movie first, and you'll enjoy it. If you have seen this movie but not read the book, read it and you'll understand what we Ludlum fans are complaining about.
The Bourne Identity (1988)
More faithful to the book than the Matt Damon version.
Since the release of the 2003 theatrical version starring Matt Damon, this mini series version of "The Bourne Identity" has been much maligned, primarily by people who have never seen it. While it is a little dumbed down from Ludlum's book, and has some soap opera elements inherent to being a Richard Chamberlain mini series, it's also infinitely more faithful to the book than the Damon version, and considerably less dumbed down. If you want to see some great action scenes, check out the movie. If you want a good story, try the mini series (or even better, read the book).
Armageddon (1998)
A cancer on the backside of American cinema.
Hollywood has never produced a worse film than "Armageddon", and for the sake of civilization as we know it, we can only pray they never do.
NOTHING about this mind-numbing piece of unwatchable dreck even approximates being tolerable. The acting is a career low for everyone involved, the script is beneath contempt, and Michael Bay's direction is the cinematic equivalent of a war crime.
Quite simply, the production, release and success of this movie ranks as one of the darkest hours in the history of mankind. People need to be educated on how a movie this bad was made, in order to ensure that such a thing NEVER happens again. The legacy of humanity depends on it.
Leonard Part 6 (1987)
Merciful God in heaven above!!!!!!!
Bill Cosby must have lost some kind of bet with Satan to end up making a film as mind-meltingly dreadful as "Leonard Part 6". A stupefyingly unfunny, self-indulgent mess of a film that will have you wanting to tare your skin off with your fingernails just so you'll have something else to do.
Hollywood Homicide (2003)
I came, I saw, I bored.
Remember when Harrison Ford was the biggest star in Hollywood because he made great movies? Those days are feeling like a more and more distant memory.
While "Hollywood Homicide" is by no means terrible, it is a routine and surprisingly boring buddy cop movie. It's a comedy that's not particularly funny, and an action movie that's not especially exciting. An overabundance of subplots cannot mask the weakest of the central storyline.
Ford at least appears to be enjoying himself more than is his last few projects, and he is able to carry the film most of the time. Hartnett is adequate, but he and Ford aren't exactly Newman and Redford as far as chemistry is concerned.
All in all, "Hollywood Homicide" is a reasonably amusing diversion, but just barely. Take out Ford, and it's not even that.
The Wicker Man (1973)
It's anazing how gullible audiences can be.
The fact that "The Wicker Man" has achieved a cult following among people who actually think it's a good film is nothing short of astounding, and is a powerful testament to the human capacity for self-delusion.
"The Wicker Man" is nothing more than Z-Grade "Mystery Science Theatre 3000" fare, with lots of nudity thrown in for good measure.
Hitler: The Rise of Evil (2003)
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.
"Hitler: The Rise of Evil" was shrouded in controversy before it ever aired, and that controversy may obscure the accomplishment of the film.
Those who criticzed the film, which they hadn't seen, did so with good intentions, based on the misguided thought that it would be overly sympathetic to Hitler. However, they misunderstood the point: to humanize the evil Hitler is not sympathize with him. It is far more disturbing to realize that the unspeakable acts committed by one of history's greatest villains were committed by a human being. A sick, diseased maniac, to be sure, but a human being nonetheless. It is necessary to know the story of how Hitler was able to come to power to prevent it from happening again.
"Rise of Evil" is highlighted by a brilliant, career best performance from Robert Carlyle, who makes Hitler a human being without ever redeeming him in any way. Carlyle flawlessly captures the look and mannerisms of the Nazi leader, while never letting the impersonation become cartoonish or distance us (something Anthony Hopkins was not quite able to accomplish when he portrayed Hitler in "The Bunker", another very good made-for-television film). While were are repulsed by Hitler's depravity and virulent ant-Semitism, Carlyle gives him a certain magnetism and power the real Adolf Hitler must have possesed. After all, while else would a nation have followed him?
Of the various subplots, by far the most compelling features Matthew Modine as reporter Fritz Gehrlich, who makes it his life's work to draw attention to the reality of of Hitler and Nazism. While Modine's performance is a little stilted in part 1, by part 2 he seems to have settled in, the character gives us a real-life hero in a film full of villains. Peter Stormare and Liev Schrieber also give strong support.
Part 1 of this two-part mini series suffered a little bit from being overly choppy, including a look at Hitler's childhood which lasts only the duration of the opening credits. And in part 2, sections detailing Hitler's relationship's with his niece, and his mistress Eva Braun, are less successful than the central plot, but do serve to give us further insight into his mental and emotional state.
Ultimately, no film about Hitler can make us understand him. The average person is, thankfully, incapable of ever understanding a man who would try to exterminate an entire race of people. "Hitler: The Rise of Evil" tries less to make us understand Hitler, and more to make us understand how he came to be power. It is an important story that must be told, and it is impossible to believe anyone who has seen the film would accuse it of having anything but the best of intentions, and the capability of doing anything but good.
9 out of 10. *** 1/2
The Matrix Reloaded (2003)
The longest trailer ever produced.
"The Matrix Reloaded" is entertaining, but not truly satisfying. While the action is as spectacular as ever, the second film is decidedly lacking in story. In fact, it feels as if this could have (and probably should have) been told in 40 minutes or less, as the first part of "The Matrix Revolutions." This really plays more like a trailer for that film than it does an individual film in it's own right.
The said, "Reloaded" is exciting and fun. It is well worth seeing. It's only a pity that the Wachowski's did not make a sequel that lived up to the original, or stood on it's own. On a scale of sequels, this is not "The Empire Strikes Back" or "The Two Towers." In fact, it's not even quite "Attack of the Clones." The best possible comparison would be "Back to the Future Part II."
The Blair Witch Project (1999)
An interesting failure.
"The Blair Witch Project" was an interesting idea, and it's easy to admire the ingenuity of the filmmakers and their little experiment.
Sadly, the film is ALMOST as scary as a particularly good segment on "The Simpson's Treehouse of Horror", and offers practically no entertainment value. The improvised dialogue is witless and unimaginative, and the shaky hand-held camera work would give Michael Bay motion sickness. The performances are inconsistent, thought Heather Donahue's believable work is the highlight of the film.
Overall, I cannot stress clearly enough that "The Blair Witch Project" is just not scary. At all. In any way, shape or form. It is, unfortunately, an excercise in sheer boredom.
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
One of the most perfect entertainment films ever made.
"Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" has everything you could possibly want in an entertainment film, and does every bit of it to perfections. Action, humor, romance, heart - every element is flawless. It is impossible to imagine a more enjoyable cinematic experience.
Harrison Ford's performance has an effortless level of wit and charm, and the relationship between Indy and his father adds a new and welcome dimension to the character. Sean Connery plays one of the most unique roles of his career - a stuffy, bookish and vaugely wimpy professor who is quite the opposite of the suave James Bond or the hard as nails Marko Ramius. Yet his distinct sense of dignity is preserved, and he and Ford have Redford and Newman quality chemistry.
The supporting cast contributes a great deal, particularly returning "Raiders" sidekicks Denholm Elliott and John Rhys-Davies. Underrated character actor Michael Byrne also does a nice turn as a Nazi commander, while Alison Doody makes for quite possibly Indy's most appealing and intriguing love interest. While Julian Glover's Walter Donovan doesn't have the prescence of previous Jones villains, he is nonetheless a interesting character, and Glover gives a capable performance.
The script (by Jefferey Boam, with uncredited but unmistakable work by acclaimed playwriter and Oscar winning screenwriter Tom Stoppard) is extremely witty, but never in a self conscious or smirky William Goldman sort of way, and delves deeper into the character of Indiana Jones than the previous two films.
John Williams score ranks among the best and most fully realized ever for a sequel. Rather than merely recycling the same themes, Williams created sensitive, evocative and downright fun music, complementing with occasional snatched of his own classic "Raiders March."
Finally, Steven Spielberg's direction is at it's most imaginative and assured. The action sequences are eye-popping, and the character interaction is equally entertaining.
There is no legitimate criticism to be made of "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade." It is the highest standard to which escapist entertainment can aspire.
King Solomon's Mines (1985)
Awful but unintentionally hilarious "Indiana Jones" rip-off.
Another review appearing on this site stated that it "just isn't possible that 'King Solomon's Mines' rips-off ' 'Indiana Jones' - the book was written first and is considered a classic." Yes, the book was written first, and is considered a pop literature classic - but this dreadful film bares only the most superficial resemblance to the book, and is quite clearly a rip-off of "Raiders". I personally lost count at 20 direct references IN THE FIRST TEN MINUTES!!!!!
I am a huge "Indiana Jones" fan, and enjoy films like "The Mummy" which, while not coming close to true "Indy" quality, have fun with the same conventions. But "King Solomon's Mines" is horrible. The acting, writing, direction and production values are bottom of the barrels (which is to be expected for this obviously low budget film).
That being said, there is a definite entertainment value to the unintentional laugh out loud comedy.
Conspiracy (2001)
Possibly the best film ever made for television.
"Conspiracy" is, from beginning to end, a superb, flawless work or artistic and historical brilliance. Had it been made for theatrical release, it would have been a legitimate contender as best film of 2001.
Kenneth Branagh, Stanley Tucci and Colin Firth all give what could well be career best performances (especially impressive from Branagh, who has given us some of the cinema's all time greatest interpretations of Shakespeare to make up for drek like "Wild Wild West"), as does the rest of the cast.
"Conspiracy" is a must see for anyone who cares about World War II, the holocaust, or great acting. It deserves to be in the IMDB's top 250.
Le cinquième élément (1997)
I want to hurt this movie.
"The Fifth Element" is bad beyond all possible levels of badness. The acting is atrocious, the writing is so inane it seems to have come from the mind of a dim-witted nine year old, and the visuals are merely stolen from "Blade Runner" and many other, better films. This would be an awful movie even without Chris Tucker in it. Throw him into the mix, and it becomes unwatchable.
Young Sherlock Holmes (1985)
Sherlock Holmes and the Temple of Doom
"Young Sherlock Holmes" is an entertaining, smart and literary thriller that makes a few unfortunate choices, leading to an uneven tone. Still, what works easily wins over what doesn't, and makes for not one one of the better Holmes' pastiches, but one of the better Indiana Jones wannabes.
The early section of the film is a fanciful, briskly entertaining imaganing of the meeting of a young Holmes and Watson in a British prep school. While this clearly contradicts the account in Doyle's "A Study in Scarlet", crawls at the begining and end of the film apologize for this, and Levinson, Columbus and Spielberg clearly never try to pass it of as anything but a "what if." Columbus' writing here is clever, witty and true to the characters. Nicholas Rowe not only has the hawk-like features of a young Holmes, he captures the essence of the character. It is easy to see how the events of Colmumbus story lead the emotional, impetuous young Holmes to become the rational, emotionally reserved Holmes we know. Alan Cox's Watson, as is typical of Hollywood Holmes adaptions, is played as something of a buffoon, but nearly to the absurd extreme of Nigel Bruce in the Basil Rathbone films. Cox adds nice support.
The second half of the film leads in something of an odd direction, becoming an intense action thriller that is at times jaw-droppingly similar to Spielberg's own "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom." Those that complain the mystery itself is unlinke Doyle's work must only be familiar with the later short stories. In fact, it is a brillaint recreation of the style of his early novels, such as "A Study in Scarlet" and "The Sign of Four", where exotic foreign conspiracies, revenge, and dangerous cult groups were the order of the day. To be sure, the action is more Indiana Jones than it is Holmes, but that in and of itself is not a bad thing. It is jarring for what begins as a light story of two schoolboys to become so dark and violent, however.
The real misstep in "Young Sherlock Holmes" is in the two cult temple human sacrfice sequences, which are so blatantly reminiscent of "Temple of Doom" as to make a viewer feel he has gotten lost and wandered into the wrong film. They follow exactly the same pattern: Two heroes and a love interest stumble across and witness a human sacrifice. Then, after a further series of adventurs, the love interest is made the subject of a second sacrifice, and the heroes must rescue her and destory the temple. Someone at Amblin should have steered this in a slightly different direction. The cult and the action scenes are not a problem. The human sacrifice and temple scenes are.
One last observation: the ending establishing Anthony Higgin's Rathe as the once and future Professor Moriarty is a great stinger. But Rathe was a fencing master (and, in his alter ego of Eh Tar, a vicious killer and pseudo-Satanic High Priest), and Moriarty was a mathematical genius. It is a stretch to think his mathematical abilites were attainied later in life. Perhaps Colmumbus should have made Rathe an intstructor of fencing AND math.
Overall, the mix works, and "Young Sherlock Holmes" is an extremely entertaining film which unfortunately never found it's audience. Be prepared to suspend a little disbelief and you'll have a great time.