... me, i imagine, not the movie. the modern movie viewer obviously likes this "edgy, action-packed, gratuitously violent" junk because it permeates the screen these days. i knew i was in trouble after five minutes in my seat watching the previews of soon-to-be-released movies -- all pubescent shoot-em-up, blow-em-apart nonsense. i might have given it three stars except for the obvious set up for the sequel "Sherlock Holmes Two: Moriarty Teaches Calculus Badly."

ugh.

let's see ... too loud, too exaggerated, too violent, too edgy, too much.

i'm tired of looking at actors standing in front of computer generated screens. at some point, maybe modern audiences will stop saying "oooh aah," and look for some artistry.

one could hardly call this a

**spoiler alert**

as the next remake of "Bambi" will, no doubt, contain the obligatory checklist of "action-packed adventure" scenes, but i'm really tired of fight clubs, explosions, burning bodies, slow motion mutilation of human faces, etc.

if they can actually sit through it, Arthur Conan Doyle fans will enjoy the variety of allusions to his work. i had fun picking out lines and, during the too infrequent scenes where people were actually trying to talk to one another, noting traces of character in the characters. at times there was a glimmer of rapport between Holmes and Watson (Irene Adler was weak, the rest of the cast cardboard cutouts). unfortunately, i suspect Arthur Conan Doyle fans will be spending most of their time cringing.

please, do yourself a favor, if you really have an interest in the Holmes stories and, if you haven't done so already, read "a study in scarlet" and "the adventures of Sherlock Holmes." then go rent a few of the Granada television adaptations with Jeremy Brett and David Burke. you will enjoy some first-rate detective stories; well-written, well-adapted, and well-acted. i know that's where i'm headed right now to get that nauseating taste out of my mouth from bad popcorn and a bad movie.