Harockerce What a beautiful movie!

Softwing Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

Curapedi I cannot think of one single thing that I would change about this film. The acting is incomparable, the directing deft, and the writing poignantly brilliant.

ActuallyGlimmer The best films of this genre always show a path and provide a takeaway for being a better person.

Steven Torrey Drawn to its logical conclusion that Dr. Watson (played by Ben Kingsley)created the fictitious Sherlock Holmes, hired a buffoon, drunk, womanizing wastrel (Reginald Kincaid played by Michael Caine)to play the role. Watson tires of his character upstaging him--Watson, who is really the sleuth, the detective, the brain, and wishes to kill off this character he created. (Much like Conan Doyle tired of his fictional Sherlock Holmes who also upstaged him and killed him off with the story "The Adventure of the Final Problem" to have Holmes die in the Northern Swiss Alps at the Reichenbach Falls.) Back to the movie. Watson tells the editor of the Strand Magazine, which serializes the Holmes' stories, and the editor will have none of it. The Sherlock Holmes stories are a financial bonanza to the magazine. Worse news: the police or Scotland Yard's Inspector Lestrade (played by Jeffrey Jones) want none other than Sherlock Holmes to solve cases, no matter how diligent and intelligent Dr. Watson is.So Kincaid/Holmes must be found so the Strand can continue to make money as well as Dr. Watson. What ensues is unending hilarity, a hilarity matched only by Inspector Clouseau.Puns aplenty abound. Slight site gags slip soundlessly. And to top it off, there are all the elements of suspense, shock, deus ex machine to please the most dedicated deist, mystery, Holmes fencing with Moriarty (played by Paul Freeman), and in the end the comeuppance of evil and evildoers to please that most Eminent Victorian who would surely say: "We are indeed amused!"

ClioCJS Carolyn's thoughts: This was pretty funny, and an interesting twist on the Sherlock Holmes franchise. Instead of Holmes being the brilliant detective, Watson is the detective and just uses Holmes as a cover. It was funny throughout, and it kept us sufficiently entertained.Clint's thoughts: I was definitely reminded of the recent Seth Rogan version of The Green Hornet: A "hero" who is pretty much useless, with a sidekick who does all the work, all the while during which the "hero" comically takes all the glory from the "sidekick", who is ignored and never given credit.That's basically the same formula here... But with MUCH better actors!It was a total win. It had all the comedic feel of some of the recent Sherlock Holmes films, yet it was nothing like them at all. Funny adventures indeed... These guys could have done a series. It would have basically been the British Moonlighting. Would have been awesome.

MartinHafer Considering that the Sherlock Holmes character has appeared in more movies than any other, it's not surprising that they would try making several parodies of the famous detective. "Without a Clue" has a very interesting premise--that it's Watson who is the genius and Holmes is just a boob playing in an elaborate ruse. It seems that the Holmes stories that Watson writes for 'The Strand Magazine' really are about him and his detective prowess. There really is no Holmes--just an actor (Michael Caine) that the Doctor (Ben Kingsley) has hired to play the part. The problem is that the actor is a complete imbecile, a womanizer and a drunk and Watson has had enough of this. So Watson has finally decided to expose the truth....but no one seems to care or believe him. Finally, out of desperation, Watson rehires the actor and they embark on a case that takes them on the trail of the dreaded Moriarty.The acting is pretty good here (I especially liked Kingsley) and the story has many clever touches. Unfortunately, the humor is sometimes a bit too broad and they make Holmes such an obvious idiot that I can't believe anyone would be taken in by him. Perhaps a bit more subtlety would have made a better film. Also, the ending just seemed to go on and on and on. Clearly the film could have used a bnit of editing. Still, it's worth seeing--especially if you are tiring of the same old sort of Sherlock Holmes film.

The_Void I'm a big fan of the classic Universal Sherlock Holmes films starring Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce, and so naturally I was a bit weary going into this film knowing that it plays around with the basics of the classic detective stories. Well, I have to give credit to all involved as while this is not what I'd call a brilliant comedy, it's fun and entertaining and at least does justice (in a comedic way) to Arthur Conan Doyle's classic character - although that is largely thanks to excellent central performances from Michael Caine and Ben Kingsley. The idea of the film is that Doctor Watson is the real detective, while Sherlock Holmes is just an actor hired to front the investigations. However, the actor hired likes to drink and frequently annoys the 'crime doctor'! The plot itself is influenced by a few Sherlock Holmes stories but isn't - as far as I know - based on any one in particular. We follow Holmes and Watson on the case of some stolen plates, used for printing five pound notes.The story itself takes some ideas from the classic Universal films in terms of plot - most notably The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes and The Spider Woman. However, the plot itself isn't really important; it's not particularly in depth and clearly the point of the film was to focus on the 'tweaked' characters rather than tell a mystery story. And this works quite well! Kingsley and Caine have a good rapport with one another and work well on screen together. Michael Caine is of course the standout and delivers an excellent comic performance. There are plenty of jokes in the film, mostly stemming from Holmes' ineptitude, and some of them are laugh out loud funny - although it has to be said that these are mostly few and far between and the film is generally more likely to raise a smile than a laugh. Still, the important thing is that it's entertaining for the duration, and the film certainly is that. I'd say it falls somewhat short of 'great' but if you're looking for a fun little flick to kill a couple of hours with, then you could do much worse than Without a Clue.