FilmFanatic.org

Synopsis:
A fighter pilot (Robert Young) disfigured in the war goes to live in a cottage managed by a widow (Mildred Natwick) and a homely young girl (Dorothy McGuire). He eventually marries McGuire simply to prevent his concerned mother (Spring Byington) from meddling in his life — but as the two begin to fall in love, they mysteriously find themselves looking more and more attractive to each other.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Disfigured Faces
• Dorothy McGuire Films
• Fantasy
• Herbert Marshall Films
• John Cromwell Films
• Play Adaptation
• Robert Young Films
• Romance
• Veterans

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary begins his review of John Cromwell’s The Enchanted Cottage by noting that “one of Hollywood’s schmaltziest films has found the soft spot in enough moviegoers’ hearts to make it a cult film of sorts” — thus presumably justifying its inclusion in his book, given that he spends the rest of his short review roundly criticizing it. Despite acknowledging that “Young and McGuire give sensitive performances”, he insists that they’re “done in by [an] embarrassing script by Herman Mankiewicz and De Witt Bodeen, and overwhelmed by lush music”; in sum, he states, “The syrup is laid on thick and it’s a bad brand”. And he’s not alone in his negative assessment: Time Out refers to it as “icky romantic whimsy”, while TCM’s staff writer simply concedes it’s “a movie with its heart in the right place”.

I actually don’t find the script to be “embarrassing”, given that it unabashedly sets out to tell a particular tale of romance between two deeply troubled individuals. The “fantasy” element (i.e., the fact that Young and McGuire genuinely believe they’re seeing physical changes in each other) mostly worked for me, on a metaphorical level; let’s just say I was willing to go along for the ride. What’s less convincing is McGuire’s physical appearance as a dowdy lass: it’s perfectly true, as many have pointed out, that her “defects” could be (and are) easily fixed by a new haircut, a bit of make-up, and a renewed sense of self-confidence. One scene — in which multiple GIs at a dance glance at her from afar, then turn away once they get a closer look — edges close to campy melodrama, but is believable if you’re willing to acknowledge that McGuire (prior to falling in love with Young) simply projects, without meaning to, some kind of “stay away from me” vibe of “ugliness”.

Young, meanwhile, does a fine job shifting from self-assured pilot to embittered veteran to a man renewed by love; and Natwick projects an appropriate aura of mystery as a landlady who’s lived with her house’s secrets for many decades.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Robert Young as Oliver
  
• A touching, unconventional romance
  
• Ted Tetzlaff’s romantic cinematography
  

Must See?
No, though it’s recommended simply for its cult status — and you may actually enjoy it!

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• SciFilm Review
• Moria Review
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A tramp (Charlie Chaplin) accidentally becomes the hit star in a circus run by a cruel ringmaster (Al Garcia), who pays him the lower wages of a prop-master; meanwhile, he falls in love with Garcia’s abused daughter (Merna Kennedy) — but does she feel the same way about him?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Carnivals and Circuses
• Charlie Chaplin Films
• Comedy
• Silent Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary argues that if this “sweet, deceptively simple, flawless film… doesn’t quite equal other Chaplin masterpieces on first viewing, that’s because it seems that Chaplin didn’t invest it with quite as much emotion” — which is exactly why I find it to be such an underrated gem. Unlike the overly maudlin tenor of many of Chaplin’s other, better-known films, The Circus possesses almost purely comedic energy, with just enough romantic tension and longing to move the narrative along. As Peary notes, “there are [many] wonderful scenes: hungry Chaplin eating a hot dog that a little boy (whose father looks the other way) holds in his hand; Chaplin eluding a pickpocket and a cop in a hall of mirrors; … Chaplin finding himself locked in a cage with a sleeping lion inside and a barking dog outside; Chaplin attempting a tightrope act and having a wild monkey latch its teeth onto his nose”. Other laugh-out-loud scenes include Chaplin posing as part of a mechanized display outside a fun house, and Chaplin’s hilariously failed attempts to officially audition for a role in the circus. It all represents Chaplin’s “usual number of brilliant sight gags and moments of slapstick”, and is simply great fun throughout.

Note: In his Alternate Oscars book, Peary names Chaplin Best Actor of the Year for this film, pointing out that “as usual, Chaplin’s tramp is both touching and funny as he maintains his dignity”, and — thankfully – “doesn’t play for pity”.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Many memorable, expertly crafted scenes
  
  
  
  
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as an early comedy classic by Chaplin.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Silent Volume Review
• Silent Volume Review
• Spinning Image Review
• TCM Article
• Combustible Celluloid Review

Synopsis:
An Inuit hunter (Allakariallak) struggles to help his two wives (Nyla and Cunayou) and two children survive in the harsh Arctic Circle.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Antarctica and the Arctic
• Documentary
• Native Americans
• Robert Flaherty Films
• Silent Films
• Survival

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary begins his review of Nanook of the North — “probably the most famous of all documentaries” — by noting that its director, Robert Flaherty (a “mining-explorer-turned-filmmaker”), made the picture “to show audiences around the world why he admired the Eskimo people”, who (in Flaherty’s own words) “had taken care of [him] on different expeditions over a ten year period”. Peary argues that while “visually the picture is still fascinating”, the “human drama seems a little lacking”; he complains that “you never really learn what these people are like, just what they do to survive”. He also notes that “critics have always complained that Flaherty had his subjects create scenes specifically for the camera”, with some of them “com[ing] across as phony”.

I’m much less concerned than Peary about either of these two issues. Watching how a group of humans manage to survive in seemingly unlivable conditions is sufficient “drama” for my tastes; and while it’s true that many of the scenes were commissioned specifically for the film, as Roger Ebert puts it so bluntly in his “Great Movies” review, “If you stage a walrus hunt, it still involves hunting a walrus, and the walrus hasn’t seen the script.” What does concern me a bit are two other points: first, that Nanook and his “family” aren’t really a family (apparently Flaherty talked openly about this fact, but it’s not mentioned at any point during the film itself, which feels deceptive); and second, that the survival techniques used by Nanook were already becoming antiquated at the time Flaherty shot his footage. In both cases, simply providing a written disclaimer at the beginning of the film would have been enough to satisfy my needs.

Regardless, Nanook… remains a movie all film fanatics should see — not only for its incredible pseudo-ethnographic footage of a bygone era, but for its undeniable (if controversial) place in documentary filmmaking history.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Fine pseudo-ethnographic footage of early-20th-century Inuit life
  
  
• Many fascinating scenes of Arctic survival and ingenuity
  
  
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as a classic of the documentary genre.

Categories

• Historically Relevant

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Roger Ebert’s Great Movies Review
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A tramp (Charlie Chaplin) seeking gold in the Klondike befriends a beefy prospector (Mack Swain), battles an evil criminal (Tom Murray), and falls in love with a beautiful dancehall girl (Georgia Hale).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Alaska
• Charlie Chaplin Films
• Comedy
• Gold Seekers
• Silent Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary refers to Chaplin’s second feature-length film as his “first masterpiece”, noting that it’s a “simple film, dealing with basic human needs: love, friendship, hunger, money, pride”, and calling it “all wonderful”. He spends the bulks of his review highlighting various scenes — some (those involving Chaplin and Hale) “sentimental and sweet”, others (such as “when Hale discovers proof of [Chaplin’s] love for her”, or “Chaplin fantasizes about being the perfect host to Hale and her friends”) “poignant”, and many (all involving “Chaplin and male characters”) “classic comedy sequences”. Indeed, The Gold Rush is one of those enduringly “classic” films filled with so many iconic images that even non-film fanatics will surely recognize them from somewhere: “the starving Chaplin cooking his shoe for him and Swain, and twirling the laces around his fork as if they were spaghetti:

… Swain chasing Chaplin around a cabin because he imagines his friend’s a chicken”:

… Chaplin doing the “dance of the dinner rolls”.

However, I’ll admit to finding this film more successful as a comedy than as a romance; Chaplin’s longing for Hale is, for the most part, simply painful to watch. While Buster Keaton’s repeated pursuit of a beautiful woman in each of his films is inevitably accompanied by frenzied attempts to demonstrate his worth (which ultimately pan out), Chaplin’s stance as “the ultimate outsider” makes us feel he can only win the girl through luck and patience. Therefore, The Gold Rush is a film I’ll return to simply for its laugh-out-loud, expertly crafted comedic sequences — not for its central tale of unrequited longing.

As Peary notes, “Chaplin serves as a narrator in his revised 1942 version”, which is the one I watched before writing this review; however, it seems to be widely reviled as the lesser-choice, with purists preferring his original silent version (accompanied by inter-titles). For what it’s worth, I believe Chaplin’s narration is unnecessary, but found it fascinating to see the creative way in which he attempted to help later audiences find connection with his earliest work — and for that reason alone, I think film fanatics should check out the narrated version.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Many classic, highly memorable sequences
  
  
• Fine camerawork
  

Must See?
Yes, for its historical relevance as one of Chaplin’s most famous early films — and for some truly iconic comedic sequences.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Historically Relevant

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• DVD Savant Review (scroll down)
• FilmSite Review
• TV Guide Review
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A tramp (Charlie Chaplin) adopts an infant left in a car by an unwed mother (Edna Purviance), and soon grows to love him like a son. When the child (Jackie Coogan) is eventually taken away by social workers, Chaplin does everything possible to get him back.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Charlie Chaplin Films
• Father and Child
• Homeless
• Orphans
• Raising Kids
• Silent Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that Charlie Chaplin’s “first feature film” was also “his most autobiographical work, one in which he dared relive, through five-year-old Jackie Coogan, memories of a destitute childhood, his need for a mother, and the fear of being sent to an orphanage”. For the first time, Chaplin was able to craft “characters from [whom] humor develops naturally rather than do[ing] some quick slapstick immediately to hook an audience; show that he was an actor who could do comedy and not just a clown; and establish a story (part drama, part comedy) that he… needn’t dominate”. Peary further points out that this “moving film has remarkable interplay between Chaplin and Coogan, who loved each other off screen as well”, and notes that it has not only “tear-jerking scenes” but “great comic moments” as well — though he argues that the “interestingly filmed dream sequence” would “work better if it came earlier, so as not to break momentum”.

Peary’s review just about sums up the essence of this historically pivotal film, which paved the way for Chaplin’s future successes, and left us with some truly indelible images — most notably that of Coogan (a marvelous child actor) sobbing for his “father” while being taken away by supposedly well-meaning authority figures. To that end, the storyline is undeniably melodramatic — starting with an unwed mother who must give up her child, and ending with an unrealistically coincidental denouement. But Chaplin handles the material so well — carefully weaving moments of genuine humor into a situation rife with heartache — that we’re willing to forgive the film’s more manipulative elements. My favorite moments: Chaplin rigging an ad hoc milk bottle for the squalling infant (I can only imagine how many hours of footage perfectionist Chaplin must have shot to get the resulting sequence!); Chaplin sneaking Coogan into his bed at a shelter; Chaplin’s pockets being picked by a sleeping neighbor.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Jackie Coogan as the Kid
  
• Many memorable moments
  
  
  
  
  

Must See?
Yes, both for its historical value and as an effectively heartwarming tale.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Historically Relevant

Links:

• IMDb entry
• DVD Savant Review (scroll down)
• Digitally Obsessed Review
• Combustible Celluloid
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
When a hitman (Alan Ladd) is double-crossed by his employer (Laird Cregar), he vows revenge, and soon crosses paths with a beautiful singer (Veronica Lake) working as a spy to learn about shady wartime deals being brokered by Cregar’s crooked boss (Tully Marshall).

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Alan Ladd Films
• Falsely Accused
• Hitmen
• Laird Cregar Films
• Revenge
• Robert Preston Films
• Spies
• Veronica Lake Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, “Alan Ladd became an instant star” in this “exciting, compact adaptation of Graham Greene’s popular pulp novel,” portraying “lethal hired killer Philip Raven”. Peary argues that “in a trench coat with its collar turned up, a hat pulled down to his eyes, a gun in his hand, and a deep voice, he is the coolest gunman to hit the scene since James Cagney in Public Enemy” — and certainly one of the most oddly sympathetic. Interestingly, as Peary notes, “we can’t help “root[ing] for Ladd on his mission of revenge”, in large part “because we realize that his past was so miserable that he never had a chance to be decent”, but also because “he was exploited by Cregar, because Lake sympathizes with him, and because we sense that he isn’t long for this world”.

However, it’s difficult to contemplate Ladd’s fine performance in isolation, given the importance of his relationship with “beautiful, buxom blonde Lake”, who in this film “found her ideal screen partner”. Peary notes that “with those dreamy eyes, a peek-a-boo hairstyle, and a husky voice to match Ladd’s”, they “are an electrifying screen couple” — a statement made all the more complex given that Lake is happily engaged to a policeman (Robert Preston) who’s on Raven’s trail. Naturally, loyalties quickly become conflicted, and it’s fascinating to watch as Lake and Ladd — who are clearly smitten with each other on some level — carefully negotiate their positions. Indeed, whenever they’re on-screen, we’re glued; the rest of the “taut” storyline, while competent and finely directed, feels mostly like icing.

Interestingly, in his review, Peary refers to This Gun For Hire as “one of the few forties crime dramas that weren’t really noir films” — yet it certainly possesses many noir elements (including atmospheric cinematography and a sense of deeply pervasive cynicism), and it’s generally considered by others to be part of this genre. Perhaps Peary’s opinion is due to the occasional shifts in tone throughout the film — most notably when Lake performs a couple of unusual musical ditties (by Jacques Press and Frank Loesser); meanwhile, Cregar’s performance as Raven’s most direct nemesis lacks a requisite sense of menace — he’s a bit too much of a blubbering coward to be fully convincing in the role. However, all told, I would most certainly classify this one stylistically as noir.

Two of my favorite moments: Lake unexpectedly pecks Ladd on the cheek; Lake leaves a steady trail of evidence behind her while being held hostage by Ladd.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Alan Ladd as Raven
  
• Veronica Lake as Ellen Graham
  
• Fine chemistry between Ladd and Lake
  
• Atmospheric cinematography
  

Must See?
Yes, for Ladd’s magnetic debut performance — and his palpable on-screen chemistry with Lake.

Categories

• Noteworthy Performance(s)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• New York Times Original Review
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A woman (Claudette Colbert) plans to divorce her financially unsuccessful husband (Joel McCrea) so she can seduce a millionaire and convince him to finance one of McCrea’s business inventions. On her way to Florida to obtain the divorce, she meets one of the wealthiest men in the world (Rudy Vallee), who falls in love with her — but will McCrea allow Colbert to follow through with her plans?

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Claudette Colbert Films
• Joel McCrea Films
• Marital Problems
• Mary Astor Films
• Mistaken or Hidden Identities
• Millionaires
• Preston Sturges Films
• Romantic Comedy

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that this “delightful screwball comedy by Preston Sturges” is “fast-paced and consistently funny”, and accurately points out that “McCrea and Colbert are an engaging screen couple” (though their relationship, naturally, is strained from the get-go). Indeed, as brilliant as I find this film — it remains a comedic treasure, and one of Sturges’ best — I’ll admit to feeling a vague sense of discomfort throughout (which is likely exactly what Sturges intended!). While Colbert’s plan may be “noble” at heart, it’s genuinely difficult to watch her romancing a likeable schmuck like Vallee and know that, in a romantic comedy like this — with an “engaging screen couple” like Colbert and McCrea waiting in the wings — there’s really only one outcome possible. (Though to his credit, Sturges soundly blasts that notion with an inspired — if dubitable — ending, about which I’ll say no more.)

Despite its decidedly discomfiting premise, however, the film remains consistently amusing and engaging, with “stars McCrea, Colbert, Vallee, and Mary Astor (as Vallee’s sister, who takes a liking to McCrea when he poses as Colbert’s brother) weaving their way through a crazy world of landlords, cops, cabbies, eccentrics, men named Toto, and the gun-toting, boozing, harmonizing Ale & Quail members” — yes, the storyline really is as wacky as that rundown indicates! I’m especially tickled by the performances given by Vallee and Astor, who prove beyond a doubt that the idle-rich are indeed — as Sturges himself believed — “funny” folk; and Robert Dudley is note-perfect as the deaf old coot who starts the narrative ball rolling. Meanwhile, Colbert is at her loveliest (it’s nice to see her with her hair down here — literally!), and handsome McCrea is well-cast as her perpetually affronted husband.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Rudy Vallee as John D. Hackensacker
  
• Mary Astor as Princess Centimillia
  
• Robert Dudley as The Wienie King
  
• Claudette Colbert as Gerry Jeffers
  
• Plenty of clever and/or zany dialogue:
  

  “Chivalry is not only dead, it’s decomposed.”

Must See?
Yes, as a certified comedic classic. Nominated by Peary as one of the Best Movies of the Year in his Alternate Oscars.

Categories

• Genuine Classic
• Important Director

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• DVD Savant Review (scroll down)
• Greatest Films Review
• TCM Article
• Tired Old Queen at the Movies Video Review

Synopsis:
During the Civil War, an accomplished train engineer (Buster Keaton) is denied entry into the Confederate Army, much to the dismay of his girlfriend (Marion Mack), who mistakenly believes he is too cowardly to enlist. Soon he becomes an unintentional hero when he rescues Mack from his hijacked train, and foils Union plans for an attack.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Buster Keaton Films
• Civil War
• Comedy
• Historical Drama
• Silent Films
• Spies
• Trains and Subways

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary, like so many others, refers to this Civil War-era slapstick classic as “Buster Keaton’s masterpiece and, as such, one of our two or three greatest comedies”. Telling the “simple” story — almost entirely “centered on train chases” — of “Johnnie Grey, conductor of the General”, whose “two loves are his engine and lovely Annabel Lee (Marion Mack)”:

… it “features a dazzling number of sight gags, some spectacular Keaton acrobatics…, and… ingenious use of the frame”. Peary notes that “as usual, Keaton is a sweet fellow and it’s a delight watching this tiny, unmuscular civilian pull off one heroic act after another while soldiers on both sides accomplish nothing”.

Peary spends the remainder of his review pointing out something most other critics haven’t noted (or don’t agree with): the fact that “the relationship between Keaton and Mack is wonderfully romantic”. He argues that “her well-intentioned but ridiculous attempts to help in their escape effort both exasperate him and reinforce his love for her”, and calls out in particular the somewhat astonishing moment — you’ll likely give a start at its modernity and authenticity — when “he playfully strangles her, then kisses her” as she demonstrates tremendous ineptitude while “helping” him select wood for the engine’s fire.

This scene — along with countless others in which he demonstrates a truly astonishing level of dexterity and quick-thinking savvy — make him a silent-film “hero” we’re delighted to see in action. In sum, this one is, as Peary calls it, “marvelous in every way”, and deserves its ranking as one of the best American films.

Note: Watch for the impressive burning bridge sequence, which cost $42K, making it “the most expensive single shot in silent film history”.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Fun use of trains as a comedic element
  
• Many truly incredible physical stunts and set pieces
  

Must See?
Yes, as arguably Keaton’s masterpiece.

Categories

• Genuine Classic

(Listed in 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die)

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review
• Roger Ebert’s Review
• Greatest Films Review
• Digitally Obsessed Review
• TCM Article
• Time Out Capsule Review

Synopsis:
A wealthy young man (Buster Keaton) and his would-be fiancee (Kathryn McGuire) find themselves at sea in a drifting cruise ship, struggling to survive and fight off an island full of cannibals.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• At Sea
• Buster Keaton Films
• Comedy
• Millionaires
• Silent Films
• Survival

Response to Peary’s Review:
As Peary notes, Buster Keaton’s “biggest commercial hit” — which he correctly argues “hasn’t a bad moment” — is “another in his line of silent comedy masterpieces” (and I’ll admit to a personal fondness for it). It does indeed have “many intricate, hilarious gags”, with highlights including “Keaton [as ‘Rollo Treadway’] chasing McGuire around the ship when he first discovers she’s on board also; Keaton in a diving suit…; Keaton routing some cannibals”, and, of course, the side-splitting early sequences showcasing Keaton and McGuire’s lame attempts to fix themselves breakfast (as well as the “three weeks later” scenes showing Keaton’s humorously inventive capabilities). Keaton, naturally, is in top form (when is he not??), and McGuire acquits herself admirably in a role which allows her to be Keaton’s comedic peer rather than simply his romantic foil. This is one of those films better seen than discussed, so go ahead and treat yourself — you’re in for a boatful (sorry!) of laughs.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• Keaton and McGuire’s earliest attempts at survival
  
• Kathryn McGuire as Betsy
  
• Consistently enjoyable visual and physical gags
  
  
  

Must See?
Yes, as one of Keaton’s most enjoyable early successes.

Categories

• Good Show

Links:

• IMDb entry
• NY Times Original Review (scroll down to second review)
• TCM Article

Synopsis:
Young John Watson (Alan Cox) meets Sherlock Holmes (Nicholas Rowe) at boarding school, and proceeds to help him solve a series of mysteries involving hallucinogenic-inspired suicides.

Genres, Themes, Actors, and Directors:

• Barry Levinson Films
• Cults
• Detectives and Private Eyes
• Historical Drama
• Murder Mystery
• Sherlock Holmes Films

Response to Peary’s Review:
Peary notes that the primary problem of this “amiable if weakly written tale” (produced by Steven Spielberg, and scripted by Christopher Columbus) about “teenage Holmes… solving his first mystery” is that “it will take viewers about half the time it takes Holmes to figure out [the] whodunit”, thus leaving us “not overly impressed with his detective work”. He argues that “the opening scenes are the best, not only because [director Barry] Levinson provides some authentic Victorian flavor when filming snowy London or the school campus, but because we can see hints of the adult Holmes in the inquisitive, cocky, maturing teenager”.

However, he points out that “later the familiar overblown Spielberg adventure spectacle [taking place at] the Egyptian temple with bald, diabolical priests involved in a sacrificial ritual… replaces mystery-solving and our hero could be any indomitable Spielberg teenager, rather than a detective extraordinaire”.

This is all true, and yet I’ll admit to an overall fondness for this finely produced, creative imagining of Holmes and Watson befriending each other years before their “actual” first encounter as adults (per Doyle’s original stories).

Things start off with a bang, as we witness a series of truly gruesome hallucinogenic fits (courtesy of “excellent special effects by [George Lucas’s] Industrial Light and Magic”]:

and are introduced to both Watson and Holmes (who are “well cast and play… well together”).

An early scene in which Holmes’s schoolmate-nemesis (Earl Rhodes) challenges Holmes to find a hidden vase on campus within an hour provides plenty of evidence of Holmes’ brilliant deductive capacities, and several interactions between Holmes and his fencing instructor (Anthony Higgins) show us his capabilities as a fast-thinking combatant.

It’s true that later events take quite the Indiana Jones-inspired turn, but these sequences are creepily conceived and finely mounted, and I was willing to go along for the ride. While it’s certainly not “must see”, I’d recommend this one as worth a once-look.

Redeeming Qualities and Moments:

• The incredibly animated (by Industrial Light and Magic) hallucinations
  
• Fine period production design
  
• Atmospheric cinematography
  

Must See?
No, though it’s recommended for Holmes fans.

Links:

• IMDb entry
• Roger Ebert’s Review
• Spinning Image Review
• Moria Review
• Time Out Capsule Review