are you insinuating that someone with tattoos and pink hair isn't as beautiful as someone that's blonde or brunette and tattoo free? i think you should reevaluate beauty as something that is dependent on the individual and not disregard different barbies that aren't the stereotypical model of beauty as being deleterious to the youth solely for being different. a tattooed barbie shows individuality and culture, which surely should not be suppressed in order to fulfill expectations of the typical beauty

First of all, Jain Doe (you coward), thank you for calling me pompous and ignorant in my ways. I honestly like that, you seem to be a very respectful human being. For myself to truly be ignorant, it would have to be true that in my life I've never read a "Sherlock Holmes" book. That is in fact untrue. My High School English teacher made us read the laborious first two novels, but thank you for your comments anyway. I found no use for the work of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and you can hold that against me if you wish, but I read them nonetheless and continue to read both old and new fiction and non-fiction. I am not ignorant. Oh, and the fact that I read the books eliminates your claim that I am also pompous in my ways. I read the first two books and saw the first two movies (not that they follow each other), so I believe that gives my opinion some credential. Now, to address the rest of your stupid talk:

The fact that the movie is captivating from the opening scene is your own opinion: I don't find a horribly disguised Robert Downey chasing (the rather brutal actress) Rachel McAdams and proceeding to fight her bodyguards funny, and I don't find Robert Downey's seemingly improvised comments witty. I don't find Ritchie's direction confusing in the least bit, either, and there is nothing surprising about Jude Law getting on a train and getting attacked by the guy that was in focus four shots ago in the back of the frame of the camera - and it does not surprise me that Sherlock Holmes saves him either. It is also not well-shot in the least bit: How can you possibly respect a director that cuts every half a second to hide the fact that the star of his movie is lazy and won't ACTUALLY learn how to do his own real stunts? I'm sorry that the repertoire of films I've seen is clearly larger than yours, but I would much rather prefer a Chinese film where Bruce Lee or Jimmy Wang Yu do their own stunts as to a sloppy Guy Ritchie-edited sequence where you don't know who is who. I realize the book sets itself up for sequels... Duh. Regardless of whether or not I realize that, I don't have to appreciate the stupid gags that (apparently, your boy) Guy Ritchie throws in at the end of each movie to assure you that you will see more of two of Hollywood's biggest actors. As a student-critic, I don't have to have respect for any big-time actor: I either like their work or I don't. There are plenty of other big-name actors and actresses whose work I enjoy, mostly because of the directors they choose to work with that aren't blatant LET'S BLOW SOME SHIT UP sellouts.

I don't have to give any movie due, I'm a student-critic. I've barely seen any movies in my lifetime compared to other established critics, but I can tell trash when I see it. And I've seen enough of Guy Ritchie's movies to know that they are all trash. His style has no artistic value to it whatsoever. I don't have to respect an idiot like Guy Ritchie, I can critique whatever I have seen that he has created because I have seen it! If he's creating movies strictly to sell them, THEN HE IS A SELL-OUT! DUURHH. He can adapt whatever way he likes, and I can't knock the guy because he makes a lot of money, but I surely don't have to like his movies. What is this, Germany in the late '30s and I must like "Triumph of the Will?" Personally, I would have more respect for him if he went for broke as a legend who rode the waves of time (although I don't quite know what "waves of time" refers to, you mystical, metaphorical person you!)

All in all you are very insulting, and I wish I knew who you were because I'd be sure to tell you I have no respect for you - calling me pigheaded, ignorant and pompous. It's my own opinion, you can respect it or not respect it. Judging from your shallow response to me, I don't care if you read my reviews or not: I don't need your clicks, I don't care! If you want to be pampered, then just look at the IMDB score that the general public gives out, a number that is always high for movies that make money. As a word of advice, don't read anyone's reviews either because they will be way too opinionated for your taste. Just because the general public loves this movie and thinks it's worth paying over $100 million altogether in the U.S. alone to go see does not mean that I have to show the least bit of respect for it.

Your general statements saying that "The production of Twilight is getting better" and "I hate romance movies, but their soundtrack and writers are always on point" do nothing but add meaningless fluff to your already fluffy argument. Who said anything about "Twilight?" And do you speak for all romance movies when you say their soundtracks are getting better? What romance movies have you seen that were released prior to "Pretty Woman?" I don't know if these statements are meant to attack me or just to tell people that you know what you're talking about because you can see that studios realize what is trash and what isn't trash after they release movies. Obviously films are going to get more complete, that is the beauty of art. It grows as generations grow, and film is undoubtedly an art. The other beauty of art is that it can be critiqued, which I am completely entitled to do.

Sit down, my man.