By the wonders of YouTube, recently watched the Sherlock Holmes spoof Without A Clue (broken up into 11 parts), which is not in the NYPL. An IMDB comment took me to a Siskel & Ebert review. While growing up, I enjoyed that duo, though don't recall ever reading a Siskel review (he died in 1999, before I first had ready available Internet access). The review suggests some of the excesses of Ebert's review style. He is upset that the movie doesn't focus more on the humorous byplay between the two without watering it down with a story. How else would they do it, Roger?
The original duo after all showed their personalities not while hanging around, but during actual mysteries. I guess S&E might not have ruined their byplay by actually spending so much time reviewing some of the more boring flicks and all too. I joke. Siskel appeared to realize this, accepting that the movie wasn't a classic, just very good even if restrained by certain standard film norms. IOW, working within them, it did the job.
It was very good, particularly Caine and Kingsley in the leads, the conceit being that Watson was really the brains of the outfit. The charm of the film, directed by someone with not too many films under his belt (or those anyone heard of), particularly is its ability to fit into the environment. A good feel for the setting is essential to a successful spoof/parody/satire, and this definitely has that. And, the central mystery is pretty good with a rewarding resolution. It holds up pretty up to the end,* which is often not the case in films of this type.
Ebert is correct that films often fall off when standard tired plot developments occur, including necessary (often fake) conflict in your standard romantic comedy, action sequences and violence (killing off people is a lazy and deep down troubling standard device, particularly since it too much reflects an actual ethos on dealing with messy details) and at times convoluted plots. Many films basically have an hour or so of good material, the rest filler. The bottom line turns on the degree. Dragnet is a suitable case in point, that is, the spoof combined charming aspects (and a great lead performance) with a ridiculously over the top plot.
It is such violent (yes, the original stories had some action, but martial art skills or the like was not the point; for instance, a fight took place at the conclusion of what turned out not to be the final chapter of the Holmes' saga, but off screen, so to speak) and convoluted plot devices that I fear about the new Sherlock Holmes flick, though some of the online comments do lead me to be curious about the whole thing. The leads supposedly make things worthwhile. Films are often like that -- enough components to make them enjoyable, the boring stuff able to be pushed aside. Some reviews don't understand that, akin to complaining fast food is too salty. True enough.
Still can be somewhat worth the money all the same. Especially if it's gratis.
---
* The film even has an amusing bit near the end of the credits, apologizing to the original source material.