Sherlock

I must admit to having enjoyed Young Sherlock Holmes, as unfaithful to Doyle's stories as it may have been. But there are limits.

A Case of Evil is simply dreadful. The Holmes played by James D'Arcy is a man completely ruled by his passions, the very opposite of the character portrayed by Doyle, who occasionally showed an appalling indifference to justice, enjoying the solution of a puzzle for its own sake and ignoring the suffering of innocent victims.

The movie begins with Holmes apparently killing off Moriarty, and follows with the nation celebrating him for the gallant deed. Huh? According to Doyle, practically no one but Holmes was aware of Moriarty's role as the Napoleon of Crime. Holmes bragging of murdering the man should have gotten him locked up.

The whole thing seemed to be an excuse for making Moriarty responsible for the invention of heroin. This involves Sherlock's original grudge against Moriarty to be the addiction of his brother Mycroft, portrayed as a pathetic wimp by the wasted talents of Richard Grant, who made such a grand villain in a recent version of The Hound of the Baskervilles.

I must admit that I was spellbound whenever Vincent d'Onofrio's Moriarty was chewing up the scenery. Quite a contrast from his portrayal of Conan creator Robert E. Howard as deluded hick in The Whole Wide World.

I recently watched this film and was amased at how bad it was. I am a great fan of Sherlock Holmes and have read all the books and seen most films produced, this interpretation was NOT him.

I found the use of CGI pathetic as it was obvious, his drinking habits were confusing (he drank a bottle of vodka, a bottle of red wine and then half a bottle of absinth which would have made him blind), he slept with four women (two at the same time) and still somehow managed to save the day.

Mycroft was played by one of my favourite actors but even he couldn't save the show. He is portrayed as a cripple who is frightened to go out. Mycroft is supposed to be a strong minded person who works for the government.

Watson was the best of the lot, but i don't remember him being a mortician, also he should have been in the war.

The biggest gaff I found was that they took a scene from "Hands of a Murderer" and made a couple of adjustments but it was still the same scene, didn't they have anything better to do?

I would tell anyone who is considering watching this not to bother unless you are doing it for free and have nothing better to do, this is not for Sherlockians!

After reading comments on IMDB for some some years now I'm beginning to think that there are an awful lot of self-styled film critics on the board that believe they'll be taken more seriously if they sneeringly disparage everything they see. True, it's easier to carve up a film than really critique it, but that ill serves the other board visitors who are mostly trying to get an impression of a movie to see if it's worth seeing.

This is far exaggerated with any Sherlock Holmes film, since they (including me) can be pretty picky and very purist in outlook. I don't mind straying a bit from The Canon, or even taking a severe liberty or two if the end product is enjoyable. I was perfectly prepared, of course, to dislike this made-for-TV movie and went in expecting very little. I was pleasantly surprised.I enjoyed it.

It took many liberties with The Canon, to be sure, but I enjoyed the several departures from established plotlines and character. It's hard to take new approaches to this genre, and I think this one worked well in the end.

I'd give it a good honest seven, or thereabouts, which is more than I'd give most of the critics on this Board. If you're a Holmes fan, watch this one. It's miles better than some of the sappy efforts we're used to.

This movie is not faithful to Conan-Doyle's characters. Mycroft is a disabled recluse instead of a strong-willed, mover-and-shaker in the government. Dr. Watson is a mortician instead of a physician. Sherlock is a drunken womanizer (I suspect that if a person were to really drink all that he did in one evening, that person would end up in the hospital ... or the morgue). Vincent D'Nofrio's performance of Dr. Moriarty comes across as stilted and silly, not at all the brilliant and witty character we are used to seeing; although, I suspect that may be due more to the script than to the acting.

That said, I tried to view the movie on its own merits rather than comparing it to the original stories and other depictions of Sherlock, and this movie still has value as entertainment. The canes doubling as swords and one-shot guns was clever. The sword fights were interesting. Dr. Moriarty as the inventor of a new drug was ingenious.

It wasn't what I'd hoped for, but I'm still glad that I watched it.

The dullest,most unconvincing piece of acting since Anna Nicole Smith told everyone,she wasn't marrying the eighty year Texan Billionare for his cold hard cash. The accents are laughable...I was waiting for Dick Van Dyke to appear,and shout,"Cor blimey Sherlock Holmes..you're a proper gent and no mistake...Gawd bless you Guv'nor".. And as for you Richard E Grant...shame on you...give your agent a slap.