12 of 14 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
The Game's Afoot, October 4, 2004
For years the typical Sherlock Holmes has been defined by Basil Rathbone with his memorable profile. This movie bends the rules of the canon Sherlock and turns him into something new and fresh and it ultimately works mainly because of the actors involved.
Sherlock Holmes is pitted against the nemesis, Professor Moriarty. At stake is the drug market, which Moriarty is trying to control. Sherlock is pushed to his limits as he tries to capture his rival and protect a woman he has come to love.
This Sherlock is not your typical, woman disdaining, snooty detective. This Sherlock is arrogant, womanizing and quite willing to go on a drunken blitz when the moment comes, but he's also more human than the canon version. James D'Arcy gives Sherlock an aloof demeanor yet is still very vulnerable, especially where his emotions are concerned. Richard E. Grant is also memorable in his brief role as Mycroft. Watching D'Arcy and Grant act for all they're worth against each other in their one big scene was a treat. There are less than memorable moments with Gabrielle Angwar though. Her character hardly has an impact, which is a point that comes to play later in the movie to prove she SHOULD have had an impact. The story is your basic detective mystery with the surprising addition of a really good sword fight at the end.
While this Sherlock doesn't follow the typical rules, he's still worth a watch and a welcome fresh addition to the Rathbone staple.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
(1.5 STARS) Shallowest Holmes, August 6, 2006
The Sherlock Holmes film `Case of Evil' is, as the tagline says, about the `past' of the greatest detective. The made-for-TV film is based on the completely original story set in Holmes's younger days when he met Doctor Watson. I admit the idea itself is not a bad one. What is terribly annoying is the way they put together the clichéd elements which you might have seen in the usual crime dramas, totally ignoring the Arthur Conan Doyle's books and our feelings towards the much-loved world of the sleuth.
James D'Arcy plays young Holmes before he meets Doctor Watson. Holmes is already a national hero because he killed (he thinks) the arch-villain Moriarty (Vincent D'Onofrio) after the Three Musketeers-like sword fighting. Now Holmes is very happy, popular with women, until he encounters another case that strongly implies that the master criminal is not dead.
But of course he is not dead. Everyone who chooses to see this film has some knowledge about Holmes, and they all know something about the waterfall and Holmes' Japanese martial arts skills. So when Gabrielle Anwar appears as aristocratic Lady D'Winter, we know that she is not what she appears, and we are in for the secrets in London.
But these secrets are only part of the whole merits of watching or reading Holmes's adventures. They also include the unique personality of Holmes that has become the legacy of all the human beings, and the dark-lit streets of the foggy city of London too. Sorry to report this, but this version `Case of Evil' has very little of them despite the very good title.
In fact the Sherlock Homes you see here is not your regular Holmes. Holmes sleeps with women; Holmes engages in a shoot-out; and worst of all Holmes is afraid of losing face, too much concerned about his fame while our beloved Holmes is a true gentleman, who would do none of this. Roger Morlidge plays Watson who is so clever that he can invent some gadgets James Bond would die for. Gabrielle Anwar shows her cleavage (yes, I confess, I like that part) and Richard E Grant appears as Mycroft with both legs nearly paralyzed. I still cannot comprehend the meanings of, or intentions behind these changes, and don't know whether they changed the basic setting with or without any purposes. If they have one, that must be to surprise us, and they did succeed in doing that, but not in the same way they intended.
I heartily welcome any additional materials to the Holmes world from the persons who truly understand why he and his London is still loved by billions of readers. Many of them including me would like to see his younger days, but not the puppy-faced playboy from a brat-pack.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Quite possibly the worst Sherlock Holmes film ever made!, December 7, 2007
A lurid, seamy, thoroughly revolting exercise in gratuitous excess. For anyone who knows anything about Holmes and Watson, let alone someone who loves the characters and Doyle's stories, this film is a form of cruel and unusual punishment. It should be an embarrassment to everyone involved in the project. "Holmes" fails to observe, fails to deduce based upon observations, and acts impulsively, irrationally, incompetently and dishonorably -- none of which the "real" Sherlock Holmes would have ever dreamt of doing, at any age. D'Onofrio's performance as Moriarty is an embarrassing cardboard cut-out composed of nothing more than a collection of cliché "villainous gestures." Theakston's nauseatingly excessive directorial style ranges from the lurid to the hallucinogenic. The screenplay brings absolutely nothing new or imaginative to the Holmes legend: throwing in a bit of arbitrary and implausible sex does not constitute a flash of imaginative genius -- it's just another crass attempt to "sex up" an otherwise worthless movie and insults the audience members' intelligence. Avoid this horrible mess. Watch Billy Wilder's "The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes" or any of Jeremy Brett's early Holmes outings -- "The Master Blackmailer," for example -- instead.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
