Customer Reviews

Sherlock Holmes and Baker Street Irregulars

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

Watching Jonathan Pryce in his first scene as Sherlock Holmes, I couldn't help but be reminded of watching Christopher Eccleston as the lead in another icon of British fiction Doctor Who. Like Eccleston as the good Doctor, Pryce comes across as simultaneously off-putting and appealing. In that respect, he is quite simply an ideal Sherlock Holmes. You sense the the sharp mind that makes him the best detective ever and also that other-ness which means he will never come off as being quite normal.

Though much of the action is given over to the Baker Street Irregulars, Pryce's Holmes remains the focus of this story because it's the Irregulars efforts to clear his name when he's arrested for murder that drive the story. Even when Holmes is under house-arrest in his rooms at 221-B Baker Street, you can sense the wheels turning in his mind as he directs his foot-soldiers in order to solve a mystery with a deeply personal dimension for Holmes. Without spoiling anything, it's a twist that will probably be most appreciated by those with some background in the Holmes stories but such background is not essential.

Above all, though, this is meant to be a fun story, an enjoyable mystery/adventure story with enough danger to keep things interesting without getting too dark. This latter point is probably a function of having been produced for a family viewing slot in Britain. The whole cast does a good job, and it's especially nice to see one of Britain's best character actors Bill Patterson paired with Pryce in the equally iconic role of Doctor Watson.

I won't say this is the best Sherlock Holmes story I've ever seen or heard (personally I'm a fan of John Gielgud's run as Holmes on the radio from the 1950s), but Pryce is certainly one of the best Sherlock Holmes. I truly hope that this production is the first of many for him.

While this Sherlock story will probably appeal to families with older kids, the hardcore Sherlock fan will be appalled. As mentioned in other reviews, the villainess shares the name of a beloved character from the Sherlock stories, but none of her marvelous traits. Furthermore, Jonathan Pryce, while a fine actor, seems very out of character for Sherlock, seeming much too like a sweet older gentleman than the proud, somewhat aloof Holmes.

The action focuses on the Irregulars and the story seems to try to pander to a young audience with this crew. Unfortunately, for the first half of the story, I found it difficult to have much interest in them. By the second half, as I accepted the movie for what it was, I did find some humor and charm in it.

As mentioned by others, there are some really good lines. There's also some really intriguing camera work that reminded me of some of the more experimental moments in the Granada series (like in the Devil's Foot, for instance) and a good soundtrack.

When I was able to pretend it wasn't supposed to be a Sherlock Holmes story, I enjoyed it as much as I'd enjoy most movies geared towards a tween audience. But I don't intend to ever watch it again.

Terrible plot that deviates incredibly from the Canon. Nonsensical. Irene Adler is "the woman", not a burglar. Definitely not a Napoleon (Josephine) of crime.

As for the Irregulars, not a Wiggins in sight. Cleanest bunch of late Victorian/early Edwardian street urchins ever seen. Nice that diversity is exhibited (at least in the presence of a Chinese Irregular called Tea Leaf, who has a backstory that is about 100 years prescient for political correctness -- too bad they have to call the character Tea Leaf -- all the Anglos have real names).

If you have $20 and two hours to kill with low expectations, this is for you.

In deference to Never the Twain: Very mild plot spoiler in this review-- definitely doesn't affect overall plot.

I am always on the lookout for a new Sherlock Holmes movie. I couldn't wait until this came out, because it looked good and it was produced by the BBC-- which also produced the wonderful and never-to-be-duplicated Jeremy Brett series.

What a disappointment this was!

First of all, the villain here is Irene Adler. Why on earth was Irene Adler made the villain? Adler was the only woman Holmes ever really respected and thought he could care about. And, in the Scandal in Bohemia, she clearly isn't a villain. She wrote Holmes a wonderful and caring letter and both Holmes and Watson were left with deep reverence (or at least respect) for her. She is "The Woman" in Sherlock Holmes' life and was never, ever villainous at all.

So, why did the BBC or the scriptwriter or WHOMEVER make Irene Adler one of the most evil and diabolical villains to ever exist? This really is an outrage, if you are a Sherlock Holmes fan. There is nothing in any past Holmes story to indicate that Irene Adler would ever turn into a murderous, conniving, vindictive evil villain. At the end of "Scandal in Bohemia", we are all convinced she is a good, honest, savvy person who earned the respect of Holmes. This was such a disappointment that, had the rest of the movie been actually good, it still would have ruined it for me.

Why not make Moriarty the villain? It is clear from some comments Watson makes that Moriarty is still alive. There is no reason to impugn Irene Adler's legacy by making her this type of villain.

Secondly, the casting was not very good. Jonathan Pryce is a good actor, but there was nothing about him that made him Sherlock Holmes. He definitely didn't 'own' the character. Of course, once you are hooked on Jeremy Brett, nobody can ever really be good enough. But, still, Pryce was 'just a detective'-- there was nothing about his acting that made you believe he was Sherlock. He wasn't brilliant. He wasn't extraordinary. There was nothing at all about him that was special. And, the character (as created in this film) made one or two comments about others' lack of intelligence. Arthur Conan Doyle's Holmes would never do this.

The actor playing Watson, on the other hand, was fine. A little bit jolly, but definitely not insultingly doltish as portrayed in other films. Mrs. Hudson was sadly missed here.

Third, I think this is a television pilot. I'm not sure, but it seemed so. This entire movie seemed to be a setup for a future family-friendly series about the Baker Street Irregulars. Holmes talks to them about how they should be taking care of themselves for when he isn't around anymore and there are a couple of plot lines that are clearly left open for a future story. If this is a planned television series, the casting department certainly needs to recast some of the Irregulars' parts. Most were decent, but there was one shorter boy that wasn't very good and Sadie, the lead Irregular, was horrible. She was so horrible that it was hard to have any empathy at all for her character.

All in all, I really wouldn't recommend this. It's definitely not for the Holmes purist, and I doubt it's for too many others, either. Even with the pre-teen and teen protagonists, I can't imagine too many parents anxious to push this as the first Holmes introduction to their children. The embalming might make some parents decide against this. Personally, I would let my preteen and teen watch this if it was good, but I don't think there would be any benefit to do so. It's just not worth recommending at all.

Instead of buying this, get absolutely anything with Jeremy Brett. And, if you've watched all of those, try the Murder Rooms. Those are excellent.

Edited to add: One reviewer here, referring to my review, believed that my review was a spoiler because I mentioned Irene Adler. Nothing could be further from the truth. Irene Adler is mentioned as the villain in other reviews elsewhere and we find that out early on (and expect it the second Watson lets us know that Irene Adler is filed under "evil villains" in their filing system). The mystery is actually catching Irene and trying to figure out how she's doing what she's doing-- and why.

I really wish I could recommend this. There was some novelty to it, and they tried hard. The sets and costumes were first rate, for whatever that is worth. The major problem was the actor chosen to portray Holmes - too old, too soft, too nice, and way too grandfatherly. Totally unbelievable as Holmes. And the Irene Adler problem is also a PROBLEM. Too bad .......... it's fun where it coulda been great fun. ;-(

This was a tough call since I actually enjoyed this film even though, after giving it some thought, I really shouldn't have!

I agree with other reviewers who question the wisdom of making Irene Adler the arch villain here. Those who have read the original "Scandal in Bohemia" which introduces Sherlock's one lost love, will take umbrage with her depiction as a cold blooded killer. That is totally out of character.

Also, in an attempt to appeal to younger viewers, there were several obvious (and somewhat lame) anachronisms such as a reference to a "search engine" (I'm surprised they didn't use the word Google), and the kids letting loose with "awesome" and "Duh". The use of roller skates, however, was actually fairly accurate, time-wise (I had to research it to see if it, too, was an anachronism but it wasn't!)

Finally, the focus was on the "Irregulars" instead of Holmes and Watson which, for me, wasn't as interesting.

Yet, all in all, it was STILL enjoyable! The sets were extremely well done and the acting was above average. And it was, after all, a Sherlock Holmes movie! The kids were likeable and the villains were vile ... definitely worth a look.

I never could see Jonathan Pryce as Holmes myself but he was the only good thing about this otherwise sterile family drama that seems like it was made for CITV or CBEEBIES. There's absolutely no bloody atmosphere to it.

Holmes' trusty Baker Street kids lose their leader when he apparently drowns in the Thames and the victim's sister begins to turn against Holmes claiming that he doesn't really care for them. But he still needs them to carry on working for him since he's in the middle of a difficult case.

It's not the best of plots and the acting from the majority of the cast would make the 'actors' in Hollyoaks cringe. Watson barely has anything to do, the stupid slow motion and editing techniques do not fit the context and the music is completely anachronistic, if terribly dull. The production design was pretty though, it has to be said.

For Sherlock Holmes fans and very young kids only.

There are a number of things in this movie for the Holmes purist to pick apart, the identity of the villain being just one, but in the name of being fair, there are some good points as well.
I was happy to see someone taking on the tough job of writing an new Holmes story that did not lift whole sections from the Doyle originals. Really, after you've watched the Six Napoleons with Jeremy Brett, do you really want to watch the same story with someone else as Holmes? So, even though the plot has some gaping holes in it, you have to give the writers a nod of thanks. New Sherlock Holmes projects have been few and far between lately.
The plot does take liberties with the original canon; since another reviewer has already spilled the beans there - with no spoiler alert, I might add, I'll move on. By the very nature of the story, Holmes is unable to do much in his own defense and Watson too is shoved off to the side to make way for the Irregulars. This definitely makes it a young adult/teen adventure movie and it does frustrate me when the Great Detective sits in Baker Street motionless while all this goes on. I liked the concept of Holmes being the prime suspect but it also puts the number one character on the shelf.
Jonathan Pryce is all right as Holmes but, no disrespect intended, I wish he were a bit younger for this role. He does capture Holmes' impatience with the slower intellects around him and he has several great lines - especially the one about 'celebrity being the last refuge of the imbecile.' That alone is worthy of the Holmes we know and love. His relationship with the Irregulars is up and down; sometimes they give him no slack - or trust - which is somewhat surprising, given what they do for him in the Doyle stories. Sometimes Holmes is extraordinarily patient with them, especially the abrasive Sadie, who is an actively annoying character. Watson is well played by Bill Paterson, a loyal, jolly soul who is not above smiling smugly as Holmes jabs at Scotland Yard. Watson is not buffoon in this one and that's all to the good.
The Irregulars are a mixed bag; there are a couple of promising young actors, particularly Finch, and a couple who are really not very good at all. Some Americanisms creep into their speech and the net result is they really don't seem like the 'street arabs' Conan Doyle described but more like modern teens out on a lark.
Bottom line; if you're looking for another Holmes movie to be just as good as the Jeremy Brett series, this isn't it. There is a lot to find fault on and pick apart. But if you'd like some new Sherlock Holmes video to watch and you can be flexible enough to stand some revisions to the Canon, you might want to give this one a try.

To the long and already rambling list of attempts to juice up Sherlock Holmes for mass media audiences, we add this well-meaning but misguided whirlwind. In what appears to be a pilot that never went to series, Holmes' preteen street squad takes center stage in an attempt to fight through the wall of crime that is Victorian London. This one is blessed with an excellent Holmes in Jonathan Pryce, but is marred by an inability to decide what story it wants to tell.

Some other reviewers have disparaged the way in which this telemovie retcons the role of Irene Adler. I'm not sure the target audience of young viewers would much care. I suspect that they would be more interested in the fact that the child characters' hand-wringing is particularly unappealing. If the kids were to pull their thumbs out, the whole story would be over in thirty minutes.

This story has its redeeming moments, particularly when the emphasis shifts to the grown-ups. But then, why pretend this was produced for kids? I really liked watching Pryce as Holmes trying to solve the mystery without leaving his lodgings. The layers he has to work through make these parts of the story interesting. But on the whole, this movie is a miss that doesn't have much of an idea who its audience is, or how to make them care.

background: i've read all the books, loved BBC's wonderful update, "Sherlock," and dug the Guy Richie film as well. I watched this with my 8-year old, and it was cute, clever, and quite well-done for an obviously low-budget affair. The focus is on the kids, and Holmes is more of a clever schoolteacher figure, so I don't think "Irregulars" would be a great watch if there are only adults in the room. (grownups: get "Sherlock" instead!!!)
The final scene is priceless-all that's missing is sunglasses! (I don't want to ruin it, so you'll just have to watch it!)