Sherlock

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.

I liked the movie. I thought all the main characters did a really good job.

But I also have a very bad taste in movies. I think the Richard Grant thing was a bit unnecessary. The idea of bringing a past into it was interesting, but not really developed as much as it could have been. I never fully understood why they brought him in to the story and to be honest, even as a Richard Grant fan, I didn't care much about the character. He could have been brought a bit more into the story. But D'arcy was great. So was the guy who played Watson. Still, the way they left it off, there is room for sequels. So unless they bring Grant back into the story later, I don't know. I think the scene and he story were well done, but just not as necessary as everything else.

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.

At the start of many of the DVDs of the Basil Rathbone/Nigel Bruce "Sherlock Holmes" series of films, there is an introduction from Christopher Lee that reminds us, in the words of "Dr. Watson" that Holmes was a "self-abuser using opiates and other substances..." This early outing for the legendary sleuth stars James D'Arcy as the "Holmes" whom together with his new found friend "Dr. Watson" (Roger Morlidge) is on the trail of a murderer. Oddly enough, a murderer who is doing some good, namely bumping off some local kingpins. Gradually, the pair become convinced that the dreaded "Moriarty" - long thought dead - is anything but, and is manipulating the lucrative heroin trade in London. This film is one of the few that depicts "Holmes" as a drug user - and it demonstrates quite potently the effects the drug has on his brilliant mind - the good and the bad. The adventure is quite well strung together, decently paced and though D'Arcy is a little lightweight, he does offer up a glimpse of the vulnerability of the perceptive but flawed young "Holmes". It's an adequately produced television movie with decent standards and a dialogue that helps build up a degree of suspense. Sadly, though, the audience are never really in doubt as to whom is whom, nor as to the inevitable ending. Still, a little like "Young Sherlock Holmes" (1985) it takes a different slant with the story and characters, and though nothing remarkable, is still quite watchable.

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.