Sherlock

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!

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.

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.

Isn't Sherlock entitled to a "Flaming Youth"?? I was, perhaps you as well.

To compare every Sherlock with the very mature Jeremy Brett version is unfair and constricts the Holmes timeline.

The expectation that he will always be mature is fantasy.

One stumbles (in youth) and if lucky, finds their footing. A.C. Doyle only portrayed a character that had ( with great flaws) found his footing. OK but what about his youth???

So,forgive some of the weaknesses of this outing. Clearly D'Arcy does a fine job of it; better than some of the other cast. Better than many that have played S.H.

It results in a respectable if not glowing presentation.

I'd say worth watching, flaws and all.

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.