Sherlock

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 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 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.

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.

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.