Alicia
I love this movie so much
Mjeteconer
Just perfect...
TaryBiggBall
It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.
Taraparain
Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.
Paul Evans
It seemed that prior to the Benedict Cumberbatch Sherlock franchise, The BBC tried its best at producing something different. The Hound of the Baskervilles several years earlier had been very good, this one seemed rather exciting. A really exciting premise, an original story, Rupert Everett, Michael Fassbender, Helen McCrory, and the return of the excellent Ian Hart as Watson.I like everything, bar the story, it's pretty poor unfortunately, it's like they didn't have the best script, so opted for shocks and fairly graphic scenes, sadly it just doesn't work, which is a shame, because all the elements I mentioned earlier are so good, Rupert Evans is absolutely dazzling as Holmes, I loved him in the role, superior to Richard Roxburgh who'd previously played him, in almost every department. He's intelligent, harsh, calculating, and a little uneasy, talk about fitting the bill.Such a shame the script, and poor ending let down what is a classy production, excellent music, gorgeous costumes, clearly money was spent on it, a shame it just doesn't quite work.6/10 (Most of that is for the brilliance of Everett.)
Darth-5972
...and the worst Watson I have seen. Like others, I was eager to see another actor take on Holmes and Watson... Mistake! A poor performance all around. Jeremy Brett is the only Holmes, followed closely by Basil Rathbone. The perfect Watson... The "bumbling" Nigel Bruce. Shame that this rendition did not come up to the mark.The only redeeming feature of this film was the closing music by Johann Sebastion Bach. Plain poor. A Holmes written and performed for an American audience I suspect (Although I cannot prove !)
shugaron316
As a huge SH fan,I've seen nearly every film about the Great Detective,good,bad,and indifferent. And I've seen a gamut of actors take on the role of Holmes,from the great(Jeremy Brett,Basil Rathbone,Christopher Plummer)to the good(Peter Cushing,Eli Norwood)to the so-so(Nicol Williamson,Ronald Howard)to the pits(Roger Moore,Jack Palance,Tom Baker,Matt Frewer). It's hard to define where Rupert Everett stacks up. He has the height,the cold clinical nature,the drug use down pat. But he is simply too young for this role. In 1902,when this story is set,Holmes would be in his late 40's,according to the Canon. This Holmes doesn't look to be a day over 30! And Ian Hart is totally miscast as Watson-he is too small and scrawny,tho he is shown to be a competent and forceful presence when need be. The plot itself is interesting-a tag team of identical twin psycho-sexual killers,and the London of 1902 is presented well-foggy streets,the chasm between the classes,and Scotland Yard's gradual acceptance of the SH method in their own work,tho it is surprising to see Lestrade,tho still an imbecile in his field,as a "ready to beat a confession out of you" thug. The notion of a woman shrink,especially one well versed in the mysteries of sexual perversion(and who smokes,also),would have been unthinkable to the stuffy Edwardians of that day. All in all,tho,not a bad effort.
behemoth-7
Hmm... the talent of Rupert Everett as Mr.Holmes saved much in this mystery piece. His performance outranked all the rest of the main characters and perhaps this tells something about the casting of this production.Cinematography was very traditional and even dull - surely decent enough just for television, but it lacks imagination and made the overall experience like just any other mystery. A little bit of cinematographic exploration and creativity would have made all the difference. The directing and cinematography together managed to both grasp and lose the feeling of Victorian England. At times the makers managed to convince the viewer and at times that feeling was lost.The trendy part was of course the affination of modern television for morbid: imagery of post-mortems, close examination of bodies etc. that have absolutely no shock value anymore. The makers did not know how to tighten the atmosphere without these effects and that speaks for itself. A mystery doesn't NEED close examination of bodies to be effective: there are plenty of directors who can squeeze a sense of uneasiness without ever resorting to these.The part of Dr.Watson was not convincing and the acting for Mr.Lestrade was bleak and dull - nothing to write home about. Shame really since these characters DO have a major impact on how Sherlock Holmes stories play out effectively. What bugged me the most was the all-too-brief excursions on how A.C.Doyle perceives Mr.Holmes: his addiction to opium, his ability to concentrate thru playing his beloved violin and his ego. The ego part was there in some extent, but the other two were only scratched upon. It would have been easy to prolong his violin scene and tighten the atmosphere with this aspect, but the director chose only to show that Mr.Holmes plays violin in a more tributory sense than anything else. Shame.At the end of the day this movie reaches above the average of TV-movies and doesn't have to be shamed in the presence of real movies either. But it really lacks tension and atmosphere to be enjoyed more than once. Overall a good set of entertainment, but could have easily been more that just that.
