Jelisije J
A low budget but memorable Sherlock Holmes film that was sees Sherlock battle Moriarty, falls in love, meet watson, and reconcile with his brother.
Rated 3/5 Stars •
Rated 3 out of 5 stars
04/24/25
Full Review
Audience Member
Not a big fan of this one... Too much brain matter.
Rated 2/5 Stars •
Rated 2 out of 5 stars
02/10/23
Full Review
Audience Member
Some truly terrible acting from all involved make this a real chore to watch, especially if you're more familiar with the excellent Jeremy Brett or the recent Downey Jnr versions. James D'Arcy is pretty appaling as Holmes (even Young Sherlock Holmes was better) but is not the worst thing here. Instead we have a camp Dr Watson and Anwar copying Heather Graham's performance from 'From Hell' and being even worse! D'Onofrio is usually quite reliable but he looks out of sorts here and can't really cope with the accent. It looks quite good (the sets are convincing) but there is a weird electronic score and there is a strong whiff of 'cheap' about the whole thing. The best thing is Richard E. Grant as Mycroft. His all too brief scene makes you wish that he'd played Holmes instead!
Rated 1.5/5 Stars •
Rated 1.5 out of 5 stars
02/09/23
Full Review
Audience Member
I found some things interesting in this reinterpretation of Holmes, but D'Onofrio was unintentionally funny as Professor Moriarty. Overall it just didn't hold together.
Rated 1.5/5 Stars •
Rated 1.5 out of 5 stars
02/16/23
Full Review
Audience Member
As long as you can get past the fact that it's not, well, Doyle's Sherlock, then you might be able to enjoy it. Purist's will be reeling though. And as much as I like D'Onofrio, his accent seemed a bit off. But hey, other than those pesky things - I really liked it. As a Doyle fan, I had to be able to separate the Sherlock name. Since I saw all the angry posts about that before the movie - I was well prepared and knew what I had to do. :-)
Rated 4/5 Stars •
Rated 4 out of 5 stars
01/16/23
Full Review
Audience Member
I just saw this film in a cropped 온라인카지노추천 version (reduced to a 4/3 format from its original 1:78/1) and I must say I spent a rather enjoyable evening, perhaps because I had been warned against its major flaws.
"Sherlock: Case of Evil" is an apocryphal and "revisionist" Sherlock Holmes story which purports to relate some of the great detective's early cases and an alternate version of his meeting with Dr. Watson, who is here portrayed as a mortician (the meeting is indeed so different from what Conan Doyle established that I expected this Dr. Watson, whose Christian name is never mentioned, ultimately to turn out to be another Watson.)
The Sherlock Holmes we are shown is not yet a celebrity, though he learns to make use of the newspapers to publicise his exploits. He is already a brilliant "deductionist", but is constantly one step behind his nemesis Moriarty. Quite unlike the mature Holmes of the Doyle stories, he is also a ladies' man, "bedding" no less than four of them in the ninety minutes of the film, including two at once (that all of them were unchaperoned makes me suspect that the screenwriter got the Victorian era slightly mixed up with the swinging sixties.) He is also a hard drinker who, once drunk, will go to a brothel to seek inspiration in glasses of absinth; and a chain smoker, a habit Watson already knew to be bad for your health.
If you are willing to accept all these changes to the canon, you should be able to enjoy this 온라인카지노추천 movie. My two disappointments were with the exterior sets, which mostly looked to be generic studio streets, and Vincent d'Onofrio as Professor Moriarty. I know the title "Professor" is probably purely honorary, but d'Onofrio was a little too beefy and unsophisticated for my tastes. His fondness for one-liners made him look like a villain for some half-serious superhero movie, and he dressed like a crooked businessman from a Dickens adaptation. The film is also very predictable: I basically knew who had done what, who was in it and who wasn't, who hadn't died and who would die, within the first fifteen minutes. I guess this is because much in the film is recycled from earlier Holmes stories, canonical or not. (If you are on the lookout for cliches, the film also suffers from the Climbing Villain Syndrome.)
The strong points of the film are the performances. James d'Arcy as Sherlock, I thought, was quite good (if you like BBC adaptations of British classics, you may have seen him in the title role of the 2001 "Nicholas Nickleby", in the latest "Mansfield Park" or as Blifil in "The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling".) Roger Morlidge as Watson and Nicholas Gecks as Lestrade were also both excellent, all the more so as they were treated as full-fledged, competent individuals, rather than as foils for Holmes' brilliant intellect. And perhaps best of all, though present in only one short scene, was Richard Grant as Mycroft (he was to return to the Sherlock mythos that same year with the rather good adaptation of "The Hound of the Baskervilles", starring Richard Roxburgh as Holmes.) Remembering him mostly from over-the-top comedies, I was surprised to discover that he had such dramatic talent.
Once again, this film is nothing revolutionary. But I've seen worse Sherlock Holmes movies, and as I can't stand Jeremy Brett's antics, I'm always happy to discover one I can watch.
Rated 2.5/5 Stars •
Rated 2.5 out of 5 stars
02/20/23
Full Review
Read all reviews
Continue with Google
>
