Sherlock (2002 TV Movie) User Reviews (35)

Not bad, not really great either

[kriitikko · 6/10 · 1 September 2010]

A young private detective Sherlock Holmes becomes famous overnight when he discovers and kills the most dangerous man of England; Professor Moriarty. The fame is short lived as a series of killings start that indicate Moriarty being still alive. Holmes sets out to discover the truth with a help of Doctor Watson, a mortuary who takes interest in Holmes' cases.

I watched this movie "Sherlock: A Case of Evil" (2002) during sort of a Holmes obsessed time in my life, even when I had heard lots and lots of bad things about it. To tell you the truth, movie is not all bad. Production value is decent, sets and costumes nicely Victorian, and music, while a bit modern, not at all distracting. The plot also had some nice things going on for it, I thought the idea of Moriarty inventing heroin was clever, and there are some touches for Arthur Conan Doyle's stories like the rifle-stick and the game Sherlock and Mycroft play.

So the story is not the worst thing here. The characterization is. This film wants to be sort of beginning for Holmes career as the famous detective we all love, wanting to explain his drug addiction and why there is no romance in his life. However, as the film starts Holmes is hot-headed party favorite who likes to have a different girl every night (sometimes two). His sudden change at the end to the Holmes of Doyle's stories is not a least bit realistic. It also doesn't help that James D'Arcy isn't least bit interesting. Well, he's not as annoying as Matt Frewer but still horribly miscast here. I can understand they wanted to make Holmes younger but they should have found someone else.

Richard E. Grant seems a bit wasted in this movie, playing Holmes' brother Mycroft. I can't believe that he's already appeared in two Sherlock movies (other being The Hound of the Baskervilles with Richard Roxburgh) and not having played Sherlock himself, even when he has the perfect looks for the part. On the other hand, I did like Watson in this movie, played by Roger Morlidge. It's interesting to see that Watson doesn't become Holmes' best friend instantly but actually dislikes the detective very much first. Gabrielle Anwar as Holmes' supposed love interest is just a wallflower.

The highlight of this movie for me was Vincent D'Onofrio's portrayal of Moriarty. It's a bit sad to say so because he is awfully campy and theatric, nothing like Professor Moriarty from Conan Doyle's stories, but he does play a competent villain. Though God only knows what kind of accent he is trying to have.

All in all, "Sherlock: A Case of Evil" is not the worst Sherlock Holmes movie I have seen and while it certainly could be a lot better with very little effort, it does make a nice evening watch. However, if you really want to see a film of Sherlock Holmes' early years that actually tries to keep characters faithful to Arthur Conan Doyle's stories, watch Barry Levinson's 1985 underrated movie "Young Sherlock Holmes" instead.

Far better than I expected

[smokehill retrievers · 7/10 · 16 July 2004]

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.

Why expect the Sherlock of 26 to be the same man as he would become at 36 or 46?

[tomgoblin-44620 · 7/10 · 23 January 2021]

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.

neither here nor there

[genam · 22 August 2004]

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.

An Imaginative Twist on the Sherlock Legend With A Wise Watson!

[zardoz-13 · 7/10 · 27 June 2009]

Unquestionably, Sherlock Holmes qualifies as one of the most popular characters in English literature as well as the media. Hundreds of films and television shows have been made about him. Some are serious, while others are frivolous. Movies and television shows about Sherlock Holmes can be classified by their treatment of Holmes' companion Dr. Watson as well as the depiction of London Police Inspector Lestrade. Of course, the classic Sherlock Holmes is Basil Rathbone with Nigel Bruce as his bumbling sidekick Dr. Watson in the period 20th Century Fox and later contemporary Universal Pictures movies. Jeremy Brett has acquired a fan base for his impersonation of Holmes and the television shows that feature him adhere most closely to his literary counterpart than any others. Several actors have played the role. Leslie Howard's son Ronald Howard played Holmes rather conscientiously in the 1950 TV series and donned the deerstalker. All too often Holmes has been identified with the deerstalker because it looks so singular along with his curved pipe. Howard's Watson wasn't as cretinous as Bruce's Watson. In the late 1960s, Robert Stephens made an interesting Sherlock Holmes in Billy Wilder's "The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes." Roger Moore essayed the role in "Sherlock Holmes in New York" in the 1970s. "Dracula" star Christopher Lee has incarnated the Arthur Conan Doyle's celebrated amateur sleuth in both films and television in the 1960s and 1970s. Steven Spielberg produced "Young Sherlock Holmes" that had Holmes meeting Watson in a boarding school when they were youths.

Evil" is an interesting spin on the early life of the eponymous character. The story occurs about the same time as "A Study in Scarlet." Holmes has just tangled with the nefarious Dr. Moriarty (Vincent D'Onofrio of "Full Metal Jacket") and they fight each other in the deserted backstreets of London at night with cane swords. Eventually, Moriarty whips out a revolver and Holmes blows him away with a single shot that sends the villain pitching backwards involuntarily into the sewer system so that his body cannot be recovered. Holmes makes the mistake of informing the London newspapers that he has vanquished his deadly foe. Holmes had been working for a society dame, Rebecca Doyle (Gabrielle Anwar of "Body Snatchers") who Moriarty had tried to blackmail for 10-thousand pounds.

At this point, Holmes is a younger chap than he has been played in the past. He has not met Watson yet, but he has horrid memories of the dastardly deeds that Moriarty did to his older brother Mycroft (Richard E. Grant) in giving him injections of some unknown narcotic. Holmes smokes cigarettes, drinks liquor, and occasionally goes to bed with a woman. He lives at 221 Baker Street, but he doesn't have a league of urchins running messages for him. He informs London Inspector Lestrade (Nicholas Gecks) about the death of Moriarty, but Lestrade isn't impressed with the news or Holmes. Meanwhile, a serial killer has been knocking off opium merchants methodically and Holmes refers to the killer as a sieral killer. An opium merchant hires Holmes and slips him a document signed by a local judge that authorizes Holmes to attend the latest autopsy of a murdered opium merchant. Lestrade objects initially until he sees the document, but the coroner is not impressed. The coroner is Dr. John H. Watson. Holmes and Watson (Roger Morlidge) grow fond of each other because they have keen scientific minds and speak the same language. This Watson is no fool and something of an inventor. He builds Holmes a single shot walking stick.

Eventually, Moriarty reappears. Of course, Moriarty is behind the murders. He is trying to corner the market on a new drug that has not been outlawed yet: morphine. Holmes discovers that the young blackmail victim was hired by Moriarty so that he could dupe Holmes into believing that he had killed him. Holmes suffers in humiliation when he realizes that Moriarty has made a fool of him. Moriarty decides to eliminate Holmes and he abducts the sleuth, pumps him repeatedly full of morphine. Clearly, the producers are suggesting that Holmes came to use needles because Moriarty turned him into an addict. Holmes manages to escape. Moriarty kidnaps the woman that he hired to fool Holmes. Holmes had been protecting the woman from Moriarty and they became romantically involved until Moriarty grabs her and murders her in cold blood. Holmes and Moriarity duel again, this time in Big Ben, and Holmes sends Moriarty plunging from the shattered clock bace into the Thames.

This R-rated for drug use adventure concludes with Watson becoming Holmes casebook correspondent. One of Holmes' relatives sends him a deerstalker and Watson, who has been reprimanding Holmes for smoking cigarettes, gives him a curved pipe. The crisply made, period adventure concludes with a bandaged Holmes posing in profile with the curved pipe and deerstalker for Watson who shoots a photograph of his newest friend. The pace is quick and Holmes and Watson even get into a brawl at a pub with several assailants and smash their way to safety with their fist. James D'Arcy of "Master and Commander" makes a bland but acceptable Holmes, while D'Onofrio is exceptional as the wicked Moriarty. There is one nude scene when a woman strips for Holmes in his Baker Street apartment. Holmes doesn't have an interfering land lady. Watson isn't a clown.

Indeed, "Cadfael" director Graham Theakston has taken some liberties with the famous character, but "Sherlock: Case of Evil" benefits from top-notch production values.

Fresh Sherlock Holmes movie

[christopherleebrick · 7/10 · 29 November 2006]

I didn't know what to expect from this movie that appears to have gone straight to video. The front cover seems to suggest that Sherlock will be played by Vincent D'Onofrio (who actually plays Professor Moriaty). When I first realized James D'Arcy was playing Holmes I thought he was way too young. And then I realized that was the point. This is about Sherlock Holmes as he is just beginning to find himself. In many ways he has the same insecurities and vulnerabilities as many young men. When he finds himself arrested near the beginning of the movie and questioned down at the police station, my mind flashed to a similar scene with James Dean in "Rebel Without a Cause". This is Holmes pre-pipe (he smokes cigarettes), pre-deerstalker cap (he doesn't generally wear a hat) and pre-Watson (he meets him during the course of the story and at first they don't get along). The movie also succeeds in making Victorian London seem very modern indeed (with crime and vice abounding)--which of course it was for those who actually lived in it.

For those who only like their Holmes to be of a more traditional variety, they will probably be turned off by some of the above elements as well as the modern soundtrack; however, the performances of D'Arcy and Roger Morlidge as Dr. Watson won me over. I'm a fan of Sherlock Holmes stories and I found this movie fresh and unexpectedly entertaining.

A leading candidate for worst Holmes film in history

[chris_don · 1/10 · 24 April 2006]

For anyone who knows anything about Holmes and Watson, let alone people who love the characters and Doyle's stories, this film is a form of cruel and unusual punishment. It should be an embarrassment to everyone involved in the project. "Holmes" fails to observe, fails to deduce based upon observations, and acts impulsively, irrationally, incompetently and dishonorably -- none of which the "real" Sherlock Holmes would have ever dreamt of doing, at any age. D'Onofrio's performance as Moriarty is an embarrassing cardboard cut-out composed of nothing more than a collection of cliché "villainous gestures." Theakston's nauseatingly excessive directorial style ranges from the lurid to the hallucinogenic. The screenplay brings absolutely nothing new or imaginative to the Holmes legend: throwing in a bit of arbitrary and implausible sex does not constitute a flash of imaginative genius -- it's just another crass attempt to "sex up" a movie and insults the audience members' intelligence. Avoid this horrible mess. Watch Billy Wilder's "The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes" or any of Jeremy Brett's early Holmes outings -- "The Sign of Four," for example -- instead.

Not faithful to original characters but still has merit

[MegaritzMom · 6/10 · 5 January 2019]

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.

An Embarrassment of Riches.

[editorbob · 2/10 · 5 November 2008]

Or, the summary should perhaps more accurately read, "A richness of embarrassments." The script is embarrassing. The storyline is embarrassing. The plot is embarrassing. The direction is embarrassing. The characterizations of Holmes & Watson are embarrassing, although not totally the actors' faults. James D'Arcy's Holmes is duly intense and focused, and might have shone if given a script less stupid; as it is, he's just embarrassing. Vincent Donofrio's fake accent and surprisingly crappy acting are both embarrassing. Gabrielle Anwar's character's name (Rebecca Doyle) is embarrassing. The reporter's hair is embarrassing. Inspector Lestrade is embarrassing (but then, he pretty much always is). The heavily armed London Bobby SWAT team is embarrassing. The gratuitous sex scene is embarrassing. Holmes as a leering lecher is embarrassing. The hackneyed Victorian London drug scene scenes are embarrassing. The climax is embarrassing. The closing scene is more embarrassing than the opening was. In fact, about an hour & a quarter in Inspector Lestrade himself gives this film its best one-line review: "This is a complete waste of time and resources." Everyone involved in this production who retains any self-respect whatsoever should be thoroughly embarrassed. The violence done the Canon here, the complete disregard for fidelity to the original material, is more than embarrassing, it is a crime worthy of Moriarity himself. I could go on, but now I'm too embarrassed to have been caught watching it . . .

D'Onofrio saves the day

[dinhopixupreju · 6/10 · 25 May 2022]

Rather bland with one good actor. D'Onofrio is very convincing as the young Moriarty. As Sherlock it is not easy following the lead of at least four great actors.

Making all the same mistakes...

[ProfMo · 5/10 · 27 October 2005]

This film is another one of those efforts to show Holmes before he became the solitary and introverted individual he is in the canon, and it makes all the same mistakes.

First off, there is no set up in terms of context. What were the architects of this piece aiming to accomplish? Are they trying to show how Holmes might have been before the canon? Are they trying to explain how he became like he is in the canon? Or are they just trying to sex him up according to their own personal fantasies? I'm inclined to say all of the above with the latter being on the forefront of their minds... but since there is no prologue to say so, we'll be forever left wondering why.

Second, all they are doing here is messing with canon. Sure sure, not every Holmes movie needs to stay with the established stories and characters, but this was just gratuitous. In this movie Holmes is a womanizing alcoholic media attention seeking whiner, Mycroft is a damaged ex-drug addict cripple, and Moriarty seems to be the golden boy. This photo-negative representation of Conan Doyle's creation might have been effective if it wasn't so ham-fistedly delivered. We don't need to see Holmes have a threesome to get that he's living a young wild life.

Third, the underlying story wasn't all that interesting.

But, there were some redeeming qualities. The characterization of Watson as an inventor was very well done, and was acted well. Also, the manner in which Holmes and Watson developed their friendship based on professional interest (and even Holmes giving Watson credit for his deductions) was well done and thought out.

The acting was super. D'Onofrio and D'Arcy, despite the movie's foibles, were excellent. They could have only done better if there were a better script.

Lastly, I have to admit to enjoying the allusions to "the future". Phrases like "Serial Killer" vs. "Multiple Murderer", Watson being certain the pipe smoking will be mainstream and cigarettes will become illegal, and finally Moriarty giving his drug a name... "Something heroic..." was fairly clever.

So, there you are, 3 for and 3 against. That's 5/10 from me.

A Truly Good Film

[lttdguitar89 · 10/10 · 7 February 2010]

Why is everyone harping on this movie? The filming is very good for a made-for-TV movie and the story is not unrealistic or absurd. Yes, it does break away from the traditional Sherlock Holmes character, but it is supposed to be like an intro story: it sets up how/why he became the man he is in the stories. All young men are emotion driven and stupid ... even 'great' persons such as Sherlock Holmes: he was not born an emotionless deducer of science. This movie just portrays the incidents which turn him into the man of the stories. I honestly wish sequels had been made. I would love to watch this Sherlock mature and grow into the fictional hero we all know and love.

Sherlock: Case of Evil

[CinemaSerf · 6/10 · 3 September 2023]

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.

horrible, horrible, horrible (possible spoiler, if you're unfamiliar with the books)

[gretchenx · 1/10 · 29 February 2004]

This isn't the worst movie I've ever seen (I did watch Solarbabies in my childhood) but....

It's really *really* bad - If you waste the money to rent this, try watching it as a satire, a comedy, or British revenge for the collapse of the British Empire.

The adaptation is terrible - Mycroft Holmes is never met in the books, he's just referred to as Sherlock's smarter brother. A morphine and cocaine addict, Sherlock didn't get "hooked" by Moriarty, and used the drugs by choice. Sex was totally a taboo subject for the era, and none of those scenes fit either. The STUPID STUPID attempts to impose modern morality in a movie blatently ignoring the MOST BASIC Victorian morals is pathetic.

I could go on, but it really is just horrible horrible horrible!!!

Why Sherlock Holmes?

[karlpov · 29 October 2004]

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.

Possibly one of the wost Sherlock Holmes films ever made

[samtroy-7 · 4/10 · 27 July 2009]

This is a very poor film, it seems that the director and producer simply created a character and gave him the same name as the great detective, he is nothing at all like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's original creation.

To begin with, Holmes had several inapproriate affairs with women and is acting like some sort of a poor action hero. Dr Watson is far too old (both men are meant to be in there very early twenties) and Mycroft, for some inexplicable reason, is a cripple with metal casts on his legs.

James D'Arcy makes a fair stab at Sherlock Holmes and Richard E. Grant (unfortunately only in one scene and a few flashback sequences) is excellent as Mycroft Holmes.

This film would have been much, much better had they followed Doyle's original writings and hired better actors.

Comically bad piece of dross

[pawebster · 1/10 · 21 December 2009]

Many reviewers have pointed out just how terrible the film is and, in particular, that this "Holmes" is nothing like the real one.

It's also full of terrible gaffes. "Serial killer"?! This expression dates from the 1970s, apparently coined by the FBI. The scriptwriter failed in many other ways to hit the Victorian modes of speech essential to any film set in the period.

What really got me, however, was the phony newspapers. These were nothing like real Victorian ones. They had laughable banner headlines of the type otherwise seen only in Superman or Batman films. Some of them were printed on little sheets of paper, very far from the broadsheets of the time.

Watch this only if you really have too much time on your hands.

So bad it was good

[purpledragonfish · 1/10 · 5 August 2009]

I caught this on television last week and my initial thought was how awful it was and then fascinated at what was Victorian style car crash television. Even the talents of Richard E Grant were kneecapped quite literally with a laughable side story of Mycroft Holmes lurching around in callipers with a pale and wan expression. The best of the worst was Moriarty. An American actor, who, presumably learned his English accent from James Mason films, or to put it more accurately, Eddie Izzard doing James Mason. I wonder upon occasion why producers, directors and financiers do not take one look at the script and realise it is a turkey. Production values aside, a lot was done in terms of costume and set to make this succeed, but it should have been put in a shredder way before the poor, out of work actors were forced to put this rubbish on their CV. No redeeming features whatsoever, but for exactly that reason a compelling watch just to see how bad it could really get.

Enjoyable take on the characters

[macdautle · 9/10 · 8 July 2019]

I'll say this right off - I enjoyed this movie much to my surprise. In it we see a young Sherlock just acquiring the armor he displayed in later adventures. The characters were developed well enough to satisfy (though a bit more back story for Watson would have made an enjoyable sequel ) and the plot line, while sparse, was adequate for an initial offering. I won't say there weren't any flaws - Moriarty was a lightweight, and the female lead existed only to confirm our heroes later character, and Mycroft was not the Mycroft we all know and life. {shrug} All in all, it was an enjoyable enough romp to keep me watching it to the end, and that's more credit than I give most flix these days!

A revisionist look at a young Sherlock Holmes, but overwrought and without cleverness or style

[Terrell-4 · 3/10 · 3 March 2008]

I can almost hear the pitch: "Let's make a TV movie about Sherlock Holmes just as he's starting out as a private detective...but let's make him so revisionist that all the old-fogey traditionalists will pop their belly-buttons. We'll put in sex, heavy breathing, sword fights, graphic drug use and more sex. We'll make Holmes an anti-hero. And we'll create so much buzz the follow-up movies will be as good as an annuity for us." They forgot something. While a revisionist look at old heroes and old plays can be more than welcome, better make sure the thing has wit and surprise, and that the cast can carry it off with charisma and style. Sherlock: Case of Evil, while it undoubtedly made the traditionalists huff and puff, fails at just about every other level.

The plot? Who really cares when we can't care about any of the characters. For what it's worth, it has to do with Holmes' determination to strike down Professor Moriarty (Vincent D'Onofrio), who plans to do the same to Holmes while sending a newly invented drug, which lacks a name but seems to be crystal meth, to sell in New York City. Through Holmes' hazy recollections as a child we learn that Moriarty hooked Holmes' brilliant older brother, Mycroft (Richard E. Grant) on drugs. Since Mycroft is nothing but a plot device and Grant soon disappears from the movie, this is weak motivation for Holmes' hatred of Moriarty.

We have a young Holmes, played by James D'Arcy with far too much intensity, who collects his own press clippings, seeks public acclaim, loves to nuzzle young beauties and is more than up for a drunken romp with two ladies of the street. D'Arcy was exceptional as Nicholas Nickleby; here, he seems more like a petulant puppy. The actor is prone to deep, meaningful gazes, intensity which is too actorly and a callowness which was appealing as Nickleby but which is unsatisfying as Holmes. One would think that under these circumstances D'Onofrio would walk away with the movie. Instead, he overacts. His Moriarty is little more than an effete bully with a bad English accent. In one extended scene when Moriarty, in a top hat and a cape, is leering threateningly at a young woman, the image which comes to mind is Charles Laughton in Jamaica Inn.

At the conclusion we are supposed to recognize the origins of Holmes' loneliness, where he acquired his deerstalker cap and that pipe, and to recognize the affection which developed between him and Dr. Watson (who, by the way, he met in the morgue where Watson was apparently working as an autopsy surgeon for the city).

In my opinion, this is an overwrought, melodramatic attempt to goose some life into a character who probably doesn't need it...or, if he does, should be given material much more clever than what we have.

The Worst Sherlock Holmes Film Ever

[caswelll · 14 March 2004]

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!

terrible...absolutely terrible

[timwaltham · 1/10 · 30 March 2010]

Just about everything about this film is awful. They've hashed up the plot and characters so badly that it almost unrecognisable as holmes, lacking all the brilliance that made the doyle stories.

the casting of holmes played by some actor that looks about 19 years old with wooden acting to match and non-of the attributes that make holmes holmes, makes the entire film completely unconvincing throughout.

other negative reviews are spot on, there are so many flaws its just embarrassing, .....an 18th century police swat team, impulsive sex scenes!!.

Watch the jeremy brett as holmes for a more accurate portrayal in the TV series.

there a reason why this film is on at 2am on a tuesday morning on itv3, its utter rubbish.

Not bad. But not good

[dlewis-12 · 5/10 · 16 January 2005]

The problem with this interpretation is that it seems a disconnected story from the canon of Sherlock Holmes stories. While it has a fascinating (though not original) idea of having a younger Sherlock Holmes who is the polar opposite of the character we came to know in the book, it never fully develops this.

Richard E Grant plays a good role, as Mycroft. To the reviewer who stated that Mycroft never appeared in the stories, I direct you to the 'Greek Interpreter' and 'The Bruce-Partington Plans'. Watson may well be the person who Holmes accuses in the stories of making things up - he is a police official - not in Afghanistan. The idea that Moriarty invents heroin is a bit much.

In all, the story was good, but the film could have been better.

A past worth forgetting

[TheLittleSongbird · 3/10 · 3 May 2018]

Am a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes and get a lot of enjoyment out of Arthur Conan Doyle's stories. Also love Basil Rathbone's and especially Jeremy Brett's interpretations to death. So would naturally see any Sherlock Holmes adaptation that comes my way, regardless of its reception.

Furthermore, interest in seeing early films based on Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories and wanting to see as many adaptations of any Sherlock Holmes stories as possible sparked my interest in seeing 'Sherlock: Case of Evil', especially one featuring Holmes' arch-nemesis Moriaty. It was intriguing to see Sherlock Holmes in his youth.

There are better Sherlock Holmes-related films/adaptations certainly than 'Sherlock: A Case of Evil', the best of the Jeremy Brett adaptations and films of Basil Rathone fit under this category. It is to me, and quite a few others it seems, one of the worst Sherlock Holmes adaptations along with all the Matt Frewer films (particularly 'The Sign of Four') and also much better than the abominable Peter Cook 'The Hound of the Baskervilles'.

Understand what 'Sherlock: Case of Evil' was going for. It just didn't work for me.

There are good things. The costumes, landscapes and sets are evocative and handsome. A few nice Conan Doyle touches.

While most of the acting disappoints, Richard E. Grant does a fine job as Mycroft and Roger Morlidge achieves a balance of the bumbling and the loyal.

However, James D'Arcy is incredibly bland as Holmes, very little charisma or arrogance. Gabrielle Anwar is basically little more than window dressing. On the other side of the acting spectrum, the usually great Vincent D'Onofrio is as hammy a Moriaty one can get and this is not meant in a good way. The dynamic between the two never works as a result. Lestrade, even for someone who's not the brightest person in the world and that's putting it mildly, is too much of an idiot. D'Arcy and Morlidge's chemistry as this iconic pairing doesn't convince.

Furthermore, there is a far too lurid look to the way 'Sherlock: Case of Evil' is shot and edited, it gives off a sleazy feel and it didn't sit right. The music doesn't really fit and felt and sounded too modern. The direction is slack, the script is limp and stilted as well as ham-fisted in other places and the story lacks tension or suspense and tends to be tedious and convoluted.

In conclusion, apart from two performances and some of the production values this Sherlock Holmes adaptation was a mess. 3/10 Bethany Cox

Satisfying Holmsiana

[philip-1 · 9/10 · 10 October 2004]

This made for television movie proves once again that some of the best cinematic entertainments are turning up on the boob tube with little fanfare and sometimes no advance warning. This is definitely something I wouldn't have minded paying for in a theater!

Case of Evil is a delicious, chilling, and welcome reinventing of the Sherlock Holmes mythos. It is well directed by Graham Theakston, moves along at a rapid pace, presents a well rounded cast and is fairly well designed for a low budget project.

Holmes is a young man in this treatment with a young man's desire to experience the world. James D'Arcy is turning out to be one of the most promising of a new generation of British actors. He is simply superb here. Not content to just rattle off Holmes's lists of deductive prowess, he finds nuances in the character that are often overlooked and brings a very fresh face to a familiar personage.

Roger Morlidge is equally interesting as Watson bringing a real sense of insight and medical intellect to a character that is too often a bumbling sidekick. This Watson is a partner to Holmes in every sense of the word.

D'Onofrio doesn't disappoint either, creating a truly despicable villain. Richard Grant does a wonderful cameo as Sherlock's incapacitated brother.

The rest of the cast is quite good and the screenplay takes us through a darned good yarn. Give this a try. It's already on DVD!