User Reviews (13)

Add a Review

  • Marvelous fun based upon Julian Barnes' amazing novel with the wonderful Martin Clunes in superb form as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Ed Whitmore's screenplay captures the magic and pathos of the book while dramatizing it with imagination and flair. As the great author endeavors to solve the mystery surrounding the unjust conviction of a solicitor, there is suspense, humor, and drama throughout the proceedings. Filmed beautifully and with careful attention to period detail, it is nothing less than fascinating to see Doyle brought to life and given such humanity by Clunes. Fans of Holmes will indeed find this a rewarding series and will revel in the exciting and riveting story of the creator of their hero and one of the true icons of English literature. Don't miss, especially if you know little of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's real life.
  • dal180820 September 2015
    Martin Clunes is excellent as the eponymous Arthur, sporting a genuine Scots accent and a Victorian gentleman's sensibility. Wonderful writing and period scenery provide a convincing platform for the actors to bring the plot to life. I have no knowledge of the historical reality of the plot but the device of having the real life characters of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and his secretary as the protagonists in a crime drama provides an interest over and above the validity of the story or the sophistication of the plot. The writing is very well done, with the dialogue couched in antique terms and rhythms. The plot is subtly exposed over time through conversation, rather than the trite expositions of modern crime series. This can easily be enjoyed as a period piece or as an excellent crime drama.
  • This show is "based" on a real happening. That does not mean that everything in the show actually happened, only that an historical event was the starting point. This is entertainment so there is going to be some dramatic leeway but there are also actual events present in the show.

    I am a huge Sherlock Holmes fan but the title tells you that this is about his inventor, not Holmes, so I knew not to expect Holmes' methods or quirkiness. I also did not expect a "Dr. Watson" but was pleased to find out who the character was based on.

    This movie is entertaining; admittedly some of the acting is lacking, but all-in-all, it is something I highly recommend. This movie has humor, light drama, mystery, and some good actors. If you want "real" watch a documentary; for fun entertainment "Arthur & George" is a good bet.
  • Arthur and George was both a surprise and a delight to watch. Not only did it draw on several real events from Conan Doyle's life, it brought the era to life, the prejudice of superiority, the rules of class society, manners, dress, questionable law enforcement of the day, and yet another insight into the English school system. What most impressed us, in addition to a mystery to be solved and a "who-dunnit", was Doyle's real-life attempt at challenging the English criminal system. Very satisfying, educational in a fun way, and wonderful acting. Kudos also to the director and producers--another fine Masterpiece Theater presentation.
  • Those lovely nine stars are of course for the program "Arthur & George"(2015). Of which I completely enjoyed. However, my review is on the Sour Grapes reviews of this well written, well acted, well presented, although very short lived piece of television entertainment. To those of you that did Not like, enjoy or were otherwise entertained by this program, I have this to say, and Please feel very free with all the negatives that you do enjoy spewing about a program that I Feel Very Strongly that No One tied you down to watch. ENOUGH!!! If you do NOT want to watch then You Do have The Power to change channels!!! No One wants to read your completely Negative remarks about how awful it all was!!! Thanking you All in advance.
  • hou-33 March 2017
    I got hold of this mini series after reading the outstanding novel by Julian Barnes on which it is based. The book is very deep and I didn't expect the series to follow it faithfully. Even so, the series is disappointing. It starts well, cutting quickly to Doyle's involvement in the miscarriage of justice and the way it freed him from the debilitating grief and guilt occasioned by his first wife's death. There was good period atmosphere, and some excellent location filming. But the second and third episodes went adrift. The complexity of the case seemed to defeat the scriptwriter who sought refuge in melodrama and to that end introduced some unhelpful and implausible additional plot lines. These included a murder, which made the case much more serious than the animal mutilations and anonymous letters which comprised the original crimes. The best I can say about it is that it occupies an evening in a reasonably entertaining way. But the novel is infinitely superior.
  • benbrae7612 April 2015
    Warning: Spoilers
    Why do writers need to try to solve age old and virtually unsolvable mysteries with crazy and illogical reasoning? The Edalji case is well known, as is Conan Doyle's part in it, but he certainly didn't turn into Sherlock Holmes, nor did he solve it. Admittedly his involvement brought about the creation of England's Court of Criminal Appeal in 1907, and Edalji was pardoned, and allowed to continue as a solicitor. He was exonerated of the animal slaughter, but not of the poison pen writing. Couldn't the reason for the latter not have been examined further instead of the garbage that was dished up to us? Why fictionalise a case which would have stood up as an acceptable drama in it's own right, without all the added crap.

    Modern writers just have to bring in racism and homosexuality into the mix even though in this particular case there was a suspicion of both. Even so, these days it's par for the course. And why try to make Conan Doyle into a Sherlock Holmes at all? Or even as some sort of a Dr Watson as happened in "The Murder Rooms". Will we next have a sprightly Agatha Christie as a young heroine solving the Oscar Slater case, the Maybrick Murder, or even perhaps the Whitechapel murders? If writers are so hooked up on writing about crimes, why can't they make up their own mysteries instead of resorting to something which is far better done in documentary fashion. Indeed the story of this case was done on BBC radio not long ago and with much better effect without any so-called solution added...not even a 7% solution.

    I rate this as a big fat zero, but I'll give it one star for the quirky little terrier.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Yes,for heaven's sake,he was.We don't need reminding of it every few minutes.By the halfway point of the first episode even the most tolerant Sherlockian will have had their patience and goodwill tried by the incessant references to the good doctor's literary canon. In what might have been called "The Empty Horse",Holmes - sorry - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle - investigates some equine disembowelling in the Midlands for which an Anglo - Indian solicitor has been imprisoned apparently on very little evidence. Depressed and suffering from writer's block that is stopping him from completing "Wisteria Lodge" after his wife's recent death,Doyle takes up the case and sets out to prove the wrongly - convicted man's innocence. Presumably somebody thought it might make good television,and to be fair the story could be padded out to fill a sixty minute slot for a Sunday night's soporific viewing.But three one - hour episodes? I don't think I'm going to last the course without my eyelids drooping. Mr M.Clunes looks like Mr Chips and sounds disconcertingly like Mr B. Paterson in a rare venture into dialect. Listening to him is an experience rather like watching Dr Johnson's dog walking on its hind legs. "Arthur and George" is a small delicate bloom that has been forced to flourish and dazzle at the Chelsea Show in a manner completely alien to its very nature. With his fascination for fairies and spiritualism Sir Arthur presents a soft target for desperate TV companies looking for a subject with a pre - sold provenance. If they ever discover he had a predilection for growing cucumbers I can only hope they don't pick Mr A.Titchmarsh to play him.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Martin Clunes is wonderful as Sir Arthur! He brings this man to life. I love the story about him losing interest after the death of his wife. But after reading the letter he was about having to to help George clear his name.
  • Recently I watched this ITV mini-series and thoroughly enjoyed it. It is based on the novel by Julian Barnes. I haven't read it, so I cannot say how closely to the book it was written, but I did read ACD's autobiography "Memories and Adventures", a collection of his correspondence "Arthur Conan Doyle: A Life in Letters", and a biography by Daniel Stashower "Teller of Tales: The Life of Arthur Conan Doyle".

    Judging by what I gathered from these three sources, the mini-series is quite historically accurate, describing the period of ACD's life when he suffered depression after the passing of his first wife and how the Edalji case helped him to cope by giving him a purpose. In the series, just as in real life, ACD dedicated a lot of energy to investigating the case of a wrongly accused half-Parsi half-English solicitor George Edalji and launched a high-profile media campaign to clear Edalji's name. And while the series has a fictional side to it, with pursuits and fights, it was great to see the real life aspects covered, like Arthur's relationship with Jean Leckie, his wife-to-be, and the disapproval from his sister Connie and her husband E. W. Hornung (albeit this aspect was somewhat different in real life). The series even includes the small detail that George Edalji was invited to Arthur and Jean's wedding.

    There is a distinct Holmes-Watson dynamic between ACD and his secretary major Alfred H. Wood as they run around investigating, which was an endearing touch. All in all, I think the series is a nice blend of fact and fiction. Even though Martin Clunes seems a bit long in the tooth for the role, it doesn't matter much. He bears a striking resemblance to ACD in Doyle's older years. I wonder why, though, the series turns the Edalji case into a story of personal feud rather than racial prejudice as it was in real life. Otherwise it's a very well-made period drama.
  • I did not like this series. The two lead characters are both good actors one plays in Doc Martin/Martin Clunes and the other played as Sherlock Holmes/Charles Edwards in some other series/episodes.

    The language was hard to understand. Sir Arthur Doyle kept saying his client the Pastors son George Edalji was framed and disliked because of his race. Throughout the 3 part series Arthur uses this excuse for the Pastors son to be blamed and framed.

    There was talk of animals being mutilated, people getting threatening notes and more.

    In the end it had nothing to do with his race. It had to do with kids going to the same school and things that happened there.

    I was very disappointed.
  • NielaC22 June 2015
    How could this be more boring? I'm rating 2 out of 10 for the effort on filming it, but I have to say: in times when the economy is going bad, waisting money trying to make a #historical# series so bad such as this one, it should be considered a crime! Wait... solve this one "sherlock!" The lightning of the movie is awesome... to fall asleep right after the kind of "downtown abbey" title display. I highly recommend anyone to watch this if you want to be filled with the sensation of waisting your time. The theme could also be more original. I honestly don't know if there's already a movie or whatever about Arthur C. Doyle, but I consider reading the wikipedia web page about him so much more thrilling than the series.
  • Its okay but...nah. Not memorable. Not fun. Not a good attempt in an extending characterization of the creator of the most influential character in the 20th century.