IMDb > Sherlock (2002) (TV) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Sherlock
Quicklinks
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
Overview
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany credits
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratingsparents guidemessage board
Plot & Quotes
plot summarysynopsisplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
Promotional
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
Sherlock (TV) More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]
Index 25 reviews in total 

26 out of 34 people found the following review useful:

A leading candidate for worst Holmes film in history

1/10
Author: chris_don from United States
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.

Was the above review useful to you?

25 out of 38 people found the following review useful:

The Worst Sherlock Holmes Film Ever

Author: caswelll from Liverpool, England
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!

Was the above review useful to you?

16 out of 23 people found the following review useful:

Don't bother...paint a wall and watch it dry!

Author: kennythecountrybumpkin from United Kingdom
4 January 2004

The dullest,most unconvincing piece of acting since Anna Nicole Smith told everyone,she wasn't marrying the eighty year Texan Billionare for his cold hard cash. The accents are laughable...I was waiting for Dick Van Dyke to appear,and shout,"Cor blimey Sherlock Holmes..you're a proper gent and no mistake...Gawd bless you Guv'nor".. And as for you Richard E Grant...shame on you...give your agent a slap.

Was the above review useful to you?

15 out of 22 people found the following review useful:

Why Sherlock Holmes?

Author: karlpov from Columbia MD
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.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Not bad, not really great either

6/10
Author: kriitikko from Kirkkonummi, Finland
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.

Was the above review useful to you?

13 out of 20 people found the following review useful:

Just...bad

Author: RobinSisson from Little Rock, AR
10 April 2004

I saw this movie recently with the very greatest of hopes.

I have been a Sherlock Holmes fan for as long as I can remember, so when I saw the box for this film on the shelves at my local video store, I yanked it up without even looking at the synopsis on the back. After watching the movie, I might have enjoyed the synopsis more...a LOT more.

The characters were two-dimensional and under-developed at very best: no depth at all was brought to any one of them, but for the struggling Rebecca Doyle, portrayed by Gabrielle Anwar...and in this setting, finding anything to like about her was a struggle. James D'Arcy never even saw the mark in attempting to bring humanity to the legendary Holmes; he just came off weak and vacillating in D'Arcy's hands. Vincent D'Onofrio - of whom I am an incredible fan normally, and who is notoriously known as "the Human Chameleon" for his most uncanny ability to lose himself in a role - just phoned this performance in, when I'd have loved to have seen a far more layered interpretation of this legendary bad guy. Roger Morlidge does a serviceable job of Dr. Watson, but it's just not enough.

The plot was presumptuous of far too much detail relevant to the Holmes legend to introduce such intricacies as the reasoning behind the heroin addiction suffered by he and his brother, without providing much substantive sub-plot to make it plausible...or even make us care.

The fencing battles between Holmes and Moriarty are well-executed, but only consume a cumulative twenty minutes of the film at the very most.

Writer Piers Ashworth didn't think outside the box in his creation of this "new perspective", he just created a new box and hopped right in. Director Graham Theakston didn't seem to even attempt to transcend the poor scripting with crafty, smart, or inspiring visuals.

I just didn't get it.

Was the above review useful to you?

15 out of 24 people found the following review useful:

An Embarrassment of Riches.

2/10
Author: editorbob from Ohio
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 . . .

Was the above review useful to you?

10 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

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

1/10
Author: gretchenx
29 February 2004

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

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!!!

Was the above review useful to you?

16 out of 29 people found the following review useful:

Far better than I expected

7/10
Author: smokehill retrievers from Chancellorsville VA
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.

Was the above review useful to you?

4 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

neither here nor there

Author: genam (genam@andrew.cmu.edu) from New York, New York
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.

Was the above review useful to you?


Page 1 of 3:[1] [2] [3] [Next]

Add another review


Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history