TheLittleSongbird 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

kriitikko 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.

smokehill retrievers 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.

robynwaterspryte I first saw James D'Arcy in Master and Commander and, even though he only had a small part, I knew, call it a gut feeling, that he had talent. So I looked him up here and found Sherlock, so I went online and I ordered it. I waited three days and by the time I got it I was bursting at the seams, and I was NOT disappointed!James presents an amazing performance, my spelling isn't great, and I was impressed at the way he'd made Sherlock arrogant, yet humble, not very humble but you could see it, and he was handsome and sexy all at once!Vincent D'Onfrio is an excellent actor and portrayed Proffessor Moriarty excellently! He was mad and brilliant all to one! It was brilliant!The movie was well cast and Dr.Watson was amazing, you could see his disdain at Holmes at the beginning develop into the camraderie that they share at the end, amazing!!I would recommend this movie to every Holmes fan, it is an amazing piece of work!!