Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

SpunkySelfTwitter It’s an especially fun movie from a director and cast who are clearly having a good time allowing themselves to let loose.

DipitySkillful an ambitious but ultimately ineffective debut endeavor.

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Samuel Meteyard 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.

christopherleebrick 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.

dlewis-12 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.

caswelll 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!