Protraph Lack of good storyline.

Dorathen Better Late Then Never

Humaira Grant It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

Matylda Swan It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties.

Robert J. Maxwell This film has gotten some negative reviews but I'm not certain why. This is a later, Edwardian Holmes. The period detail seems precise enough. The telephone came into common use after it was installed in Buckingham Palace by Queen Victoria, which acted as a kind of placing on of hands. Men smoked cigarettes as well as pipes and cigars, although women didn't, unless they were strong-minded aristocrats or adventurous Americans. Fingerprinting was routine.Of course Rupert Everett is neither Basil Rathbone or Jeremy Brett, but at least he's tall. The character as written more or less fits Conan-Doyle's image except at the beginning, when Holmes insults Watson and tries to get rid of him. A bit too abrasive there. And Everett's default expression seems to be a sneer.Nevertheless, all the most enjoyable aspects of the Holmes tales are present in this pastiche. True, the opening scene is a little gloomy. An opium den in London. A Chinese man is seen lighting the rolls of dope in the bowl of a pipe and the camera pans slowly up to a face we must correctly assume is Holmes'. The next scene is a shot of the Mudlarks out of Dickens, sloshing around in the black mud of the Thames, clouded by industrial smoke, and finding a woman's dead body amid the muck.Thereafter the pattern becomes more familiar. Holmes shoots up once, but it's immediately after he reaches a dead end, is waiting for evidence to appear, and advises Watson that we must "possess our souls in patience." I liked it. The budget must have been sizable. The appointments are high end and the wardrobe is lavish. But the story, while simple enough in outline, involved some complicated goings on among the aristos and there were times when I couldn't attach the names to the correct figures. I had no trouble with Rachel Hurd-Wood as the thirteen-year-old kidnapee though. (Wow.) Helen McRory as the aristocrat-in-chief gives a masterful performance a s a cold, self-contained, half-mad bitch. And Michael Fassbender is outstanding as the icy footman.Yes, it's a serial killer movie but it doesn't seem like one. Conan-Doyle could have written most of this. And the detective could have been no one but Holmes -- not Philo Vance or Nero Wolfe or Charlie Chan.

Darth-5972 ...and the worst Watson I have seen. Like others, I was eager to see another actor take on Holmes and Watson... Mistake! A poor performance all around. Jeremy Brett is the only Holmes, followed closely by Basil Rathbone. The perfect Watson... The "bumbling" Nigel Bruce. Shame that this rendition did not come up to the mark.The only redeeming feature of this film was the closing music by Johann Sebastion Bach. Plain poor. A Holmes written and performed for an American audience I suspect (Although I cannot prove !)

pawebster There is a strange convention in some British adaptations of recent years: enormous trouble is taken over sets and costumes to recreate the look of previous periods with as much accuracy as possible. On the other hand, the script takes no such trouble. Rather the reverse: the writer and director go all out to include as many trendy (and totally anachronistic) features as possible. The ultimate example of this is the ITV Marple series, but this Holmes story is not far behind.Other reviewers have pointed out some of the blatant mistakes (e.g. no period of mourning, way too 'advanced' female psychoanalyst), but what about the language? It's not only anachronistic, it's clichéd, too. "The killer's still out there", "crime scene", "for what it's worth", etc. To put these howlers in the mouth of Sherlock Holmes is particularly unfitting.The real cringe-maker was the announcement "King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra!" Did the aristocracy really need to be told which number the line of Edwards had reached and what the name of the King's wife was? Or was it just a clumsy bit of information for the benefit of the TV audience? Rupert Everett is no Holmes. He does not sufficiently embody that combination of cerebralism and sense of dramatic urgency that marks out Holmes when 'the game is afoot'. He might been reasonably OK if he'd been given lines to speak that were in the style of Conan Doyle.

schubert-9 I didn't find Rupert Everett believable as Sherlock Holmes. He seemed much too young and stupid. Of course I am comparing him to Jeremy Brett who in my opinion was the very best. Dr. Watson was fairly insipid. In fact the whole cast lacked spark. I also found the telephone and the constant cigarette smoking distracting. And while I know Holmes was an opium addict I didn't think that his addiction should have been given quite so much play.I hope that if Masterpiece Theatre decides to bring anymore Sherlock Holmes mysteries to our shores they find a better actor to play the part.