H K Fauskanger
This is not a TV movie with much of a drive to it; for the most part it moves along very patiently. But it did manage to stay vaguely interesting, and somewhat more so after the half-way point. If you know something about Arthur Conan Doyle and Sherlock Holmes alike, it may be amusing to watch this interpretation of the relationship between the creator and his creation.The flashbacks to Conan Doyle's "youth" and his encounters with Dr. Bell come across as slightly awkward since the actor is obviously just as middle-aged as ever -- especially when seen in a lecture hall full of twenty-something students that are supposedly his peers.The end may not make a whole lot of sense, though. So Mr. "Selden" was actually some kind of manifestation of Holmes himself? Our first thought is then that the whole affair was psychological -- just Conan Doyle's own fantasies playing out before our eyes. But "Selden" is apparently just as visible to Conan Doyle's butler, to his mother and to Dr. Bell -- interviewing them while Conan Doyle is not even present. So do we go for a wholesale paranormal explanation here, with a fictional character entering the physical world to influence his own author? When that character is supposed to be the ultra-rational Holmes, it becomes something of a contradiction in terms to involve him in a semi-supernatural phenomenon.But be that as it may, the TV movie did manage to hold my attention throughout, despite its low-key/undramatic style and patient pacing. The relationship between Conan Doyle and his new girlfriend was also beautifully presented, in the same patient manner (and the actress wasn't hard on the eyes). We'll give the whole seven stars. Just don't expect anything like an action movie.
Robert J. Maxwell
This is a fantasy, a mosaic made out of three complementary sets of tesserae. We have the "biographer" Selden (Tim McInnerny) whose assignment is to try to dig up any links between Sir Arthur Conan-Doyle (Douglas Henshall) and his fictional creation, the detective Sherlock Holmes, although it is agreed that any results will not be published. There are also contemporary episodes from which Selden is excluded, for good reason. These include a couple of women -- Doyle's own devoted wife and a knockout babe he would like to disarticulate with his tongue. And then there are flashbacks to Conan-Doyle's own earlier years, including his medical tutelage at Edinburgh under Doctor Joseph Bell (Bryan Cox). The three sets of episodes are woven together in a way that is sometimes confusing, the way a dream is confusing, but gradually revealing, until, by the end, all is explained.Or almost all. I didn't get the recurring images of the severed ears crawling with maggots. Okay -- "The Cardboard Box." But why is this image repeated? Why is it IN there in the first place? I missed the first few minutes and perhaps the answer lies there, though I can't imagine how. Of course I could speculate, but it is always dangerous to theorize before one is in possession of all the relevant facts.The most interesting moments -- not necessarily the most dramatic -- are when Dr. Bell pulls of one of those stunts that were later to become inferential staples of the Holmes character. Given a watch to examine, a watch that has been owned by a perfect stranger, Bell complains that the watch has recently been cleaned and this robs him of his most important clues to the owner's character, so he can only say that the man was careless, came from a good family but found his fortunes drop, punctuated by intervals of prosperity, that in later life his habits declined, probably because of drink, and that he had a penchant for 17-year-old blonds all his life. (I made that last one up.) Conan-Doyle must have represented one of the last twitches of the Scottish enlightenment that enthroned reason and empiricism, because when he was old, after he'd lost a son in the war, Conan-Doyle turned to mysticism and the séances that were fashionable at the time.The mystery that is investigated in some detail is the reason why Conan-Doyle decided to "kill" his creation, Sherlock Holmes, at a time when Holmes was probably the most famous fictional character in the world, much as Brittany Spears is now. I failed to catch any big reveal towards the end, but at the climax Conan-Doyle resurrects his detective and they march off together into the sunlight. If the viewer is left still a little mystified, evidently Conan-Doyle wasn't, and that's what counts. However, the detective figure that is Holmes in the last few shots on the Great Grimpen Mire is not by any definition Sherlock. It is MYCROFT Holmes that we see. Who's kidding whom around here? It's an inexpensive production from the BBC and it's about an interesting guy, Conan-Doyle. He was at his peak during the Jack-the-Ripper murders in 1875. Too bad he didn't tackle Saucy Jack. Of course Conan-Doyle can't be counted among the world's most graceful prose artists. On a dark and stormy night, "the wind sobbed like a child in the chimney." (How did the child get into the chimney?) And, true, our introduction to Holmes, in "A Study in Scarlet", makes him look an awful lot like Poe's August Dupin in "The Murders in the Rue Morgue." But what does that matter? Conan-Doyle ground out these entertaining mysteries with sprezzatura, hiding his art by making it look so easy, and he gave us some deathless lines. "The curious incident of the dog in the night." "She was always THE woman." And, "Quick, Watson, the needle." (Well, he never said exactly that, but, again, so what?) You may have to be in the right mood to watch this. It's rather slow. But it's a must-see for the Irregulars.
stippy
I saw the film for the first time at BBC on July the 27 of 2005. For me it was a good interpretation of the person Conan Doyle,and I truly wonder what the sherlock fans think about it. I also think it is a movie for these fans whether they agree or not what is mentioned.You may ask yourself was A.C. Doyle a strong person or did he put himself in question. However he was the creator of the famous Holmes,but how much of it was a sort of semi-biography? Not the less I strongly put this adaption forward, it is a movie you have to see - even if you aren't interested in the Sherlock Holmes movies or books - look a it , enjoy yourself and have your own opinion of it.
nogginiscool
Written by the writer who penned the excellent Murder Rooms series which chronicled ACD's adventures with Doctor Joseph Bell, I was looking forward to this and I wasn't disappointed. It was quite slow moving, with a lot of emphasis on Doyle's frustration at Sherlock Holmes which was very accurate and excellently portrayed. It was an interesting character study and very well shot ( on digital video, unusual for a period piece ). The acting was excellent all round, particularly Tim McInnery and Brian Cox although the actor who portrayed ACD, whose name I cannot remember impressed me no end. An excellent character study which has about the same amount of twists as any normal Sherlock Holmes case. Do see this if you get the chance
