|
|
Rating:  - Quite possibly the worst Sherlock Holmes film ever made!
A lurid, seamy, thoroughly revolting exercise in gratuitous excess. For anyone who knows anything about Holmes and Watson, let alone someone who loves 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" an otherwise worthless 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 Master Blackmailer," for example -- instead.
Rating:  - good quality, one problem
This DVD was generally of good quality, but I could never get all the way through one scene without it freezing and skipping. This fact was not revealed to me before I bought it.
Rating:  - It's just not interesting
Setting aside the gross inconsistencies with the original stories, this film does little to distinguish itself from any run-of-the-mill made-for-cable movie. The actors are adequate, and the production values are adequate, but the script is dull and predictable. There is nothing to hook the viewer in at all. The makers seem to concede this fact by throwing in plenty of cheescake (various women are eager to bed young Sherlock) that serves no narrative purpose and does nothing to add depth to any of the characters, for whom it is hard to feel anything but indifference. The romantic element is also just tacked on in the most generic fashion, and is ineffective precisely because the viewer could care less about either Sherlock or what's-her-name. There is plenty of filler, such as the recurring flashback of the villain injecting Sherlock's older brother with something nasty. The scene is filmed (or rather digitally dressed up) in a slick, MTV-ish style, but it lacks emotional impact, and by the third or fourth time we've seen it, it's just plain tiresome. The film doesn't even rise to the level of cotton candy; it's more like that dried-up, crunchy bit a chewing gum that used to come with a pack of trading cards. The only people who seem really enthusiastic about the project are the set and costume designers, and maybe some others involved in creating the look of the film. Because in the end, the look is all this film has to offer.
Rating: - A revisionist look at a young Sherlock Holmes, but overwrought and without cleverness or style
I can almost hear the pitch: "Let's make a TV movie about Sherlock Holmes just as he's starting out as a private detective...but let's make him so revisionist that all the old-fogey traditionalists will pop their belly-buttons. We'll put in sex, heavy breathing, sword fights, graphic drug use and more sex. We'll make Holmes an anti-hero. And we'll create so much buzz the follow-up movies will be as good as an annuity for us." They forgot something. While a revisionist look at old heros and old plays can be more than welcome, better make sure the thing has wit and surprise, and that the cast can carry it off with charisma and style. Sherlock: Case of Evil, while it undoubtedly made the traditionalists huff and puff, fails at just about every other level.
The plot? Who really cares when we can't care about any of the characters. For what it's worth, it has to do with Holmes' determination to strike down Professor Moriarty (Vincent D'Onofrio), who plans to do the same to Holmes while sending a newly invented drug, which lacks a name but seems to be crystal meth, to sell in New York City. Through Holmes' hazy recollections as a child we learn that Moriarty hooked Holmes' brilliant older brother, Mycroft (Richard E. Grant) on drugs. Since Mycroft is nothing but a plot device and Grant soon disappears from the movie, this is weak motivation for Holmes' hatred of Moriarty.
We have a young Holmes, played by James D'Arcy with far too much intensity, who collects his own press clippings, seeks public acclaim, loves to nuzzle young beauties and is more than up for a drunken romp with two ladies of the street. D'Arcy was exceptional as Nicholas Nickleby; here, he seems more like a petulant puppy. The actor is prone to deep, meaningful gazes, intensity which is too actorly and a callowness which was appealing as Nickleby but which is unsatisfying as Holmes. One would think that under these circumstances D'Onofrio would walk away with the movie. Instead, he overacts. His Moriarty is little more than an effete bully with a bad English accent. In one extended scene when Moriarty, in a top hat and a cape, is leeringly threatening a young woman, the image which comes to mind is Charles Laughton in Jamaica Inn.
At the conclusion we are supposed to recognize the origins of Holmes' loneliness, where he acquired his deerstalker cap and that pipe, and to recognize the affection which developed between him and Dr. Watson (who, by the way, he met in the morgue where Watson was apparently working as an autopsy surgeon for the city).
The DVD transfer looks very good. The production values are not as rich as some British TV period mysteries, but are certainly well above average. In my opinion, this is an overwrought, melodramatic attempt to goose some life into a character who probably doesn't need it...or, if he does, should be given material much more clever than what we have. This is definitely something to rent first and then decide if you want to buy.
Rating: - (1.5 STARS) Shallowest Holmes
The Sherlock Holmes film `Case of Evil' is, as the tagline says, about the `past' of the greatest detective. The made-for-TV film is based on the completely original story set in Holmes's younger days when he met Doctor Watson. I admit the idea itself is not a bad one. What is terribly annoying is the way they put together the clichéd elements which you might have seen in the usual crime dramas, totally ignoring the Arthur Conan Doyle's books and our feelings towards the much-loved world of the sleuth.
James D'Arcy plays young Holmes before he meets Doctor Watson. Holmes is already a national hero because he killed (he thinks) the arch-villain Moriarty (Vincent D'Onofrio) after the Three Musketeers-like sword fighting. Now Holmes is very happy, popular with women, until he encounters another case that strongly implies that the master criminal is not dead.
But of course he is not dead. Everyone who chooses to see this film has some knowledge about Holmes, and they all know something about the waterfall and Holmes' Japanese martial arts skills. So when Gabrielle Anwar appears as aristocratic Lady D'Winter, we know that she is not what she appears, and we are in for the secrets in London.
But these secrets are only part of the whole merits of watching or reading Holmes's adventures. They also include the unique personality of Holmes that has become the legacy of all the human beings, and the dark-lit streets of the foggy city of London too. Sorry to report this, but this version `Case of Evil' has very little of them despite the very good title.
In fact the Sherlock Homes you see here is not your regular Holmes. Holmes sleeps with women; Holmes engages in a shoot-out; and worst of all Holmes is afraid of losing face, too much concerned about his fame while our beloved Holmes is a true gentleman, who would do none of this. Roger Morlidge plays Watson who is so clever that he can invent some gadgets James Bond would die for. Gabrielle Anwar shows her cleavage (yes, I confess, I like that part) and Richard E Grant appears as Mycroft with both legs nearly paralyzed. I still cannot comprehend the meanings of, or intentions behind these changes, and don't know whether they changed the basic setting with or without any purposes. If they have one, that must be to surprise us, and they did succeed in doing that, but not in the same way they intended.
I heartily welcome any additional materials to the Holmes world from the persons who truly understand why he and his London is still loved by billions of readers. Many of them including me would like to see his younger days, but not the puppy-faced playboy from a brat-pack.
|
|