I did not like this series. The two lead characters are both good actors one plays in Doc Martin/Martin Clunes and the other played as Sherlock Holmes/Charles Edwards in some other series/episodes.The language was hard to understand. Sir Arthur Doyle kept saying his client the Pastors son George Edalji was framed and disliked because of his race. Throughout the 3 part series Arthur uses this excuse for the Pastors son to be blamed and framed. There was talk of animals being mutilated, people getting threatening notes and more.In the end it had nothing to do with his race. It had to do with kids going to the same school and things that happened there.I was very disappointed.

This show is "based" on a real happening. That does not mean that everything in the show actually happened, only that an historical event was the starting point. This is entertainment so there is going to be some dramatic leeway but there are also actual events present in the show.I am a huge Sherlock Holmes fan but the title tells you that this is about his inventor, not Holmes, so I knew not to expect Holmes' methods or quirkiness. I also did not expect a "Dr. Watson" but was pleased to find out who the character was based on.This movie is entertaining; admittedly some of the acting is lacking, but all-in-all, it is something I highly recommend. This movie has humor, light drama, mystery, and some good actors. If you want "real" watch a documentary; for fun entertainment "Arthur & George" is a good bet.

Why do writers need to try to solve age old and virtually unsolvable mysteries with crazy and illogical reasoning? The Edalji case is well known, as is Conan Doyle's part in it, but he certainly didn't turn into Sherlock Holmes, nor did he solve it. Admittedly his involvement brought about the creation of England's Court of Criminal Appeal in 1907, and Edalji was pardoned, and allowed to continue as a solicitor. He was exonerated of the animal slaughter, but not of the poison pen writing. Couldn't the reason for the latter not have been examined further instead of the garbage that was dished up to us? Why fictionalise a case which would have stood up as an acceptable drama in it's own right, without all the added crap.Modern writers just have to bring in racism and homosexuality into the mix even though in this particular case there was a suspicion of both. Even so, these days it's par for the course. And why try to make Conan Doyle into a Sherlock Holmes at all? Or even as some sort of a Dr Watson as happened in "The Murder Rooms". Will we next have a sprightly Agatha Christie as a young heroine solving the Oscar Slater case, the Maybrick Murder, or even perhaps the Whitechapel murders? If writers are so hooked up on writing about crimes, why can't they make up their own mysteries instead of resorting to something which is far better done in documentary fashion. Indeed the story of this case was done on BBC radio not long ago and with much better effect without any so-called solution added...not even a 7% solution. I rate this as a big fat zero, but I'll give it one star for the quirky little terrier.

Yes,for heaven's sake,he was.We don't need reminding of it every few minutes.By the halfway point of the first episode even the most tolerant Sherlockian will have had their patience and goodwill tried by the incessant references to the good doctor's literary canon. In what might have been called "The Empty Horse",Holmes - sorry - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle - investigates some equine disembowelling in the Midlands for which an Anglo - Indian solicitor has been imprisoned apparently on very little evidence. Depressed and suffering from writer's block that is stopping him from completing "Wisteria Lodge" after his wife's recent death,Doyle takes up the case and sets out to prove the wrongly - convicted man's innocence. Presumably somebody thought it might make good television,and to be fair the story could be padded out to fill a sixty minute slot for a Sunday night's soporific viewing.But three one - hour episodes? I don't think I'm going to last the course without my eyelids drooping. Mr M.Clunes looks like Mr Chips and sounds disconcertingly like Mr B. Paterson in a rare venture into dialect. Listening to him is an experience rather like watching Dr Johnson's dog walking on its hind legs. "Arthur and George" is a small delicate bloom that has been forced to flourish and dazzle at the Chelsea Show in a manner completely alien to its very nature. With his fascination for fairies and spiritualism Sir Arthur presents a soft target for desperate TV companies looking for a subject with a pre - sold provenance. If they ever discover he had a predilection for growing cucumbers I can only hope they don't pick Mr A.Titchmarsh to play him.