Am a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes and get a lot of enjoyment out of Arthur Conan Doyle's stories. Also love Basil Rathbone's and especially Jeremy Brett's interpretations to death. So would naturally see any Sherlock Holmes adaptation that comes my way, regardless of its reception.Furthermore, interest in seeing early films based on Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories and wanting to see as many adaptations of any Sherlock Holmes stories as possible sparked my interest in seeing 'Sherlock: Case of Evil', especially one featuring Holmes' arch-nemesis Moriaty. It was intriguing to see Sherlock Holmes in his youth.There are better Sherlock Holmes-related films/adaptations certainly than 'Sherlock: A Case of Evil', the best of the Jeremy Brett adaptations and films of Basil Rathone fit under this category. It is to me, and quite a few others it seems, one of the worst Sherlock Holmes adaptations along with all the Matt Frewer films (particularly 'The Sign of Four') and also much better than the abominable Peter Cook 'The Hound of the Baskervilles'.Understand what 'Sherlock: Case of Evil' was going for. It just didn't work for me. There are good things. The costumes, landscapes and sets are evocative and handsome. A few nice Conan Doyle touches.While most of the acting disappoints, Richard E. Grant does a fine job as Mycroft and Roger Morlidge achieves a balance of the bumbling and the loyal. However, James D'Arcy is incredibly bland as Holmes, very little charisma or arrogance. Gabrielle Anwar is basically little more than window dressing. On the other side of the acting spectrum, the usually great Vincent D'Onofrio is as hammy a Moriaty one can get and this is not meant in a good way. The dynamic between the two never works as a result. Lestrade, even for someone who's not the brightest person in the world and that's putting it mildly, is too much of an idiot. D'Arcy and Morlidge's chemistry as this iconic pairing doesn't convince.Furthermore, there is a far too lurid look to the way 'Sherlock: Case of Evil' is shot and edited, it gives off a sleazy feel and it didn't sit right. The music doesn't really fit and felt and sounded too modern. The direction is slack, the script is limp and stilted as well as ham-fisted in other places and the story lacks tension or suspense and tends to be tedious and convoluted. In conclusion, apart from two performances and some of the production values this Sherlock Holmes adaptation was a mess. 3/10 Bethany Cox

I caught this on television last week and my initial thought was how awful it was and then fascinated at what was Victorian style car crash television. Even the talents of Richard E Grant were kneecapped quite literally with a laughable side story of Mycroft Holmes lurching around in callipers with a pale and wan expression. The best of the worst was Moriarty. An American actor, who, presumably learned his English accent from James Mason films, or to put it more accurately, Eddie Izzard doing James Mason. I wonder upon occasion why producers, directors and financiers do not take one look at the script and realise it is a turkey. Production values aside, a lot was done in terms of costume and set to make this succeed, but it should have been put in a shredder way before the poor, out of work actors were forced to put this rubbish on their CV. No redeeming features whatsoever, but for exactly that reason a compelling watch just to see how bad it could really get.

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.

For anyone who knows anything about Holmes and Watson, let alone people who love 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" a 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 Sign of Four," for example -- instead.