Stometer Save your money for something good and enjoyable

Actuakers One of my all time favorites.

AshUnow This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Cristal The movie really just wants to entertain people.

pawebster Many reviewers have pointed out just how terrible the film is and, in particular, that this "Holmes" is nothing like the real one.It's also full of terrible gaffes. "Serial killer"?! This expression dates from the 1970s, apparently coined by the FBI. The scriptwriter failed in many other ways to hit the Victorian modes of speech essential to any film set in the period.What really got me, however, was the phony newspapers. These were nothing like real Victorian ones. They had laughable banner headlines of the type otherwise seen only in Superman or Batman films. Some of them were printed on little sheets of paper, very far from the broadsheets of the time.Watch this only if you really have too much time on your hands.

dlewis-12 The problem with this interpretation is that it seems a disconnected story from the canon of Sherlock Holmes stories. While it has a fascinating (though not original) idea of having a younger Sherlock Holmes who is the polar opposite of the character we came to know in the book, it never fully develops this.Richard E Grant plays a good role, as Mycroft. To the reviewer who stated that Mycroft never appeared in the stories, I direct you to the 'Greek Interpreter' and 'The Bruce-Partington Plans'. Watson may well be the person who Holmes accuses in the stories of making things up - he is a police official - not in Afghanistan. The idea that Moriarty invents heroin is a bit much.In all, the story was good, but the film could have been better.

philip-1 This made for television movie proves once again that some of the best cinematic entertainments are turning up on the boob tube with little fanfare and sometimes no advance warning. This is definitely something I wouldn't have minded paying for in a theater!Case of Evil is a delicious, chilling, and welcome reinventing of the Sherlock Holmes mythos. It is well directed by Graham Theakston, moves along at a rapid pace, presents a well rounded cast and is fairly well designed for a low budget project. Holmes is a young man in this treatment with a young man's desire to experience the world. James D'Arcy is turning out to be one of the most promising of a new generation of British actors. He is simply superb here. Not content to just rattle off Holmes's lists of deductive prowess, he finds nuances in the character that are often overlooked and brings a very fresh face to a familiar personage.Roger Morlidge is equally interesting as Watson bringing a real sense of insight and medical intellect to a character that is too often a bumbling sidekick. This Watson is a partner to Holmes in every sense of the word.D'Onofrio doesn't disappoint either, creating a truly despicable villain. Richard Grant does a wonderful cameo as Sherlock's incapacitated brother.The rest of the cast is quite good and the screenplay takes us through a darned good yarn. Give this a try. It's already on DVD!

genam I liked the movie. I thought all the main characters did a really good job.But I also have a very bad taste in movies. I think the Richard Grant thing was a bit unnecessary. The idea of bringing a past into it was interesting, but not really developed as much as it could have been. I never fully understood why they brought him in to the story and to be honest, even as a Richard Grant fan, I didn't care much about the character. He could have been brought a bit more into the story. But D'arcy was great. So was the guy who played Watson. Still, the way they left it off, there is room for sequels. So unless they bring Grant back into the story later, I don't know. I think the scene and he story were well done, but just not as necessary as everything else.