Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

Phonearl Good start, but then it gets ruined

Afouotos Although it has its amusing moments, in eneral the plot does not convince.

Fairaher The film makes a home in your brain and the only cure is to see it again.

mwrp Certainly It has its lackings based upon Acting or the way Sherlock is being presented . But Who doesn't mess with the sherlock character nowadays . I watched some other Tv movies based on Sherlock .But It has so far best story .And the story presentation was pretty good.

Leofwine_draca Just think of all the great Sherlock Holmes stories that Doyle wrote. 56 short stories, four novels, and all of them at least above average to good. So why on earth did the BBC see fit to write a new story, complete with gaping plot holes, for their 2004 Christmas TV film? Instead of having the eponymous detective hunting down some classic villain in one of Doyle's Victorian landscapes, we get a modern-mannered Holmes investigating a sexual pervert with an interest in paedophilia, a plot with psycho-thriller origins far more suited to a modern-day thriller like MESSIAH than a classic murder mystery. It really makes me cross, especially when the origins of the character are undermined and new characters introduced willy-nilly.Everett is hopeless in the leading role, too openly camp to be convincing, and his portrayal is totally unlikeable. Bring back Richard Roxburgh, that's what I say. Complete with false eyelashes, lip-stick, and a heavy line in chain-smoking, Everett mumbles all of his lines. Saying that, the character is false too, actually going down the wrong track for quite a time and getting flummoxed very often; certainly a far cry from the Holmes of the stories. Shots of the detective creeping into the bedrooms of teenage girls are simply ludicrous and betray a huge ignorance of the period as a whole. Yes, Holmes liked to disguise himself, but did they really have lifelike latex masks at the turn of the last century? The rest of the cast really fall into the background; there are no stand-out turns here, but a whole lotta bad acting instead. The best of the bunch is Ian Hart, returning as Watson from 2002's HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES. At least he tries in this one, which is more than can be said for everyone else present. So, there you have it: a Sherlock Holmes film which betrays all of the characters; which turns the story into a shabby drawn-out shambles and which introduces a female psychoanalyst to top things off. How dumb can you get?

johnny-08 The character of English writer Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes is probably one of the most popular invented detective. He is very calm and has very cool attitude when he's trying to solve a murder. This movie will help you to like even more this brilliant detective. It's mostly because of the actor Rupert Everett who is very good in this roll. Also I have to say something about script. It's not the best that it can be, but it's good, because you cannot understand who is the murder till' the end. This movie takes place in London, where someone is killing young ladies from rich families. This case is been given to the best detective on the world,Sherlock Holmes. He has help from his friend Dr.Watson and from Watson's fiancée Mrs.Vandeleur. This movie is good because of the actors and script. Again I have to mention Rupert Everett who proved that he is very good actor. Also Ian Hart played well as Watson. Please look this movie with patience and watch a good performance from a fine actor.

shugaron316 As a huge SH fan,I've seen nearly every film about the Great Detective,good,bad,and indifferent. And I've seen a gamut of actors take on the role of Holmes,from the great(Jeremy Brett,Basil Rathbone,Christopher Plummer)to the good(Peter Cushing,Eli Norwood)to the so-so(Nicol Williamson,Ronald Howard)to the pits(Roger Moore,Jack Palance,Tom Baker,Matt Frewer). It's hard to define where Rupert Everett stacks up. He has the height,the cold clinical nature,the drug use down pat. But he is simply too young for this role. In 1902,when this story is set,Holmes would be in his late 40's,according to the Canon. This Holmes doesn't look to be a day over 30! And Ian Hart is totally miscast as Watson-he is too small and scrawny,tho he is shown to be a competent and forceful presence when need be. The plot itself is interesting-a tag team of identical twin psycho-sexual killers,and the London of 1902 is presented well-foggy streets,the chasm between the classes,and Scotland Yard's gradual acceptance of the SH method in their own work,tho it is surprising to see Lestrade,tho still an imbecile in his field,as a "ready to beat a confession out of you" thug. The notion of a woman shrink,especially one well versed in the mysteries of sexual perversion(and who smokes,also),would have been unthinkable to the stuffy Edwardians of that day. All in all,tho,not a bad effort.