Purely Joyful Movie!

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

This movie feels like it was made purely to piss off people who want good shows

Only one quick thing to point out. If holmes is believed to be born in 1854, then in 1903 he is 49, Rupert Everett was about 45 when he did the film so he was certainly in the correct age range. In fact if stories are really to be done faithfully, then from 1887 to 1893, the actor in the role should be between 33-39. In any event this is never brought up because of the belief that holmes is an elder statesman. Remember he is 60 around the time of world war one. So please give all of us a break with this age nonsense.The overall production was well mounted and since the original stories have been done so well by Jeremy Brett, a new pastiche always fun because it is new. We are sometimes married to these movies being complete retreads of the old stories. The reality is that new stories can also have value of fleshing out and perhaps exploring situations we have not seen Holmes in before.

Rupert Everett's Holmes makes me miss Jeremy Brett all the more. Everett looks much too healthy for Sherlock Holmes, particularly one who, at the opening of this version, has "retired" into a life of opium use.Well, we can't have Jeremy Brett, but is a good story too much to ask for? The entire story keys on fingerprint identification, a crime-solving technology unknown in Doyle's stories. Since Holmes' career roughly coincided with the first uses of fingerprints to solve crimes and *Scotland Yard's* establishment of the first fingerprint bureau, it seems to me the writers could have made a great Holmes story out of this "new" crime-solving technology, if they had cared. Perhaps Holmes might have reacted with suspicion to this new technique that HE did not pioneer (especially if introduced by the despised Lestrade!), convinced himself that it had merit, reacted with frustration when the fingerprints of the killer did not match the chief suspect, then (in a typical Holmesian flash of insight) realized the truth Just In Time to save the killer's intended next victim. It was a twist Doyle himself used more than once (e.g., in A Study In Scarlet and The Man With The Twisted Lip) but that could have made it seem all the more authentic.PBS showed this on Masterpiece Theatre, but it's no Masterpiece. It's watchable, certainly, but it could have been much more.

I didn't find Rupert Everett believable as Sherlock Holmes. He seemed much too young and stupid. Of course I am comparing him to Jeremy Brett who in my opinion was the very best. Dr. Watson was fairly insipid. In fact the whole cast lacked spark. I also found the telephone and the constant cigarette smoking distracting. And while I know Holmes was an opium addict I didn't think that his addiction should have been given quite so much play.I hope that if Masterpiece Theatre decides to bring anymore Sherlock Holmes mysteries to our shores they find a better actor to play the part.

Hmm... the talent of Rupert Everett as Mr.Holmes saved much in this mystery piece. His performance outranked all the rest of the main characters and perhaps this tells something about the casting of this production.Cinematography was very traditional and even dull - surely decent enough just for television, but it lacks imagination and made the overall experience like just any other mystery. A little bit of cinematographic exploration and creativity would have made all the difference. The directing and cinematography together managed to both grasp and lose the feeling of Victorian England. At times the makers managed to convince the viewer and at times that feeling was lost.The trendy part was of course the affination of modern television for morbid: imagery of post-mortems, close examination of bodies etc. that have absolutely no shock value anymore. The makers did not know how to tighten the atmosphere without these effects and that speaks for itself. A mystery doesn't NEED close examination of bodies to be effective: there are plenty of directors who can squeeze a sense of uneasiness without ever resorting to these.The part of Dr.Watson was not convincing and the acting for Mr.Lestrade was bleak and dull - nothing to write home about. Shame really since these characters DO have a major impact on how Sherlock Holmes stories play out effectively. What bugged me the most was the all-too-brief excursions on how A.C.Doyle perceives Mr.Holmes: his addiction to opium, his ability to concentrate thru playing his beloved violin and his ego. The ego part was there in some extent, but the other two were only scratched upon. It would have been easy to prolong his violin scene and tighten the atmosphere with this aspect, but the director chose only to show that Mr.Holmes plays violin in a more tributory sense than anything else. Shame.At the end of the day this movie reaches above the average of TV-movies and doesn't have to be shamed in the presence of real movies either. But it really lacks tension and atmosphere to be enjoyed more than once. Overall a good set of entertainment, but could have easily been more that just that.