this isn't sherlock holmes! i managed to get twenty minutes into this thing and then i had to turn off. this is so incredibly off the mark it's ridiculous! worst "holmes" movie ever! i shall never say a bad word about matt frewer's eccentric kid oriented holmes again.

I liked the movie; I have seen it on TV two years ago. But watch out. It may happen to you if you try order the same product from amazon.com. I have placed my order with an Amazon Merchant, and what happened. Instead of getting a brand new product, with following attributes (DVD Release Date: August 24, 2004; Closed-captioned, Widescreen, as it is stated), I got NO Closed-captioned, NO Widescreen product (DVD Release Date: 2003) in a shabby box. It was NOT in the original packing and it was NOT new but already used copy! I really felt cheated.

I'm usually a sucker for all things Sherlockian. I loved Young Sherlock Holmes, Murder By Decree, The Seven Percent Solution, A Study In Terror.. but I didn't care for this "Holmes" movie. Where's Sherlock? He ain't here! They didn't seem to know what they were doing when they put this together. Somebody saw From Hell too many times and combined that with James Bond and forgot to put Sherlock Holmes in the movie.

Few adaptations of Doyle's famed detective franchise stray as far from the original as this one, even if its plot borrows too often from a better distraction, "Young Sherlock Holmes." In "Sherlock: Case of Evil," we get the Gen-X version of the sleuth's adventures--blank stares that are supposed to represent some sort of cryptic angst, needlessly angry characters whose inability to get along quickly grows tiresome, and a production that meanders between parody (a scene where a sex-hungry Victorian takes forever to strip herself of undergarments is almost Mel Brooks-like) and homage (including scenes and setups that appear to have been swiped from "Moonraker," "The Third Man," "A Study in Terror," a Discovery Channel special on Cold War spies, and the aforementioned Barry Levinson project). It isn't that James D'Arcy (terrific in "Master and Commander: Far Side of the World") is awful as Holmes--he just isn't Holmes in either appearance or behavior. From indulging in absinthe to having threesomes to springing into action only after a tragedy has occured, he seems more a creation of Brett Easton Ellis than Arthur Conan Doyle. Robert Morlidge does slightly better, despite his constant scowl--a minor brilliance here is that instead of being bumbling or clueless, his Watson keeps coming to completely reasonable--but wrong--conclusions about the future, such as the subway completely replacing personal vehicles or tobacco being outlawed because, unlike cocaine or morphine, it has no medicinal value. But Vincent D'Onofrio's Harry Lime-esque Dr. Moriarty is so flamboyant and theatrical, he makes the Jon Lovitz thespian character on "Saturday Night Live" look like Lee Strasberg. The murky plot has something to do with Moriarty somehow finding time to invent heroin in between maiming Holme's brother, Mycroft, and faking his own death a couple times. The first half of the film nearly put me to sleep, but the second half picks up substantially in both pace and sensibility, nearly making up for the time wasted, even if Holmes somehow seems to find ammunition in a revolver that a few moments before was empty (unless I missed something--which is possible, as I was droopy-eyed by that point.) For the most part, "Sherlock: Case of Evil" is a well-photographed but amateurish mess with a few moments of interest . . . about what to expect nowadays.

For years the typical Sherlock Holmes has been defined by Basil Rathbone with his memorable profile. This movie bends the rules of the canon Sherlock and turns him into something new and fresh and it ultimately works mainly because of the actors involved.

Sherlock Holmes is pitted against the nemesis, Professor Moriarty. At stake is the drug market, which Moriarty is trying to control. Sherlock is pushed to his limits as he tries to capture his rival and protect a woman he has come to love.

This Sherlock is not your typical, woman disdaining, snooty detective. This Sherlock is arrogant, womanizing and quite willing to go on a drunken blitz when the moment comes, but he's also more human than the canon version. James D'Arcy gives Sherlock an aloof demeanor yet is still very vulnerable, especially where his emotions are concerned. Richard E. Grant is also memorable in his brief role as Mycroft. Watching D'Arcy and Grant act for all they're worth against each other in their one big scene was a treat. There are less than memorable moments with Gabrielle Angwar though. Her character hardly has an impact, which is a point that comes to play later in the movie to prove she SHOULD have had an impact. The story is your basic detective mystery with the surprising addition of a really good sword fight at the end.

While this Sherlock doesn't follow the typical rules, he's still worth a watch and a welcome fresh addition to the Rathbone staple.