1/10
Incredibly Tatty
21 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
I don't know whose idea it was to cast Rupert (should be the next James Bond) Everett as Holmes, or to bring back Ian (his ears can pick up satellite television) Hart as Watson but they didn't do themselves any favours. I actually spent a few hours on set watching this being filmed and had a much more interesting time than I did watching it. In a word, like the previous years Hound of the Baskervilles, it was remarkably MISCAST. Worst still, its very, very cheap; you can tell this by the vast amount of fog pumped into every frame to cover the lack of extras. It probably cost about half of what one episode of the Granada T.V. series cost and besides, Jeremy Brett's Holmes would have solved the case in the pre-credit sequence. Actually, come to think about it, the case is utterly ridiculous. Not Holmesian in the slightest. Aparrantly the production team's thinking was since they had made (well, ruined) the best of the Sherlock Holmes stories the previous year (The Hound of the Baskervilles, you know the one, the one where Holmes hardly turns up at all, best my eye!) They'd have to make up their own. Let us just hope and prey the don't do it again. Oh, an if you're interested (you won't be) it was twins what done it! Yes, the serial killer suddenly turns out to have a twin brother because remember, "When you have eliminated the impossibly whatever remains, no matter how lazy, crass, talentless and brainless it proves the screenwriter to be, must be the truth." Oh, that's harsh Holmes!
8 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed