Murder Rooms: Mysteries of the Real Sherlock Holmes (2000)

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

While it is a pity that the story wasn't told with more visual finesse, this is trivial compared to our real-world problems. It takes a good movie to put that into perspective.

It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

Blistering performances.

A short series based on the notion of a younger Arthur Conan Doyle solving crimes with Dr. Joseph Bell of Edinburgh, on whom Sherlock Holmes was partly based. They are in effect mystery stories with Holmesian resonances but it stands or falls by how good these actual stories are and I found them to engrossing tales, well constructed and excellently filmed. The episodes look good, the period settings authentic enough and the music and sound first rate.Ian Richardson is perfect as Dr. Bell, intelligent and wise, and makes a good contrast to Charles Edwards as Doyle, who is on a learning curve as a doctor and a writer. Their obvious affection for one another goes alongside their different temperaments when dealing with the crimes they solve. They are supported by some fine British actors in guest roles including Annette Crosbie, Henry Goodman, Ronald Pickup, Roger Lloyd Pack, Clare Holman, Ian McNeice. Rik Mayall appears in one episode as a detective and is particularly good.There are Sherlockian references but they are not over emphasised but one picks up details that emerge later in the canonical stories, the Giant Rat of Sumatra, the surname Morstan, the deerstalker hat etc. It's a shame only five episodes were made.

An atmospheric series usually employs a lot of dry ice, and this one is no exception, taking place in a Gothic style London.Arthur Conan Doyle got his inspiration for Sherlock Holmes from a doctor for whom he clerked, Dr. Bell. This series is about mysteries which Dr. Bell solved. So in a way, it's Holmes and Watson by way of Bell and Doyle.The mysteries are good, drawing on the supernatural and even the horror genre for plots. The problem is that using the name "Sherlock Holmes" is like a bait and switch. Dr. Bell has none of Holmes' quirks - in fact, he's not in it enough for us to see much of anything. The focus is on the less interesting Watson. The series explores his current life as well as his past.Robert Louis Stevenson read "A Study and Scarlet" and wrote to Doyle saying, "Can this be my old friend Joe Bell?" referring to Sherlock. I'm not sure, if you took Sherlock's name out of the title, if it would be all that readily apparent that Bell is the inspiration for Holmes.I would have switched the focus and done more with the medical side of Dr. Bell. But I didn't produce it. I don't know where the series aired originally, but it strikes me it was on Masterpiece Theatre -- I would say it's a typical Masterpiece Theatre mystery series, though not exceptional.

It is well known that Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes was based in part on Dr. Joseph Bell, whom he clerked for. When I heard that there was a series based on the relationship between Doyle and Bell I was quite curious, hoping to learn what Bell was like, how he used his remarkable powers of observation to diagnose patients, and in what ways he inspired Doyle.That's not what I got.Instead, this completely fictionalized series simply turns Dr. Bell into an elderly Sherlock Holmes to Doyle's young Dr. Watson. The result is Sherlock Holmes minus Sherlock Holmes, and the blander character of Bell is far less engaging that the quirky Sherlock.I only watched the first episode, which was poorly designed. The plot was a ramshackle construct, the pieces fit together poorly, and the show dragged inexcusably; at two hours it was twice as long as it needed to be. I feel certain that the story of a brilliant, original physician teaching medicine would be far more interesting than this fanciful concoction. Perhaps someday that show will be made. For now the closest thing, I suppose, is House, a series about a brilliant doctor with fine deductive reasoning. As different as House is from Sherlock Holmes, he is far closer to the spirit of the Holmes books than Murder Rooms.

To start with, this series is undoubtedly a fine series, not a bit like American cheap thrillers; Ian Richardson plays Dr. Bell extremely well, in fact, so well that I think his adaptation of Dr. Bell is much better than his previous adaptation of Sherlock Holmes. Plots are good, characters interesting, setting&costumes acceptable...but the drawback is that this series is too traditional. There's death, love, conflicts, climax and anticlimax, prejudice and misunderstanding, among many other things that are typical of ordinary TV series. The whole series seems like the work of an aspiring writer, promising to be great, but still needs to be polished. To come to the point, as a big fan of Sherlock Holmes stories, I am not in the least interested in how Doyle gains the affections of his fellow female student, or what his school life is like etc. The most things I want to know are METHODS-what exact methods Dr. Bell uses in solving crime mysteries(there's not enough shown in the series)-and which parts of the crime mysteries are later reflected in Doyle's Holmes stories&c, &c. In short, I want the series to be more documentary-like, I don't want it to be an ordinary crime-mystery one.