The Case of the Whitechapel Vampire (2002)

In a church in Whitechapel, a monk knelt before the statue of a saint and prayed.  Suddenly, a dark figure appeared and attacked him.  When others arrived, the monk was dead with two holes in his neck, like a vampire's bite!  In the wake of this death, Brother Marstoke (Shawn Lawrence) called upon Sherlock Holmes (Matt Frewer) at 221 Baker St.  Between the concerned clerisy and the panicked parishioners, something needed to be done.  Holmes accepted the case.  He and Dr. Watson (Kenneth Welsh) soon arrived at the church to investigate.  Immediately, there are suspects.  Brother Caulder held Marstoke responsible, largely because of his collection of pagan artefacts from their time in Guyana.  Indeed, many of the brothers and sisters had spent time in Guyana where a deadly disease had been spread by vampire bats.  Holmes learned that two servants - natives of Guyana - had been brought to London: Signora de la Rosa and her son, Hector.  Most interesting of all was Dr. Chagas (Neville Edwards), an expert on bats who had quarreled with Marstoke about exterminating bats in Guyana to stem the disease.  After Holmes began his investigation, yet another brother was slain by the vampire.

This was the fourth and final Hallmark Channel production of Sherlock Holmes with Matt Frewer.  It does not give high hopes for its predecessors.  Frewer is a flat Holmes, almost Vulcan-like in his delivery.  He is entirely pleasant and gets along well with others.  Inspector Jones - an intentionally contentious stand-in for Inspector Lestrade - treats Holmes as the enemy from the moment they meet.  Then, at the height of his fury and the climax of the mystery, he suddenly changed his tune.  What?  Why?  Well, Holmes was still his entirely reasonable self.  There's no fire in Holmes.  The mystery is little more than a distraction to him, hardly more interesting than a crossword puzzle.  On the other hand, Watson is good.  Welsh has followed the model of Edward Hardwicke, a competent aide to Holmes rather than a clueless bumpkin to show how brilliant Holmes is.  The rest of the cast is unremarkable.

The script does no favors.  The Brother who is killed in the alley was alarmingly stupid.  Gee, I can't see a thing in this alley, someone is killing monks, and a spooky voice is calling for help.  I'll just abandon the blind nun who I am guiding to check on this mysterious voice in the alley.  Face palm!  It was hard to feel sorry for him when he was killed.  Many of Holmes deductions are made off-screen, so the viewer doesn't have an opportunity to follow the logic.  It's just revealed at the end.  As for the defeat of the villain, good grief.

Mediocre and disappointing.  Skip.

Hands of a Murderer (1990)

It is 1900 and Professor James Moriarty (Anthony Andrews) is led to the gallows.  The crowd cheered and Inspector Lestrade looked on with approval.  Suddenly, smoke bombs exploded and the hangman fainted on the scaffold.  When the smoke cleared, Moriarty was gone!  Sherlock Holmes (Edward Woodward) blamed Lestrade for the escape.  Now Holmes would have to track down the villain again.  Before he could do so, he and Watson (John Hillerman) were summoned to the Diogenese Club to see Holmes' brother, Mycroft.  Sensitive information was being leaked from Mycroft's office and he wanted Sherlock to find the leaker.  Sherlock declined, stating that his efforts to find Moriarty were more important.  Of course, the two cases proved to be the same case.

Edward Woodward is passable as Holmes, though he is too old.  Holmes should be around 45 in 1900 whereas Woodward was 60.  Hillerman is a standard Watson.  He's not an oaf like Nigel Bruce but he's not much help either.  Anthony Edwards is much too young to be Moriarty, nearly 20 years Woodward's junior.  He oozes villainy in every scene.  He is oh so villainous.  Ugh.  Maybe dial that back a bit.  The rest of the cast is serviceable, but unremarkable.

It is merely okay.  Not bad but not good either.  Skip.

Young Sherlock Holmes (1985)

John Watson (Alan Cox) arrives at Brompton Academy in London.  He has transferred in the middle of the term from a northern school.  He has hardly set down his bags when a tall, lean fellow regards him briefly then offers an uncanny description of him.  However, he guessed James rather than John.  This teenaged wonder is Sherlock Holmes.  Watson soon finds that Holmes spends a great deal of time with Professor Waxflatter and Elizabeth (Sophie Ward), Waxflatter's niece.  Coincidentally, Waxflatter has newspaper clippings lying around that detail recent peculiar deaths.  Holmes concludes they must be murders and begins his investigation with Watson and Elizabeth in tow!

The movie has some funny similarities to both the Harry Potter franchise and Indiana Jones.  Brompton Academy has a Hogwarts vibe, which is funny as it long predates the Harry Potter series.  However, writer Chris Columbus went on to direct the first two Harry Potter movies.  Ah, interesting.  One can see the heroic trio as Harry, Ron, and Hermione!  The bad kid looks uncannily like Draco Malfoy!  The scene where all the kids eat in the great hall only needed a few floating candles to fit neatly into Hogwarts.  As for the Indiana Jones connection, Stephen Spielberg was an executive producer of this film.  The presence of a secret society in a hidden temple who make sacrifices with boiling wax had an uncanny resemblance to Temple of Doom (1984).  In fact, if one takes Watson to be Short Round, Elizabeth to be Willie Scott, and Sherlock to be Indy, the similarities are uncanny.

There are the ludicrous bits, of course.  Professor Waxflatter has perfected a flying machine in 1870, which Holmes and Watson use to save the day in the climax.  Holmes stands on top of a chandelier that is 10 feet above a crowd of dozens and no one notices him.  Seriously, how did he get up there without being seen?  How is the guy at the altar blind to this skinny youth standing on the chandelier?  Ugh.  Where previous victims of a hallucinogenic poison could be counted on to accidentally kill themselves, Holmes and his crew are merely inconvenienced, somewhat comically in the case of Watson.

The movie openly admits that it is outside the Holmesian canon, as it proposes a meeting between Holmes and Watson when they were each 16.  In fact, they met in 1881 in A Study in Scarlett.  Rather than a bespectacled and pudgy man, Watson was described as thin and brown as a nut; he had just returned from India and the Second Anglo-Afghan War.  Clearly, the makers of the film used Nigel Bruce as their model rather than the literary Watson.

Like an Indiana Jones film, it has good pacing and plentiful action.  Though it clearly teases a sequel, a sequel was never made.  It had a mediocre box office performance, failing to launch the Young Sherlock series.  Just okay.

Sherlock: A Case of Evil (2002)

The movie opens with Holmes (James D'Arcy) chasing two men at night through the streets of London.  One turns to fight Holmes but is cut down in swordplay in a flash.  Now, it is one on one: Holmes vs. Moriarty (Vincent D'Onofrio).  Holmes proves the better swordsman and the wounded Moriarty continues running.  Holmes corners him and the fight continues until Holmes deftly disarms the villain.  Unwilling to be taken alive, Moriarty draws a revolver.  Holmes quickdraws his own revolver and shoots Moriarty in the chest.  Moriarty falls into an open sewer.  His body is not recovered.

Holmes is celebrated in the press for having killed the notorious Moriarty and is soon contracted for an interesting case.  Many drug sellers have been murdered.  Holmes goes to the morgue where the latest victim is being autopsied by Dr. Watson (Roger Morlidge).  Holmes and Watson do not get on well initially, but Watson soon sees that Holmes does indeed have a keen mind.  The pair are soon on the case of a "serial killer" (the show does use that term though it is many decades away from being coined).  Holmes solves the case but something doesn't feel right.  After meeting with his brother Mycroft (Richard E. Grant), Holmes realizes that Moriarty faked his death.  Yes, it is Moriarty who is arranging to have a monopoly on the London drug trade.

D'Arcy is a very different Holmes.  He proves to be a womanizer during the Victorian Era.  He beds 4 women during the movie, 2 of them at the same time when he was on a drunken bender.  He falls in love with an actress who is not named Irene Adler.  No, this one is Rebecca Doyle (Gabrielle Anwar) and she had been Moriarty's honey pot in the first act.  Rather than coldly rational, D'Arcy's Holmes is an emotional child who takes offense that others don't immediately recognize his genius.  Most of his deductions are just parlor tricks, a way to woo the ladies.  He does far too much running.

Morlidge is a combination of Watson and James Bond's Q.  In addition to being Scotland Yard's medical examiner, Watson has a side hustle as an inventor.  He provides Holmes with a one-shot cane that fires a .45 caliber round.  Morlidge is more in keeping with Watson than D'Arcy is with Holmes.

Vincent D'Onofrio starts strong and then fades.  Despite outsmarting Holmes in the first act by faking his death, he just can't stay dead.  No, he wants the notoriety.  His genius fades according to the needs of the plot.  In the final act, he fails to account for Watson and then, when forced to flee, chose to go to Big Ben and climb to the top.  Really?  What a surprise when he crashes through one of the clock faces and plunges to his 'death' in the Thames.

Much like Christopher Plummer in Murder by Decree, this isn't Sherlock Holmes but some imposter using his name.  Skip.

Murder by Decree (1979)

Sherlock Holmes (Christopher Plummer) and Dr. Watson (James Mason) attend the theater, only to find the show delayed as it will not start until the Prince of Wales arrives.  When the tardy prince enters, the commoners boo!  Dr. Watson saves the day with a 'God save the monarchy!' or some such, earning great praise from Holmes.  It is 1888 and there are radicals who would see the monarchy toppled.  After the performance, Holmes and Watson exit to find hawkers selling news of the latest murder by Jack the Ripper.  To Watson's astonishment, Scotland Yard has not consulted Holmes regarding the murders.  However, a band of merchants is waiting for them at Baker Street and request that Holmes investigate Jack the Ripper.  Holmes is given a lead: speak to Robert Lees (Donald Sutherland).  Lees proves to be a psychic who has had visions of the Ripper and even spotted him once.  The police have dismissed Lees as a crank.  While Holmes follows the psychic, Watson interviews the various friends of the murdered women to see if there is some commonality.

I saw the movie in theaters when it was released and could only remember two things about it prior to rewatching it.  First, the royal family was somehow involved in the Jack the Ripper murders.  Second, Holmes squashed Watson's pea with a fork.

The plot is ludicrous.  The Duke of Clarence - younger brother to the Prince of Wales - had an affair with Annie Crook (Genevieve Bujold), a catholic, whom he also married.  Then he left her.  However, she gave birth to a daughter and that's trouble.  Word of this scandal filtered through the Freemasons, many of whom are at the highest echelons of government.  Two Freemasons decide to fix the problem.  One, a doctor, sends Annie to an insane asylum.  But where is the child?  They discover that Annie told some friends of her affair and entrusted the child to one of them.  The two Freemasons murder their way through the various friends, leaving the mutilated corpses for... reasons.  The police know that the murderers are Freemasons, thus their intentional incompetence in solving the case.  Sigh.

Much as I like Christopher Plummer, he made for a disappointing Holmes.  He is far too emotional for Holmes.  He is surprisingly jovial, often smiling and laughing.  He is reduced to tears after interviewing a woman in an asylum.  Plummer admitted at the time that his was a "passionate and caring Holmes."  Nope, Holmes should be aloof, analytical, and only occasionally amused by the foibles of others.

James Mason was too old for Watson.  However, he otherwise fits the role quite well.  Interestingly, he took the part only if his Watson wasn't a Nigel Bruce-like buffoon.  Indeed, his Watson is a steady and sober figure who is an active participant in the investigation, a partner to Holmes rather than a mere sidekick.

David Hemmings is wasted as Inspector Foxborough.  Perhaps he was meant as a red herring that I didn't see on this viewing.  Though he is generally helpful toward Holmes, he had other motives and eventually proves to be aligned with the radicals who booed the Prince of Wales.  Uh, okay.  Such political machinations proved to be more a distraction than an integral part of the story.  The muddy alliances of the Freemasons being pro-government and protecting the Ripper vs. the radicals being anti-government and seeking to stop the Ripper wasn't effectively done.

The inclusion of Donald Sutherland as a haunted psychic was bizarre.  Since when does Holmes use hocus pocus to solve crime?  However, when Sutherland pointed at the house of the Ripper, all I saw was his famous final scene from Invasion of the Body Snatchers.  Ha!  I wonder if that was intended.

The big fight scene between Holmes and one of the Freemasons was poorly done.  Why did Holmes leave his gun behind just before he went chasing after one of the murderers?  Not to worry, he has a scarf with a weight at the end.  How does one manage to get strangled to death in a net?  They're not going to kill him off like this, are they?  Yes, they are.  Pathetic.

Overall, disappointing.  This was not Sherlock Holmes, but some imposter taking his name.  This was not a mystery that required brilliant analytical skills, but merely a crime in need of very basic investigative work.  If not for the insanity of Annie or the overwhelming fear of Mary Kelly (Susan Clark), either of them could have just exposed the whole story.  Nope, they only give broken accounts that Holmes reassembled.  Meh.  Skip this one.

A Night in the Lonesome October

Snuff is a dog.  His master is Jack the Ripper.  In the house where he lives, he must guard against the Thing in the Attic, the Thing in the Trunk, the Things in the Mirror and the Thing in the Basement.  The neighbors include a crazy witch, the Count (Dracula), the Good Doctor (Frankenstein), a werewolf, and a few other colorful characters.  In the wake of a murder early in the month of October, the Great Detective (Sherlock Holmes) arrives in the area and begins to investigate.  It just so happens that there will be a full moon on Halloween, which signals an opportunity to unleash the Elder Gods (a la H P Lovecraft) upon the world.  There are those who want to open a gateway and those who want to keep it shut.  All of them are preparing their spells, potions, and magical devices for the full moon.

The story is told entirely from the point of view of Snuff, each chapter detailing one day in October.  In his wanderings, he contacts the animal companions of the other players.  Graymalk the cat is teamed with the witch, Needle the bat with the Count, Bubo the rat with the Good Doctor, Quicklime the snake with the mad monk, and several others.  That they all chat with one another, bartering for gossip and information, is quite entertaining.  Another funny bit was that all of the Great Detective's clever disguises were useless against Snuff, who could always recognize him by scent.

Being Roger Zelazny - most remembered for his Chronicles of Amber - means there must be some sort of magical pattern.  Sure enough, the midpoint of where all the players reside will be the sight of the final confrontation.  That seems simple enough, but the Count has multiple coffins hidden for safety, some players are unrevealed, and some odd residents may not be players.  Snuff has an interesting time trying to pin down the site where the gateway can be opened.

It was unexpected to find Jack the Ripper as a hero, an apparently immortal figure who - with the help of his faithful dog - has repeatedly kept the Elder Gods at bay.  Hugely entertaining and highly recommended.

Sherlock Holmes and the Leading Lady (1991)

In 1910, a Viennese inventor has created a remote detonator.  He views this as extremely dangerous and decides that only the British can be trusted with it.  No sooner has it been handed to the British ambassador than a thief grabs the case and flees.  The inventor gives chase, following the criminal into a theater.  A struggle ensues in the rafters and the inventor plummets to his death on the stage.

In London, Mycroft Holmes demands that his brother depart for Vienna immediately and recover both the prototype of the detonator and the plans.  Though he initially objects, Holmes (Christopher Lee) soon agrees; he and Watson (Patrick Macnee) are bound for Vienna.  Upon arrival, they start with the scene of the crime before migrating to the theater.  Who should be the leading lady but Irene Adler (Morgan Fairchild).  While Holmes and Watson investigate, the thieves plot what to do with both the blueprints to the device and the prototype.  The thieves are Serbs who detest the Austro-Hungarian Empire and want to strike a blow with the detonator.  To complicate matters, Holmes is helped, or more likely hindered, by an over-eager embassy employee, Simpson-Makepeace.  Then there is a peculiar American, Mr. Elliot, who is enamored of Miss Adler, but strangely curious about the missing detonator.

This three-part miniseries is quite slow.  For as much time as it has to develop the characters, it doesn't.  Irene is determined to seduce Sherlock, who proves oblivious to her efforts.  He is interested in nothing but his investigation.  The villains are murderous - or not - depending on the needs of the plot at that time.  For instance, they were more than willing to kill Irene - accidentally getting a different woman - at one point but then later go to the trouble of kidnapping her.  Given why they did it, there was no point in keeping her alive.  When they have the drop on Holmes, they start monologuing rather than shooting.  Is the scriptwriter familiar with Arthur Conan Doyle's work?  As both Lee and Macnee were in their late sixties when this was made, the action is limited.  Watson chasing a drunkard across town is played for laughs.

As it takes place in Vienna in 1910, it was a requirement that Sigmund Freud appear.  Indeed, he has a large role both in hypnotizing a witness and then accompanying Holmes to replace Watson, who was otherwise engaged.  The inclusion of Freud is just schtick.  For a much better appearance of Freud with Holmes, watch The Seven-Per-Cent Solution instead.

Lee is not a convincing Holmes.  He looks the part, but he lacks the energetic spark.  When Jeremy Brett or Basil Rathbone had an insight, they would talk at lightning speed, their tongue barely keeping pace with their thoughts.  There is more thinking to be done so these Holmes communicate quickly so they can get back to the more important task of deduction.  By contrast, Lee has this deep sonorous voice that will not be rushed.  His insights are offered in a deliberative speech; it's not as if he has anything else to do than explain to his fellows.  However, this is an older Holmes, so I may be quibbling.  That his deductions were run-of-the-mill did not help.  There is a lot of filler that doesn't advance the story.

Mediocre.  Skip.

The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes (1994)

The last series with Jeremy Brett as Sherlock Holmes consists of 6 stories, all of the standard 1-hour length.  This series has the unusual feature that Mycroft (Charles Gray) appears prominently in two episodes.  In the first - The Golden Pince-Nez - he was a stand-in for Watson.  In the second - The Mazarin Stone - he was the stand-in for Holmes!  Claudine Auger - Bond girl from Thunderball (1965) - appears as a cougar out to marry a wealthy young lord in The Three Gables.  There are a number of actors who would be noteworthy in later years but not yet.  Ciaran Hinds plays a cuckold in The Cardboard Box, Hugh Bonneville (Downton Abbey's Lord Grantham) plays a man addicted to heroin in The Dying Detective, and Frank Finlay plays an invalid professor in The Golden Pince-Nez.

Much as I like Charles Gray, his replacing Sherlock was off-putting.  His pursuit of the villain was like something out of a horror film as the villain would shoot at the approaching Mycroft only to then discover he was not there.  The episode was begun with a brief scene of Sherlock having to leave for Scotland and ended with him congratulating his brother on solving the case.  Worse yet, the story was a mashup of two Sherlock Holmes mysteries that were poorly stitched together.

Overall, Jeremy Brett made an outstanding Sherlock Holmes.  Edward Hardwicke was an excellent Doctor Watson, providing some humanity that Holmes often lacks.  Rosalie Williams had a long run as Mrs. Hudson and offered more character to the role than one would expect.  The Granada series is a definite must-see for the Sherlock Holmes enthusiast.

Recommended.

The Case-Book of Sherlock Holmes (1991-93)

Holmes and Watson are back again to solve the various mysteries that plague late Victorian England.  A new series of fairly faithfully adapted Arthur Conan Doyle tales are featured in the first season (1991).  The Disappearance of Lady Frances Carfax is particularly good as it has Watson detailing his vacation in correspondence to Holmes only to see Holmes arrive to say Lady Frances was in grave danger.  Watson once again plays Archie Goodwin to Holmes' Nero Wolfe.  I wonder if Rex Stout was inspired by this story.  The Mystery of Thor's Bridge is another standout.  Also of note, a very young Jude Law appears in Shoscombe Old Place.  Highly recommended.

Season 2 consisted of only one feature-length episode - The Master Blackmailer - in which the normally likeable Robert Hardy has a turn as one of Holmes' most daunting foes.  Hardy is downright creepy as Charles Augustus Milverton, the ruthless blackmailer.  The ruination of his various victims dramatically expanded what had been detailed in the short story.

Season 3 followed in the footsteps of Season 2 by producing feature-length TV movies, but with considerably less success.  The Last Vampyre is turned on its head and sees bonus characters trained in hypnotism, an outbreak of influenza for Dr. Watson to attend, and an old story about vampires from a century earlier.  Very disappointing.  Then it became worse with a mishmash of The Noble Bachelor and The Veiled Lodger.  Efforts to squeeze the two stories together resulted in a complete mess.  Villains become victims and victims become villains.  Worse, Holmes suffers nightmares that prove to be premonitions of the coming mystery, including scenes that do unfold as shown in his dreams.  Really?  Holmes has become a seer, not a detective.

The Case-Book starts strong but ends poorly.

The Hound of the Baskervilles (1988)

Sir Charles Baskerville has died at Baskerville Hall, leaving no heirs.  The property is transferred to the nearest relative, Sir Henry Baskerville, an American.  No sooner has he arrived than he receives threats to stay away from the estate.  He engages Holmes and Watson to determine who is threatening him.  Of particular note, there is a legend about a demonic hound that killed a Baskerville who had caused the death of a young maiden during the English Civil War.  So much nonsense as far as Holmes is concerned but large canine footprints were found near Sir Charles.  Had he been scared to death?

Holmes and Watson travel with Sir Henry to the gloomy moors of Devon.  After spending a night and meeting some of the locals, Holmes returns to London while leaving Watson in charge of security for Sir Henry.  Sir Henry balks at being sequestered in his hall with Watson but accepts it, for now.  It is well-known that an escaped murderer is hiding in the moors, that there are eerie howls at night, and there is talk of a massive hound prowling!  Danger abounds.  With Holmes absent for a large portion of the tale, it is left to Watson to send frequent correspondence regarding developments to Holmes and for Sir Henry to chafe at Watson's constant protection, which interferes with his desire to woo a local woman.

Brett is quite good as Holmes, as usual.  Hardwicke plays centerstage for an extended period, doing an excellent job of carrying the story.  This Watson is highly-competent, not merely a sounding board for Holmes, or worse, a comic sidekick.  Where most Holmes' adventures are mysteries, this one crosses into the horror genre at times.

Highly recommended.

The Sign of Four (1987)

Mary Morston (Jenny Seagrove) arrives at Baker Street to consult Sherlock Holmes (Jeremy Brett).  Watson (Edward Hardwicke) is immediately drawn to her beauty.  She explains how her mother died when she was an infant and her father, who was posted in India, sent her to live in England.  When she was 17, her father was to visit.  She went to his hotel, and he was absent.  She did recover a peculiar map that bore a mark, 4 in Sanskrit.  "The Sign of Four," Holmes remarked.  That was 10 years ago, and she has no idea what happened.  However, six years ago, she received a pearl.  There was a note enclosed that said she had been wronged and the pearl was payment.  Each year since then, another pearl has arrived.  Holmes grew impatient with her tale.  That morning, she had received a summons and was allowed to bring two companions, provided they were not police.

The trio arrived at the home of Thaddeus Sholto (Ronald Lacey), son of Major Sholto.  Coincidentally, Sholto was a former comrade of Mary's father in India.  Thaddeus explains that Mary's father had confronted his father about a treasure, died of a heart attack during the argument.  His father died six years ago, failing to reveal the location of the mysterious treasure to his sons though he did have a necklace adorned with pearls, the very pearls that Mary had been receiving.  His brother has finally located the treasure and Thaddeus is determined to share with Mary.

The four depart to meet with Bartholomew Sholto but find him dead in a room locked from the inside.  The treasure is gone.  The police immediately arrest Thaddeus.  Can Holmes unravel the clues and locate the murderers?  Obviously.  Like The Crooked Man, this mystery tracks back to events during the Indian Mutiny (1857).  It is just a matter of Holmes laying hands on the criminal and then having him explain the backstory.

Very entertaining.  Holmes makes use of the Baker Street Irregulars, which is both funny and brilliant.  His band of street urchins comb the city to make a search that he could not hope to perform.  Holmes also demonstrated his talent for disguise.  The one failing is that young actors should have portrayed some of the characters during the mutiny; the same man playing both 20 and 50 just didn't work.

Highly recommended.

The Return of Sherlock Holmes (1986-1988)

It is 1894 and Watson (Edward Hardwicke) is a practicing physician.  It has been four years since the death of Sherlock Holmes (Jeremy Brett).  Inspector Lestrade wants his input on a recent murder, which Watson is only too happy to provide.  The two decide this was just the sort of murder that would interest Holmes.  Upon returning to his office, Watson is accosted by an elderly man who wants to sell him some books.  Watson is disinterested but polite.  The man proves to be Sherlock Holmes, resurrected!  Holmes explains the true events at Reichenbach Falls and his subsequent 3-year absence.  The remains of Moriarty's gang is still pursuing Holmes, but this recent murder offers a chance to turn the tables.  Holmes and Watson resume their old ways to take down the final threat in "The Empty House."  Holmes and Watson have another 10 adventures in this series.

David Burke, who played Watson throughout The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, was replaced by Edward Hardwicke.  This was a bit jarring initially, as Hardwicke is a smaller and older man, but he proves to be an excellent Watson.

One peculiarity was that Brett insisted that Holmes overcome his drug additions.  As part of The Devil's Foot, a side plot has Holmes overcoming his cocaine addiction and burying his hypodermic on a lonely beach.  Though outside of canon, Brett didn't want to be a bad influence on children who admired his portrayal of Holmes.  Fair enough.  This is one of the few versions of Holmes that included his use of cocaine; Rathbones' Holmes was a paragon by comparison.

Tales of the literary Holmes continue.  Very entertaining and highly recommended.

The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (1984-1985)

In this series, Jeremy Brett took the pipe and dearstalker and made them his own.  Though many actors had played Sherlock Holmes, Basil Rathbone was the definite Holmes when Brett took up the challenge.  His success cannot be overstated.  Brett's Holmes has far more range and nuance, adhering to the character that Doyle wrote.  Indeed, Brett had the benefit of bringing the short stories to screen, rather than some adapted screenplay with only slight links to the source material.  He is ably assisted in his portrayal by a first-rate Dr. Watson, played by David Burke.  Rather than the amiable clueless oaf of the Nigel Bruce era, Burke is a competent ally and sounding board for Holmes.  His role as a moderating influence, personal chronicler, and only friend are abundantly clear.  The only failing, which is minor, is that both are too old for the roles.  Holmes and Watson should be at least a decade younger.

The series begins with A Scandal in Bohemia, which is the only story to include Irene Addler, the usual love interest of Holmes.  As the only woman to ever outmaneuver him, he holds her in high regard though not as an object for his affection.  The series concludes with The Final Problem, where Holmes and Moriarty plunge to their presumed deaths at the base of Reichenbach Falls in Switzerland.  In between, there are many well-told tales from the pages of The Strand Magazine.  Charles Gray reprises his role of Mycroft Holmes; he had played the role nearly 10 years earlier in The Seven-Per-Cent Solution.

Brett played the character for another decade, though Burke's run as Watson concludes with The Final Problem.  I very much liked Burke in the role and wonder how I'll view his replacement.

Highly recommended for fans of Sherlock Holmes.  This is the closest depiction to the literary character.

The House of Fear (1945)

In a Scottish town, a group of 7 men created a club called the Good Comrades.  Recently, one of the comrades received an envelope that contained 6 orange pips.  Soon after, he died a horrible death.  Then an envelope arrived for another comrade, this time with 5 orange pips.  He too died a horrible death.  It was at this point that the insurance company called upon Sherlock Holmes (Basil Rathbone).  Each man had life insurance which was paid to the surviving members of Good Comrades; they suspect foul play by one of the remaining members.  Holmes and Watson (Nigel Bruce) arrive to investigate.  There is reason to suspect everyone.  Despite their presence, the envelopes of orange pips come and horrible deaths follow.  Can Holmes uncover the culprit before more men die horribly?

The story bears little resemblance to The Adventure of The Five Orange Pips.  Most of the Good Comrades aren't good; Holmes even noted that one of them had gotten away with murder through a legal loophole, a fact that put him on the top of the suspect list.  The idea of 7 men living in a remote castle seems bizarre to a modern viewer.  Maybe that was more typical in a bygone era.  Lestrade (Dennis Hoey) arrives to bumble around and contrast with Holmes' keen observations.

Entertaining to watch but disappointing as a whodunit.  Holmes only catches the villain because the villain took an action that, in retrospect, makes no sense.  Holmes can explain everything at that point but had been helpless to prevent the continuing murders.  Though not a great movie, it is always fun to watch Rathbone and Bruce.

Terror by Night (1946)

The Star of Rhodesia has a cursed history.  Premature death seems to follow any who own the huge diamond (valued at £50,000 in 1946, 2.2 million today).  Lady Margaret Carstairs is the current owner and is traveling with her son, Roland, from London to Edinburgh.  Concerned that there might be an attempt to steal the diamond, Roland employs Sherlock Holmes (Basil Rathbone) to protect it.  Of course, Dr. Watson (Nigel Bruce) is also at hand.  While Holmes and Watson are enjoying dinner with Watson's old army pal, Major Duncan Bleek, Roland is killed and the diamond is stolen!  Luckily, Inspector Lestrade is also aboard the train.  Following suggestions from Holmes, he seals the train car and canvases all the passengers to ferret out the murderer.  While Lestrade bumbles, Holmes deduces who is responsible.

Only an hour long, the story is rushed; it is less than an hour.  It is like a TV episode rather than a movie.  Though Bruce is the classic Watson, he is alarmingly oafish.  He is all comic relief and a clueless foil to Rathbone's hyper serious manner and lightning deductions.  Though entertaining, the plot is ludicrous.  Considering the willingness to kill, why do it on the train with Holmes and Inspector Lestrade aboard?  The villain has so many cohorts that he could have overwhelmed the train if he had so desired.  Though I've read all of Arthur Conan Doyle's Holmes stories, this one didn't ring any bells.  Why not adapt one of them rather than this awkward original that is mostly reminiscent of Murder on the Orient Express.

Because he is my first Holmes, I have always pictured Holmes as Basil Rathbone.  Though Rathbone's Holmes is a bit too perfect and upright compared to the literary Holmes, he's often brusque and arrogant, which fits better.  Though Basil Rathbone is the face and voice of Holmes, Jeremy Brett did a better job of staying faithful to the character.  Much of that is because he had screenwriters who used the source material rather than just the characters.  Robert Downey Jr. is over-the-top craziness, Holmes crossed with Indiana Jones.

Sherlock Holmes' Smarter Younger Sister

Enola Holmes is set for release later this month.  Huh, what is this about?  Clicking over to the description on IMDb, I see the following introduction:

When Enola Holmes-Sherlock's teen sister-discovers her mother missing, she sets off to find her, becoming a super-sleuth in her own right as she outwits her famous brother and unravels a dangerous conspiracy around a mysterious young Lord.

His younger sister 'outwits' him.  The most famous sleuth in fiction is outwitted by a teenaged girl.  Gee, yet another movie that elevates a female character by diminishing an established male character (e.g. Rey and Luke Skywalker).  That sounds like a great way to turn away fans of the established character.

It happens that this is based on a novel series by author Nancy Springer who has written half a dozen such mysteries.  Are they good?  I don't know and I'm unlikely to find out.  Go create an original character without borrowing the fame of an established one.  I don't want to read about Hercule Poirot's smarter younger sister, Philip Marlowe's wittier sister, or Sam Spade's more intelligent sister.  How about creating a unique, new female sleuth like Veronica Mars, Miss Marple, or Nancy Drew.  Eidos didn't create Indiana Jones more adventurous younger sister, Florida Jones.  No, they made Lara Croft!  That is how it's done.  This is akin to fan fiction that rides on the shoulders of established characters while simultaneously belittling them.  However, it is clearly a successful strategy.  I somehow doubt that there would have been a book six for Enola Smith and her less intelligent brother Walter Smith.

Mr. Holmes

It is 1947 and Sherlock Holmes (Ian McKellen) has returned from Japan to his country home in England.  He is greeted by Mrs. Munro (Laura Linney) and her son, Roger.  Mr. Holmes has been retired for approximately 30 years, having spent the time maintaining bees in the countryside and, as of late, going senile.  Shortly after the death of his brother Mycroft, he had dared to see a Sherlock Holmes movie, something he had never done.  There were elements that seemed familiar but there was something wrong in it.  He knew this was a retelling of his last case as written by John Watson but he could not recall the truth.

 

The movie tells three stories.  There is the case of The Lady in Grey, his final case and cause of his retirement.  There is his trip to Japan which turned out to be more than it appeared.  Then there is the case of the dead bees in the apiary.  Holmes is 93 years old and frail.  The first plays like a man with amnesia trying to remember something vital to the plot.  It struck me as unlikely that he would forget the case that led to his retirement.  In theory, every time he used his keen observational skills over the last three decades, he would be reminded of why he was no longer using them to solve mysteries.  He demonstrated repeatedly that his deductive powers were still very keen despite his age.  It would have been better had some obscure case become suddenly important in the present.  Holmes had traveled to Japan to acquire a rare plant that was supposedly beneficial in fighting senility.  Why he had to go personally rather than just purchase the plant is never explained.  However, the plant was to be found in Hiroshima, inside the blast radius of the atom bomb.  Really?  And Holmes has the opportunity to look horrified upon seeing the destruction.  Why is this in the movie?  Lastly, Holmes becomes close to Roger, who is a very bright boy who is fascinated by Mr. Holmes.  Roger is only too happy to assist with the apiary and ponder why bees are dying.

 

This is not a standard Sherlock Holmes story.  He solves nothing by means of deduction.  In fact, deduction is shown to be a parlor trick that may provide knowledge but does not provide satisfactory solutions.  In both the Lady in Grey case and his trip to Japan, his deductions are perfect but those who hear them are not consoled by them.  Cold logic is cold and these people needed warmth.  Holmes is made to feel guilty for not being a therapist.  Having read all of Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories, I have to say that Holmes was not a sentimental man.  He was usually an arrogant jerk but his brilliance mitigated his abrasiveness.  Of course, Mr. Holmes reveals that Watson had written a fictional version of him which offers an explanation why this Holmes seems so different.

 

Take it or leave it.