User reviews

Holmes takes on the evil Professor Moriarty, his old nemesis. I didn't like Roger Moore as Holmes any more than I care for him doing James Bond; he is alright, but I like the way other actors handle these characters better. I really didn't appreciate the phony looking sideburns on Holmes, seems the make-up department could have been more competent. Also, I thought the acting was forced at times, and at others a bit corny and hammy. I did like the great old oompaul pipe of Holmes, and enjoyed the production overall. It was another good mystery solved by the Master of Sleuths.

Agreeable and charming Holmes film with continuous suspense and intrigue . The motion picture sparkles with polish and wit and the ending results to be as exciting as moving and being decently directed by Boris Sagal . This is a nice tribute to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle , it is a stylish original Sherlock movie that has the sleuth rushing to America after the villainous scoundrel executes a twisted plot . It stars in Victoria Docks , London , on the 19th of March 1901 , where the uniquitous professor James Moriarty (John Huston was cast as Professor Moriarty after Oliver Reed passed on the role) , ruler of England's underworld and veritable emperor of international crime maintains his secret and impenetrable headquarter , there he meets Holmes with threats each other . After that , 221 B, Baker Street , London , on the 22nd of March 1901 , where Mr Sherlock (Roger Moore) , the world's first consulting detective and his companion and chronicler , John Watson (Patrick McNee) , M.D. maintain modest lodgings . Later on , 1901 , the 31st of March , in New York where the rest of this adventure takes place , there Moriarty has carried out the ultimate bank robbery , as he has imperiled the world's gold supply . Meanwhile, calculating Holmes enjoys a blossoming romance with Irene Adler (Charlotte Rampling) , his old flame . Then Adler becomes the target of a kidnap and Moriarty is threatening Holmes's long time love . Sherlock sets out in pursuit Moriarty and he goes to help his old flame from long time ago .

Another film about Sherlock filled with intrigues , suspense and action but this time is added a new ingredient : romanticism . In this mystery we find the famous calculator sleuth confronting his arch-enemy Moriarty and he pursues him to New York . Holmes excursion brings the famed Victorian sleuth towards N.Y. , as Holmes along Watson will solve unanswered mysteries and Sherlock undergoes some risked experiences to resolve the cases using even his habitual disguise . This is a nice Holmes film with gripping London and N.Y.C. setting . A genuine ripping yarn and very intriguing . The movie blends suspense , thriller , detective action , cloak and dagger , mystery and being enough interesting . It packs an exciting amount of surprises with great lots of entertainment . This is a classy and effective romp with a strong cast . Roger Moore as whimsical detective is passable , he's in cracking form . He makes an unique perspective on his life , revealing a complex personality . He's finely matched in battle of wits with Moriarty/John Huston . Although Basil Rathbone will be forever identified as Holmes ; however , here Roger Moore/Holmes is also played as an intelligent , cunning , broody and impetuous pipesmoking sleuth but addicted to cocaine , his interpretation is likeness to Christopher Plummer (Murder by decree) , Nicol Williamson (Elemental Dr. Freud) or Peter Cushing and Jeremy Brett in television . While Dr. Watson isn't a bumbling and botcher pal generally represented by Nigel Bruce , but a clever and astute partner well incarnated by Patrick McNee of ¨The avengers¨ . In fact , this is first of three feature film collaborations of actors Roger Moore and Patrick Macnee . The movies include Sea wolves (1980), A view to kill (1985), and Sherlock Holmes in New York (1976), with the latter of the three the only one being made for television . Furthermore , the support cast is pretty well such as : David Huddleston as Inspector Lafferty NYPD , Signe Hasso as Fraulein Reichenbach , Gig Young as Mortimer McGrew , Leon Ames , John Abbott and the former child prodigy , Jackie Coogan .

Atmospheric soundtrack , being first American television production scored by music composer Richard Rodney Bennett . Evocative cinematography by Michael Margulies . The motion picture was professionally directed by Boris Sagal , though with no originality . Sagal was a good craftsman who usually worked in TV , such as : ¨Ike: the war years¨ , ¨Masada¨, ¨Night Gallery¨ and occasionally made films as the successful Sci-Fi : ¨Omega man¨ .

Roger Moore is a bit handsome for Sherlock Holmes and Patrick Macnee uses a hoarse voice that sounds cured by cigar smoke, but this is an interesting and watchable flick. The story is a double one: Holmes can either save his own son by Irene Adler or solve the mystery of several megatons of missing gold bullion which would lead to an economic catastrophe and possibly war. I won't say whether he succeeds at both. The gold business is given rather short shrift and is solved in about one minute by the perceptive detective. Indeed the solution is so simple that it leaves the authorities in New York looking like dolts for not having figured it out themselves.

Well, Moore is no Rasil Bathbone, and Macnee hasn't got very much to do except offer a few wisecracks -- "Holmes, the problem with tea here is that it comes in POUCHES." But very effective use is made of the extensive sets left over from an earlier Twentieth-Century-Fox period movie -- I forget which one. Horse-drawn vehicles chase each other clippity-clop across cobbled streets glistening with rain.

Charlotte Rampling plays an upright woman, more or less, in this one. She's quite good, although her eyes remain sensuously hooded and her voice continues unwittingly to carry a throaty invitation. Best is John Huston, overacting for all the part of Moriarty is worth, red-faced, snarling, hair-mussed, rolling his eyes, and that marvelous voice. You must catch Huston and Moore exchange insults at the beginning. Huston: "You never could resist the 'tour day force', the 'coo day grass.' Your ego is insatiable." Moore: "Yes. Atrocious -- along with your French."

It's fun to watch. I kind of find myself wishing that Moore hadn't played the later, less individuated Holmes. No cocaine use, no misogyny, but he does play the violin and smoke his non-canonical calabash a lot. Oh -- and thanks to the name of the bank where the gold is stored I finally realized where "the Bowery" came from. The name of the institution is "The Bouwerie Bank," giving away its Dutch ancestry.

This may be the worst Sherlock Holmes film ever. I haven't seen the '70s version of "The Hound of the Baskervilles," but it's hard to imagine that it could be worse than this.

The acting is awful, the dialog is horrible and the plot is rice paper thin. Why must we assume that whenever two characters have affection for one another they immediately jump in the sack and make a baby? How elementary could a crime committed by a 'criminal genius' be? Why must Watson, a physician, almost always be portrayed as a total idiot? Why, why, why must there be a romantic angle?

I'll stop ranting now. I do give the film high marks for production design, but that's about it. The cinematography is amateurish at best and even the lighting and makeup are bad. Roger Moore is just awful as Holmes and Patrick MacNee was obviously poorly directed to act the moron. If you want a good Holmes film, check out "Murder by Decree." For my money, it's the best. If you want Holmes with a romantic bent, find the BBC TV series "A Scandal in Bohemia" episode. As for this bit of tripe, don't bother.

Am a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes and get a lot of enjoyment out of Arthur Conan Doyle's stories. Also love Basil Rathbone's and especially Jeremy Brett's interpretations to death. So would naturally see any Sherlock Holmes adaptation that comes my way, regardless of its reception.

Furthermore, interest in seeing early films based on Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories and wanting to see as many adaptations of any Sherlock Holmes stories as possible sparked my interest in seeing 'Sherlock Holmes in New York', as well as it having a talented cast and seeing how Roger Moore would fare.

'Sherlock Holmes in New York' is not terrible. It's not all that great either. Mediocre is more like it.

As said by me many times, there are better Sherlock Holmes-related films/adaptations certainly than 'Sherlock Holmes in New York', the best of the Jeremy Brett adaptations and films of Basil Rathone fit under this category. It's to me towards the bottom of Sherlock Holmes films, it is marginally better than all the Matt Frewer films (particularly 'The Sign of Four') and also much better than the abominable Peter Cook 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' (then again almost anything is better than that).

There are good things. The sets and costumes are handsome enough and there is evidence of atmospheric photography. The music also has atmosphere.

Moore is an agreeable, if far from definitive, Holmes with a charming twinkle in his eyes, while Charlotte Rampling has elegance and class. Parts of the mystery does intrigue and engage quite a bit and likewise with some of the script.

For all those good things, there are numerous major debits. It does feel too often pedestrian and stagy. Tension and suspense isn't enough and too much of the case is too simple, especially a denouement that makes the viewer feel annoyed at themselves at how they didn't solve it before very early on. How it's solved is all too easy and doesn't do Holmes' masterly deductions justice.

A good deal of 'Sherlock Holmes in New York' is on the cheap side and too much of it is flatly directed and too wordy. The more romantic angle agreed felt out of place.

Patrick MacNee has little to do as Watson and the buffoonish way he characterises can't help me think it was a directing issue or unfamiliarity with how Watson should be portrayed. He played opposite Christopher Lee later and that was a much better pairing and more subtle in interpretation. For me, there has never been a more hammy Moriaty than John Huston and that is not in a good way, there is nothing sinister about him and the dreadful over-the-top-ness takes one out of the film, even in the more forced moments of the script and story and there is also a fair bit of that going on.

To conclude, mediocre but not unwatchable. 4/10 Bethany Cox

Aiming for a better Sherlock Holmes the actor must be British at first place, nonetheless some producers has been broken this requirement lately as Robert Downey Jr. For instance, it was a crying shame, otherwise Roger Moore who have all requested elements to play the famous detective, loftiness, aristocratic mannerism, stance, British humor and charisma.

This turn he struggles against Professor Moriarty (John Huston) at London's harbor whereof Moriarty has his secret hideout, after this defeat the ominous villain swears a through revenge against Holmes that will bury his unblemished standing, it will takes place at New York when a sudden theatre's torn tickets arrive coming from a famous actress Irene Adler (Charlotte Rampling) a former Holmes's affair, at once Holmes and Dr. Watson depart towards New York, on arrival they figure out that Irene's son was kidnapped and the Police department asking for help of Holmes to clarifies a a large amount of stolen gold that will shake the world in a new war.

Well aside the auspicious premise who stolen the show is Dr. Watson (Patrick Macnee) as complainer British character as the usual time zone, because he insists follow the Greenwich mean time, worst at theatre he enquires Holmes where are the Indians? Oh my God today it quite sure sounds be a ra.cism, fine late century environment at New York's fog, great Sherlock Holmes!!

Thanks for reading.

Resume:

First watch: 1990 / How many: 2 / Source: TV-Youtube / Rating: 7.5.

Horrible acting by all. Every actor has done much better work, but this is almost laughable. For Holmes' fans, a big disappointment. The only plus is the beautiful Charlotte Rampling, but even her acting is so melodramatic that I'm sure she wishes to forget this stinker.

Example of this stinker: Holmes deduces a moved photograph via fine dust marks, which he somehow sees before he reaches the desk where the picture should rest.

Most modern protrayers have abandoned the clichéd calabash pipe, but here it makes an unwelcome appearance. For those who have not read Holmes.... he never smoked a calabash pipes in any of the stories.

Roger 007 Moore play the super sleuth in an elegantly produced 1976 TV movies title Sherlock Holmes in New York.The movie is full of interesting twist,disguise and exciting climax involving chase and fight sequence between Holmes and his long time nemesis Professor Moriarty played amazingly by John Huston.A must see movie for all Bond/Holmes fan and judge yourself on Moore performance as the sleuth .A winner!!!!!

Roger Moore and Patrick Macnee are clearly having a laugh together as Messrs. "Holmes" & "Watson". This time our team of sleuths are in the Big Apple hot on the trail of their nemesis "Prof. Moriarty" (a rather underwhelming John Huston) who has just carried out a fairly spectacular bank robbery. Unlike in virtually every other "Holmes" adventure, here he has himself a lady friend - "Irene Adler" (Charlotte Rampling) and soon she and her young son "Scott" are pawns in this perilous game of cat and mouse. The chemistry between the top two keeps this going well enough, but the story is pretty thin and Huston features only but sparingly as the adventure sort of crawls along. The last ten minutes are pretty lively, though and fans of the characters and of the genre ought to enjoy this colourful, well made and scored drama. Not the best, but still just about worth a watch.

I am puzzled by the user reviews here, which would lead you to expect this movie to be average or slightly above average. It is neither. It is bad in many different ways.

Cheaply filmed, the movie has the look of a staged play, with long scenes and a few camera cuts. This was, to be fair, 70s television, when production quality was pretty low, but still, this is quite clunky.

The clunkiness of the filming is mirrored by the acting, which is consistently hammy and forced. It reminded me of those famous old melodramas where a mustachioed villain would insist the innocent girl marry him or face destitution, not in the story but in the broad performances.

Roger Moore is completely wrong as Holmes. A couple of reviewers describe him as a "more human" Holmes, and yes, if you want a Sherlock who is not particularly quirky or brilliant but is instead just a regular guy who solves crimes, well, this is you Homes. If you want Basil Rathbone, Jeremy Brett, or Benedict Cumberberthatch, you won't get that.

There is also a ridiculous Watson that takes the bumbling approach of Nigel Bruce but removes Bruce's charm.

I managed to get half way through this before giving up - I wish I'd stopped sooner. The story is uninteresting and when I read the plot synopsis on wikipedia I saw that the mystery's solution was the one I had thought it probably was, so no points for originality.

This is probably the second worse Sherlock Holmes movie, right after that abysmal Peter Cook/Dudley Moore abomination.

I watched this on its premiere on NBC back in 1976 when I was really starting to have a real interest in Sherlock Holmes. Roger Moore struck me as looking a bit young for the part (even though he wasn't), but his performance really impressed me. Patrick MacNee was very much my idea of Watson, and Charlotte Rampling was beautiful, dignified and ladylike as Irene Adler (although I really doubted the likelihood of Holmes actually being romantically involved with her). But the grandest part of the show was John Huston in the role of Moriarty. Here was a professor who reeked of evil, was fiendish, devilish, and to top it all off, wickedly brilliant. So with a cast this impressive (Gig Young and David Huddleston as well), a production this stylish, and a thorough sense of fun all the way through, it's a great oversight that the powers that are in control of this movie are not making it more widely available than just finding it on a TV schedule sometime (and I haven't found it lately myself) by releasing it to VHS or DVD (especially for us Holmes fans). If I am wrong here, please let me know and set me straight. So far, my hunts for a video release have come up empty and I really would like to see it again. My e-mail is as above: name, Philip Davis.

I had no idea that Roger Moore had ever been in a movie related to Sherlock Holmes, and here he appears alongside Patrick Macnea as Dr Watson.

Remarkably enough it also features the legendary American film director, John Huston as Holmes nemesis Professor Moriarty.

My knowledge of Sherlock Holmes is courtesy of the, television and film representatives.

I have only relatively recently started to become, acquainted with Conan Doyle's actual written word.

Holmes appears to me to be a somewhat taciturn individual, as a person he strikes me as an atypical bachelor. His references to women are to say, the least somewhat oblique. And yet rather unbelievably he is not entirely oblivious to their existence.

For there is "that woman" as Sherlock Holmes is want to refer to one Eileen Adler.

I am only aware of her making but a fleeting appearance in Sherlock Holmes, life and then more in the nature of an advisory.

Yet here in this movie's storyline we have a fuller fledged narrative of the, yes actual relationship between Sherlock Holmes and Irene Adler. Here their meeting is scarcely adversarial, and of a far more cordial nature altogether.

Mention is made by Holmes to Adler of him, having helped her out in an incident.

Apparently they met by accident and spent, a memorable "Night in Montenegro".

All in all the movie is well made and performed all those involved, with Roger Moore while not the definitive Sherlock Holmes, he certainly gives a fair stab at it.

The mystery is engaging and entertaining replete with a chase through New York, the period involving horse drawn vehicles making it all the more so.

I can only hope this non-Conan Doyle effort assembled its cast in order to give some depth and star power to what was intended to be an affectionate pastiche' of the world of Sherlock Holmes and provide a few "fish out of water" laughs as our intrepid Victorian heroes of Baker Street W1 are faced with turn of the century New York in 1901.

Sing lackaday and lamentations, but the whole thing falls as flat as a failed soufflé and becomes unbearable after the first ten minutes. The trouble starts with John Huston's turn as Moriarty. Chewing the scenery doesn't come close to describing his performance as he snarls "Blast ya, Holmes! Blasy, blast ya, blast ya!" when another nefarious scheme is thwarted by the World's Greatest Detective (rather obviously "disguised" as Colonel Moran from 'The Empty House').

Roger Moore as Holmes is obviously playing tongue in cheek, but when didn't he? His James Bond was a suave, teflon-coated ladies' man, as was Simon Templar in 'The Saint'. It was an endearing trait of Moore's not to take himself seriously as an actor, but here it really works against him as he is unable to convey any of Holmes's mental powers and his 'detection' just ends up looking silly.

Patrick Macnee's Watson is straight out the Nigel Bruce School for Bumbling Sidekicks - huffing about the lack of Native Americans in NYC. Charlotte Rampling turns the resourceful and inteeligent Irene Adler into a fluttering, helpless Victorian out of a creaky melodrama.

Either this was intended as a spoof, or the cast realised the cheesiness of the enterprise and decided to play for laughs. Whatever the reason, the film does not come off at all.

Once again, it IS possible to waste actors and topics in a movie that looks like it just so happened because there was some kind of topic ("Sherlock Holmes and Moriarty") and a few great actors at hand.

Logical flaws at solving the problem don't help (elevators do not move with a constant velocity, precisely, with less than 1 percent of accuracy).

Now Sherlock has a son with a world-renown actress, who has been kidnapped to prevent Holmes from interfering by threatening his son's death. Moriarty happens to foolishly find a very simple hiding place of Sherlock's son, so that he can be retrieved most easily.

Roger Moore is a mediocre cast for Sherlock Holmes, Macnee is a possible Dr. Watson, with a coarse voice and some funny lines. Charlotte Rempling is herself, but without any chemistry between her and Sherlock.

It would be watchable, if it was the only Sherlock Holmes or the first one. Here it isn't more than a mediocre remake of an old topic, without much effort on the side of the script and directing.

I think that some of the reviewers got it wrong when they said this is the worst Sherlock movie. Holmes's & Watson with Will Farrell was definitely worse, yes it was a 'comedy' but it wasn't in way. Patrick Macnee as Watson would have been OK if he didn't use a mad gravelly voice, he should of spoken like Steed in the Avengers. John Huston was terrible and just didn't work really you should be able to identify Moriarty as an evil villain not an old man who can't find his false teeth. Roger Moore is a bit different as his Sherlock displays a bit more humanity but he towers above the other performers. Charlotte Rampling was more than adequate and of course she was absolutely gorgeous.

On the whole the film stands up, not aa a classic but 48 years old TV movie that I enjoyed.

Having captured the gang of Professor Moriarty and foiled his plan of assassination, Sherlock Holmes finds himself at a loss. Moriarty has escaped capture and vowed to show up Holmes no end. Actress Irene Adler is an acquaintance of Holmes and has sent him tickets for each of her opening nights for over 9 years - she is opening in New York and Holmes awaits her tickets. When they arrive ripped up, Holmes and Watson set out for New York immediately to find that nothing is obviously wrong. However when Adler doesn't show up for the play, Holmes finds himself drawn into a plot that involves kidnapping and an incredible theft of gold from the International Gold Exchange.

Despite the fact that this is a Roger Moore film I decided to give it a stab on the basis that I quite enjoy the character of Sherlock Holmes. From the very start the weaknesses of the film are as clear as day but the basics of the film are enjoyable enough to make this worth watching. The plot is passable and is delivered with a good sense of pace that makes it enjoyable - however it must be said that the plot is hardly worthy of Moriarty, whom we are told is a master criminal. Holmes solves it all far too easily and it is to the film's detriment, although the number of steps required to get to the end is impressive they are all too simple - it would have been better to have had fewer deductions from Holmes but a more complex plot. As it is it works well enough for the material and is far from the weakest part of the film.

The film's low values are clear from the start - Holmes' absurd sideburns look like they have crawled onto his face without him noticing for example. The lighting, shot-framing and cinematography all make the film feel rather dated (to the 70's rather than the turn of century). These really hurt the film and it never looks like a great deal of money was spent on it. The cast are a mixed bag. It would be easy to dismiss Moore as Holmes and, in fairness, I feared the worst but was reasonably happy with his performance. While he doesn't compare to the best of them, Moore's Holmes is strong in his display as a human rather than a perfect crime fighter. Moore is a little hammy at times (his disguises are absurd) but generally he does quite well. Macnee is given little to do and has lifted his Watson directly from the Nigel Bruce School of Acting - making Watson a bit of a buffoon; hardly original but still quite enjoyable. Of course the worst performance comes from Huston who plays his Moriarty with an Irish brogue at times and not once comes across as a match for Holmes, rather he comes over as a basic thug in charge of a poor gang and I can honestly say I have never seen the character portrayed with less ability than this. Rampling is another famous face but is given nothing to do but be part of a romantic subplot that is out of place and doesn't work. The acting is generally bad but to give him his dues, Moore is not including in my list of bad performances in this movie.

Overall this is not a great movie and doesn't compare to the Rathbone series of Holmes' films (for my money anyway). The basic plot is passable but is too simply solved and includes a redundant romantic subplot. The character of Holmes is more interesting than usual and is delivered quite well by Moore (nobody's first choice for Holmes but still OK). The film is full of weaknesses but is still worth a watch for fans - however I doubt anyone will fail to be shocked by the sheer awfulness of both the character of Moriarty and the performance of John Huston in portraying him.

Who would have ever thought that Roger Moore could play Sherlock Holmes,but he does it and with great style. The movie is one of the greatest S. Holmes movies I have ever seen, full of excitement. The Credit for it goes To Moore, it just shows that he is a great and very talented actor, who can play many different roles.