The Crucifer of Blood

Speaking as someone who is not necessarily the most well-read follower of all things Sherlock Holmes, but who is indeed a fan of Charlton Heston's work, this was an okay presentation featuring Heston as the legendary detective. Here, he joins up with Richard Johnson (as Dr. Watson) in unraveling the mystery of a 30-year-old curse involving a pretty young woman (Susannah Harker) and her aging father, who once made a blood pact with another man and whose life might be in jeopardy. For me it was fun just getting to see Heston as the calculating Holmes, and as someone who enjoys the old Basil Rathbone series of films, this retained a lot of similar ingredients such as Watson being slightly clueless, and Inspector Lestrade (Simon Callow) being made to look rather foolish around Holmes. Dr. Watson also gets to fall in love this time around. This being a Turner TV movie, it sometimes has the feeling of being rather slight or artificial in spots. Directed by Charlton's son, Fraser Heston. **1/2 out of ****

By the deadbeat standard of TV movies, The Crucifer of Blood (1991) is a really remarkable achievement. For one thing, the budget is extensive enough to pass muster as a theatrical feature. For another, it has an interesting, suspenseful screenplay. But even more importantly, it has a really great cast led by Susannah Harker (who is absolutely terrific), Richard Johnson (an excellent Watson), and Simon Callow (perfectly at home as Lestrade). Although miscast as Holmes, Charlton Heston does pick up his game as the movie progresses and – provided you ignore his accent – is not as great a liability as his first scene suggests. Yes, the movie could stand a bit of re-editing (I would scissor at least ten minutes, particularly from the opening scenes), but all told – and thanks principally to Miss Harker – a must-see installment for Sherlock's legion of fans.

This is a well directed and enjoyable story which captured my attention from the beginning.The cast are effective and there are some neat twists.It looks stunning at times and there is a sense of theatrical sets ( it is based on a stage play) which add another dimension to the visual style. Unfortunately the producers have cast Charlton Heston as Sherlock Holmes and he hampers the credibility of the production.Not because he is a bad actor..far from it.Unfortunately his accent suggests that he comes from that part of the UK known only to American actors and he lacks the sensitivity and intensity that I expect of Holmes. Worth catching on TV

My summary line is the start of a very well known Sherlock Holmes quote. On the other hand, it is something else too. But the movie will not have you guessing too much. It should be apparent what is going on. Still it is kinda fascinating, how Mr. Heston and the others do their job. But of course, you might have seen quite a few actors trying to be Holmes (Robert Downey being the latest).

Depending on your taste you might like this (not the first and not the last adaptation of this particular Holmes story). And even though there is even a moment, where it seems to break the fourth wall (talking about a comic relief of all things), it still kinda works. Nice entertainment then, but not the best out there ...

I agree that Charlton Heston wasn't the man for this role, I had "the advantage" of watching/having to watch the French version, as such I didn't have to listen to "American English English". On the other hand I found his disguises superb. The action and the "end game" both made the film well worth watching. There are many films where the "baddy" becomes obvious - this is not one of them!

Richard Johnson plays a believable John Watson. The Watson role is difficult to play in the sense that he is an educated man, so shouldn't appear stupid, just less capable of crime deduction. But we shouldn't forget that doctors are experts in deducing illnesses from the symptoms of their patients. Connie Booth is a lovely lady - a pleasure to see everything she's in!