Hands of a Murderer

Sherlock Holmes is the most commonly featured fictional character in film history--so there are tons of versions of the man. Most, unfortunately, aren't very good. One of the biggest problems I usually notice is that the writers often think Conan Doyle didn't do a very good job with his stories and begin embellishing them. Considering the stories are among the most popular stories on the planet, this does seem a bit arrogant. Another problem is that too often, the writers keep repeating mistakes again and again until the public THINKS this is what the author originally wrote. Here is a huge example from "Hands of a Murderer": Moriarty and Lestrade are major characters in the film even though both rarely were mentioned in the original stories...rarely. Also, Sherlock's brother, Mycroft, is rather stupid in this film--something you would never say about him if you read the Conan Doyle stories (where, in many ways, he's shown as being SMARTER than Sherlock).

Now you'll obviously notice that I am an Arthur Conan Doyle purist. I love the original stories and hate to see anything but the originals (such as the way they made the wonderful Jeremy Brett films). So, if you are NOT 100% nuts about Holmes, you may be a lot more forgiving of this movie. It is interesting--provided you don't mind that much of the film is based on a stupid premise--that a lady has Svengali-like powers of hypnosis that can make men to ANYTHING!! Ask any trained hypnotist--this simply isn't possible. Heck, I have training in clinical hypnosis and if I COULD use these powers to control people and make them do my evil bidding, I certainly would have used this a long time ago!!

Apart from all my complaints, the film isn't bad. Holmes never wears that stupid deerstalker cap or says 'elementary my dear Watson' (thank God)--and so he does act more like Holmes than in many other films (especially in regard to his drug use). And, the actors are nice--Edward Woodward, Anthony Andrews and John Hillerman are all good actors. And, the sets are nice as well. But the story is a bit lacking at times--especially at the end when it all fizzles out.

My suggestion--read the original stories and watch the Jeremy Brett films. You'll thank me for this, I am sure.

Woodward is a vibrant Sherlock Holmes; Hillerman, a subdued Watson and Andrews, the best part of the picture, is an ominous Moriarty. The story rings familiar from some of Doyle's works and it is given good treatment by the cast.

This one has edward woodward and john hillerman as holmes and watson. Moriarty has escaped his fate once again, and it's up to holmes to track him down. It's okay, but woodward is such a serious british actor, and rather unknown to me. The story is solid enough, but woodward is so vanilla, that it wasn't as fun to watch as other sherlock holmes stories. Maybe they should have reversed the roles for hillerman and woodward for the murrican audience? Co-stars anthony andrews and peter jeffrey. It's okay. Pretty dry. The usual berating of lestrade, played by terence lodge. Directed by stuart orme. He was nominated for three baftas! Hillerman was probably best known for magnum private eye, and what's up doc. This sherlock holmes is okay, but nothing too exciting.

Very derivative, with odd bits of various Holmes stories stapled together. I would agree that Edward Woodward is an excellent actor, but not Holmes. Anthony Andrews is, however, an excellent Moriarty. Once again Mycroft is rather too thin for the role, and I would agree that being snuck up on by a large Thug who has to lever open a casket to do so is pretty improbable. The main problem for me is that the time lines simply do not hold together- having missed the announcement of the date at the start I was looking for clues. So.... last public execution in England, 1863 (and not a multiple hanging at that). Victoria in widow's weeds, after 1861, before 1902. All looking good, except the bit where Oberstein pulls a gun not manufactured until 1893... oh well!

An odd, one-off television movie involving Sherlock Holmes vs Professor Moriarty in a battle for state secrets. The strangest thing about HANDS OF A MURDERER is the casting of the rotund Edward Woodward as Holmes. Now, as fine an actor as Mr Woodward was, I don't really think he's anyone's first choice when it comes to playing the almost cadaverous Holmes. Watching a movie in which Holmes is bigger than Watson is rather odd.

Of course, Woodward handles the acting of the part well, and along with the excellent John Hillerman as Watson, he helps to hold the movie together. He needs to – the script for this one is a patchwork mish-mash of various Holmes stories and Victorian mystery conventions, with contrived escapes from the gallows, mysterious disappearances and an arch-villain at large. The film is far from perfect and could have been a lot worse, even if the thrills are subdued by the cosy, TV-production style atmosphere.

As Moriarty, Anthony Andrews is delightfully hammy, chewing up and spitting out the scenery at every opportunity. He makes the other actors look sedate, and the film benefits a great deal from his energy. The lovely Kim Thomson also makes for effective support as a femme fatale. There isn't much in HANDS OF A MURDERER to impress or thrill, and elements of actual detection do seem to be in short supply, but fans of the fictional detective should find a few elements of interest here.