Sherlock Holmes in New York

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.

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.

This movie created an interesting side to Sherlock Holmes - a more "human" side that I haven't seen before. Although the character of Dr. Watson was a bit weak, I truly liked Roger Moore as Holmes!! A bit more "appeal" then some of the old actors that have portrayed this character.

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.

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