The Hound of London

I give this TV movie 2 out of 10 for comedy value only. Im afraid it really does live up to its notoriety as the worst portrayal of Sherlock Holmes ever on screen. I have seen better school plays than this nonsense. The other actors are almost as bad as Macnee, especially Dr Watson, played by John Scott Paget (who he?) The only one of the entire cast who shows any acting credibility whatsoever is Carolyn Wilkinson who plays Irene Norton )Nee Adler)

It is a blessing that this so called film has been interned so deep that it is never shown on TV or for sale on DVD. Definitely for Sherlock completeists only!

A very low budget, stage bound feature starring Patrick Macnee as Sherlock Holmes. The plot has Holmes compelled to help an actress who is involved in a murder case. Moriarty is lurking about and is also involved in the case. The film is notorious for being one of the weakest Holmes productions ever. And honestly that is difficult to argue. The plot is sometimes vague, the mystery elements almost nil. Macnee is too old for the role and strained during any action sequences. And the supporting cast is sometimes very weak. Still, for a Holmes aficionado it is worth a look to see Macnee's interpretation of the master sleuth. And there is some fun to be had if one is willing to overlook the obvious flaws.

Also, a previous review states this never played on TV. That is incorrect. I recorded my copy off TV. It aired on the CTV network late at night in the late 1990's. So it has played network TV, at least here in Canada.

After watching this film, which is adapted from a stage play, I can only assume it was originally an amateur dramatics production. And, based on the performances on display here, that the original cast was carried over too.

It is a truly lacklustre piece of film-making involving Patrick MacNee (miscast as Holmes and playing it somewhere between a misguided comedy turn and a brain-addled old fart who seems to think he has wandered into the wrong film but isn't quite sure) investigating a baffling (and I use the word ironically) murder which has taken place in a theatre, and which also involves Holmes' old paramour, Irene Adler (a woman Holmes looks at in an effort to project longing and deep love but which instead comes across as seeming as though he can't quite put a name to her face).

He is assisted in his investigations by a Watson who looks a lot like the character Ted from, "The Fast Show," and who seems to have an unhealthy interest in Miss Adler herself, and an Inspector Lestrade who is so dim he makes an extinguished candle look bright and is there in a woeful attempt at comedy relief.

The makers have made no effort to expand the piece from the original stage play (and, judging by the look of the film, this was down to a lack of budget as much as anything else) and this is made even more evident by the fact that 90% of the action takes place in a theatre, on the stage itself. Such circumstances are not helped by the fact that when anyone does leave (there's a lot of, "You stay here and you come with me!" business) we always remain with the characters on stage, never following those who depart (which, naturally, leads to a lot of, "Well, while I was away I...," exposition that slows the whole thing down even more).

Matters are further hindered by the performances. Obviously, they haven't been given the greatest script or direction to work from, but as a whole the performances are pretty dire and they really do come across as a bad amateur dramatic society (though they are obviously trying their best). All of which only serves to underline how poor MacNee's performance is. As I said before, he is badly miscast as Holmes (he barely makes a decent Watson on the occasions he has played him) and really does seem to just be vacantly wandering in and out of the action mentally, sometimes in the middle of a scene.

He, and the rest of the cast, are not helped by a script that is throwing out intricate references to the actual stories one minute and a terrible bit of slapstick the next. Or a creaking, "twist," that, rather than shows Holmes' skills as a detective, instead shows him up as a bit of an idiot (the, "reveal," of a certain character springs to mind, wherein he basically removes his glasses, to which Holmes dramatically declares the man's name before the character explains how he has had, "facial reconstruction," begging the questions A) Why the disguise then? and B) How did Holmes recognise him?) The tone is all over the place and the best thing you can say about it is that it's all over relatively quickly as the whole thing barely stretches out past the hour mark.

This is a Canadian television production, and it doesn't rise anywhere near the level of a good film. We have been blissfully exposed to much better Holmes films and TV shows. But, in my opinion, it wasn't a wasted effort. Not quite, anyway.

The acting is energetic, but suffers from inadequate direction, editing, and camera angles, all of which are distracting. Macnee was a very experienced thespian, and he had done fairly decent turns as Watson before this, but here he was 71 years old and clearly hired for his name. IMBd offers very little information about the supporting cast, and I had heard of none of them: my impression is that they were stage actors and not very experienced in capturing the camera. Other than that I found them all adequate--no stand-outs. The settings are okay; the costumes are fine; the lighting and other technical aspects again seemed to be transposed from a stage production. The story was vague, rambling, and a pastiche of other Holmes shows--not very much of Doyle is here. And, I think that's the most significant shortcoming. The definition of a poor Holmes production is attempting to re-write or otherwise adulterate Arthur Conan Doyle. I mean--why?

So, it isn't the worst Holmes interpretation I've seen; and I believe in kindness I'll end this review with that.