El crucifijo de sangre

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 ****

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

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.

Both loosely based on, and also in a way closely indebted to, 'The Sign of Four', 'The Crucifer of Blood' is worth a look, but more as a one time watch rather than repeat viewings. Not one of the best Sherlock Holmes adaptations, like the best of the Jeremy Brett Granada series and the best of the Basil Rathbone films. Also not one of the worst, not like any of the Matt Frewer films (particularly 'The Sign of Four') or the abominable Peter Cook version of 'The Hound of the Baskervilles'.

There are a good deal of strengths here. It has an eerie opening and the ending is attention-grabbing and really quite genius. The touches of the 'The Sign of Four' story provided a good deal of entertainment, as do the detective work and deductions that there's a heavy emphasis of.

Some thought provoking dialogue and nice photography also. There are some good performances, with Richard Johnson a strong, loyal Watson and Susannah Harker quite touching. Bernard Fox and John Castle give scene-stealing turns, especially Castle as the most interesting supporting character. Clive Wood is a good Jonathan Small, though nowhere near as much as John Thaw in the Brett adaptation, and Kiran Shah is quite freaky as Tonga.

Charlton Heston didn't work for me as Holmes. Like Heston, just not as Holmes, a character that he portrays almost like he was spoofing Holmes or something, with nowhere near enough nuance, warmth or intensity, and it doesn't work. Although Lestrade was never the most intelligent of inspectors, he has rarely been this much of an idiot or bumbler which Simon Callow overdoes.

Enough of the story does intrigue but there is some plodding pacing, a general lack of suspense and at times too much tongue-in-cheek, some implausibility or things not explained as well as they ought and it all feels rather stagy and restricted and with too much of a standard made for television feel. The production values generally look like they were hastily made on a tight budget and the direction doesn't seem to know whether to go the suspense or tongue-in-cheek route, instead going for both and doesn't gel.

Overall, not great but far from bad. Worth a one-time watch. 5/10 Bethany Cox

This is a top-notch Victorian murder mystery with the great sleuth Sherlock Holmes (Charlton Heston) and well accompanied by his agreeable partner Doctor Watson (Richard Johnson) . While uncanny Sherlock Holmes and the ever-faithful Watson encounter into 221 Baker Street are visited by a beautiful young woman , Irene St. Claire (Susannah Harker) and they're hired to investigate . Irene asks help for her unfortunate daddy , a previous war veteran (John Castle), as he has turned into a hopeless opium addict , due to his direct result of guilt and fear. Holmes and Watson , the perfect counterpoint to Sherlock , are involved in killing , poison darts , a fortune in Indian jewels original from luxurious palace of Agra and much suspect behavior by strange characters . The strange clues lead some soldiers of the Great Indian Mutiny, from the siege of Agra in 1857 . This is one mystery that it Not elementary, my dear Watson...

The film packs suspense , intrigue , unanswered mysteries , thrills and excellent set decoration . This is a good Holmes mystery with gripping London setting and including first-range nasties . One of the most charming Holmes television pictures and long runtime . The film is packed with suspense intensified by a theft of a maharajah's treasure, greed , drug dependence , a bloody pact of secrecy , thrills , good performances and evocative scenarios . It is a bit slow-moving and a little boring because being mostly set in interiors and only a few characters . Well cast by notable actors , as Charlton Heston and Richard Johnson's tour-de-force acting. Being supported by good players as Susannah Harker , Edward Fox, John Castle, Simon Callow as Lestrade , Clive Wood , James Coyle . Charlton Heston ¨Chuck¨ as Holmes plays in a clever , broody and impetuous manner , he gives an aristocratic finely modulated voice . Nevertheless , the best TV Holmes , was Jeremy Brett , along with Peter Cushing who starred the series in the 60s and in 1984 played ¨Sherlock Holmes and the masks of death¨. Brett , Cushing in TV and Basil Rathbone in the cinema are the history's best Holmes . Jeremy Brett achieved fame and fortune with ¨ Adventures of Holmes , The Return , The Case-Book and Memories Sherlock Holmes¨ series and four long time films . This story was nicely adapted and professionally directed by Fraser C. Heston . The movie is produced by Peter Snell, Charlton Heston's usual producer who financed the three films he directed as ¨ A man for all seasons¨ and ¨Marco Antonio y Cleopatra¨. Furthermore, he produced him the motion pictures who directed his son, Frazer Clarke Heston and starred Heston as ¨ Island of treasure¨ and ¨The crucifer of blood¨ and ¨Mother lode¨who's the worst film directed by Fraser Heston . Rating : Acceptable and entertaining. See this flick if only to enjoy the lush Victorian backdrop . It is only for Charlton Heston Heston fans and Sherlock Holmes followers . Both of whom series' ordinaries . Rating : Better than average , 6.5/10 . Well worth watching .

Other adaptations about this Arthur Conan Doyle's novel : The Sign of Four are the following ones : ¨Sing of Four¨ (1968) by William Sterling with Peter Cushing and Nigel Stock from Sherlock Holmes Tv series . ¨The Sign of Four¨ realized by Desmond Davis (1984) with Ian Richardson .1987 TV Movie with Jeremy Brett , Edward Hardwicke . Another rendition filmed by Rodney Gibbons (2001) with Matt Frewer and this Sui Generis version by Fraser C. Heston titled ¨Crucifer of blood¨ by Fraser Heston and played by his father Charlton Heston as Holmes.

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!