Hands of a Murderer

This is a great show for Sherlock Holmes fans, and even non-fans. See, most people who don't like Sherlock Holmes because of the lack of action fans can cope with. This film has action. My brother liked this. I'm not saying he hates Sherlock Holmes, he just isn't a fan. This became his favourite movie. See? Fans and non-fans. Even those who hate Sherlock will adore this.

I am a lifelong fan of The Great Detective; I yield place to no one as a fan of Edward Woodward. I even believe I understand why Mr Woodward would wish to play Sherlock Holmes; I too would like to play Sherlock Holmes. I recuse myself from the role (even though no one has asked me to perform as the Wizard of Baker Street) since I bear no resemblance whatsoever to Sir Arthur's descriptions of Holmes. Nor does Edward Woodward, and it is simply too great a stretch to see a burly Holmes. Woodward would make a fine radio Holmes. Hillerman is as solid a Watson as any, which is in itself amazing as Hillerman is from Texas. Perhaps this presentation suffers most when compared with the British series starring Jeremy Brett. In short, despite its good points, not for Sherlockians.

The conspicuously well made, briskly-paced TV Movie 'Hands of a Murderer (1990) is a splendidly entertaining stand-alone Sherlock Holmes thriller with some rather attractive period locations, a fine, zesty score by Colin Towns, tip-top thesping from a gifted cast, with Edward Woodward's dynamic, steely performance as the inimitable sleuth being menacingly counterbalanced by a grim-looking, effectively chilling Anthony Edwards as his eternally dastardly, majestically Machiavellian, chaos mongering adversary Professor Moriarty!

With the imminent threat of world war looming, the encrypted contents of desperately important Government documents are covertly being leaked by means nefarious, and it is solely up to the preternaturally perceptive, twin piped perpetrator of crime busting perfection, and his stalwart companion Watson (John Hillerman) to speedily decode this fiendishly baffling, cypher-sealing conundrum! Rarely mentioned, Stuart Orme's persistently gripping 'Hands of a Murderer' remains an engaging, somewhat undervalued entry in the vast canon of filmed Sherlock Holmes mysteries, with the masterful Woodward slyly stealing the show as Baker Street's most conspicuously recognisable resident!

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.