Hands of a Murderer

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!

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.

"The Hands of a Murderer" starts with Sherlock Holmes' arch-nemesis, Professor Moriarty, escaping the gallows. This isn't a spoiler: it takes place during the opening credits.

Anthony Andrews is a favorite actor of mine but he does tend to overact here.

Sherlock Holmes is played by Edward Woodward ("The Equalizer"). Okay, I'm forevervspoiled by Jeremy Brett's masterful interpretation of the character. And I've seen worse Holmeses. But Woodward's Holmes is stripped of all equanimity. He seems perpetually angry.

Doctor Watson is played by John Hillerman (Higgins from "Magnum, P. I.) and he gives us a comforting presence.

The best performance, though, is Peter Jeffrey's Mycroft. He doesn't bear much resemblance to the Mycroft in story illustrations, but he's good. And Warren Clarke seems to be channeling a sober Oliver Reed, if there ever was one.

Sherlockians: don't try to fit this into any canonical time-line. And don't be surprised to hear great swaths of Holmesian dialogue "borrowed" from the stories. But Hillerman's Watson has the best line in the movie when Holmes tells him he's one of those people who, without genius, stimulates it in others.

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.

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.