Sherlock Holmes and the Leading Lady

Some readers seem to think Morgan Fairchild was wrong as Irene Adler ( Norton) but I think she was just right. Irene is an American and she is supposed to be a looker and a flamboyant actress. Morgan has those qualities in spades. Despite age differences ( which may have existed in the original story too), I think Lee and Fairchild have a chemistry. The rest of the plot was also not bad. MacNee is a little too goofy as Watson. I prefer the more dignified portrayals of John Mills, David Burke, Edward Hardwicke and even Colin Blakely. MacNee is too much in the Nigel Bruce mold. I wish that more "Golden Years" stories about Holmes had been made. As it is we must content ourselves with this one and "Victoria Falls". The mix of real characters with the fictional was very "Ragtime". Lee was outstanding as Holmes

The British government is about to buy the plans to a revolutionary bomb detonator when its plans are stolen and its Austrian inventor murdered. Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson go to Vienna to track down the plans. They walk into a tangled web of international intrigue with the agents of several governments trying to get hold of the plans.

Not based on a Sir Arthur Conan Doyle work and it shows. Lacks the tension and tightness of an original Holmes story. Plus the writers feel the need to throw in some historical figures - Sigmund Freud, Eliot Ness - as characters just to engage modern audiences. Even then they botch it as the real Eliot Ness was seven years old at the time this film was set, not the 20-something portrayed here.

At three hours long it's also a bit of a grind to get through. Quite a lot of padding, sub-plots and needless detours.

This said, the main plot is reasonably interesting. The Irene Adler sub-plot does add a different dimension to Sherlock Holmes. Moreover, Christopher Lee is great as Holmes, giving him the required level of gravitas and intelligence.

Morgan Fairchild as Irene Adler? Who's bright idea was that? The story line was okay, her performance was awful. The image of Irene Adler was never written to be portrayed as a whining floozy. Ruined what could have been a fine movie. Perfomances by the rest of the cast were tolerable.

In their very late 60s, Christopher Lee and Patrick McNee made a couple made for TV Sherlock Holmes stories. Each was about 3 hours and both were stories not written by Arthur Conan Doyle. Instead, they are supposed to be stories of cases which occurred later in life...presumably after Watson stopped chronicling his adventures.

Of the two, "Sherlock Holmes and the Leading Lady" is actually based in part on one of the Conan Doyle stories. It brings back Irene Adler from "A Scandal in Bohemia" and she is the only woman that ever impressed Holmes...and he referred to her as THE woman in later tales...and with great admiration.

When the story begins, an Austrian inventor is going to sell his remote control detonating device to the British government. But some enemy agents steal the blueprints and soon the creator himself is found dead. Holmes and Watson are called in to try to locate the blueprints and capture the murderers.

Despite Irene Adler leaving Holmes a letter saying she was leaving Europe never to return in the original story, it seems her husband has died and she has returned to the stage to sing opera. She is happy to see Holmes and seems to see the possibility of romance. The asexual Holmes, while happy to see her, has no such notions and sees her as a way to get one step closer to the killer. What's next? See the film.

I think some Conan Doyle purists might enjoy seeing Ms. Adler again, as "The Scandal in Bohemia" is one of his best and most memorable stories....and a great character. Unfortunately, Morgan Fairchild is not a great choice, as it's VERY obvious she is not actually singing but very poorly lip synching. I don't know how much is her blame or the directors...but the first number she sings is pretty bad...with her mouth not exactly following the lyrics and her body not moving as if she is singing. She also is way too young for the part considering it is supposed to occur many years after the first story.

So is the film any good apart from this? It's decent...but like the next Holmes made for TV movie, "Incident at Victoria Falls", it's way overlong and the pacing is at times glacial. Shaving an hour or so off the film might have helped. Still, it think for many it's still well worth seeing...even if no one will apparently ever equal the quality and accuracy of the Jeremy Brett Sherlock Holmes stories made for Grenada TV.

SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE LEADING LADY looks great on paper. It's an epic 3-hour TV miniseries featuring Holmes and Watson as old men, still trotting the globe and sorting out criminals wherever they meet them. The narrative features the return of two fan favourites (Mycroft and Irene Adler) in a brand new adventure. The film was made by veteran producers Harry Alan Towers and Egypt's Frank Agrama (DAWN OF THE MUMMY), among others, and shot in Luxembourg - no doubt due to the tax breaks available there. The director was Peter Sasdy, a seasoned Hammer veteran who certainly knows his stuff. Finally, and best of all, it features Christopher Lee and Patrick Macnee as the intrepid twosome.

Unfortunately, such a production could never meet the standards expected from the sheer quantity of talent involved, and this turns out to be an entirely middling affair. It's watchable, certainly, but also long-winded, and the insistence on throwing real-life characters in the mix, like Sigmund Freud and, most bizarrely, Elliott Ness, is an odd one. There were two scriptwriters, one British and one American, and I blame the latter for the annoying US-centric elements, not least Morgan Fairchild's presence as Irene Adler. Talk about out of place...

Still, it's not all bad. Lee is, as you'd expect, excellent as the famous detective, bringing him ably to life in his twilight years. Macnee is the closest we've got to the lovable Nigel Bruce yet, and the supporting cast features some experienced British character actors like John Bennett and Ronald Hines; the presence of Engelbert Humperdinck is more of a mystery. Speaking of mystery, the plotting is perfectly adequate, but there's little true deductive reasoning for Holmes to carry out; the whole thing seems beneath him, and occasionally he seems a bit stupid and a far cry from the original Conan Doyle creation.