La main de l'assassin

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.

An odd, one-off television movie involving Sherlock Holmes vs Professor Moriarty in a battle for state secrets. The strangest thing about HANDS OF A MURDERER is the casting of the rotund Edward Woodward as Holmes. Now, as fine an actor as Mr Woodward was, I don't really think he's anyone's first choice when it comes to playing the almost cadaverous Holmes. Watching a movie in which Holmes is bigger than Watson is rather odd.

Of course, Woodward handles the acting of the part well, and along with the excellent John Hillerman as Watson, he helps to hold the movie together. He needs to – the script for this one is a patchwork mish-mash of various Holmes stories and Victorian mystery conventions, with contrived escapes from the gallows, mysterious disappearances and an arch-villain at large. The film is far from perfect and could have been a lot worse, even if the thrills are subdued by the cosy, TV-production style atmosphere.

As Moriarty, Anthony Andrews is delightfully hammy, chewing up and spitting out the scenery at every opportunity. He makes the other actors look sedate, and the film benefits a great deal from his energy. The lovely Kim Thomson also makes for effective support as a femme fatale. There isn't much in HANDS OF A MURDERER to impress or thrill, and elements of actual detection do seem to be in short supply, but fans of the fictional detective should find a few elements of interest here.

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!

"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.

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.