ThiefHott Too much of everything

Micitype Pretty Good

LouHomey From my favorite movies..

Freaktana A Major Disappointment

TheLittleSongbird 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.Furthermore, interest in seeing early films based on Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories and wanting to see as many adaptations of any Sherlock Holmes stories as possible sparked my interest in seeing 'Sherlock Holmes: Incident at Victoria Falls', especially with such an interesting idea for a story.There are better Sherlock Holmes-related films/adaptations certainly than 'Sherlock Holmes: Incident at Victoria Falls', the best of the Jeremy Brett adaptations and films of Basil Rathone fit under this category. It's not one of the worst either, it is better than all the Matt Frewer films (particularly 'The Sign of Four') and also much better than the abominable Peter Cook 'The Hound of the Baskervilles'.'Sherlock Holmes: Incident at Victoria Falls' is not terrible certainly. The always dependable, even legendary, Christopher Lee, is excellent as Holmes, regardless of any reservations about him being too old. Patrick MacNee is both bumbling and loyal, without being too much of a buffoon or an idiot. The chemistry between them really lifts the proceedings, lots of fun and charm in it. The rest of the cast are fine, Claude Akins in particular enjoys himself as Roosevelt (yes you saw it).Parts of the mystery are intriguing and there are a few exciting set pieces. Some of the dialogue is fun and thought-provoking. It is very nicely filmed with evocative and handsome production design. However, 'Sherlock Holmes: Incident at Victoria Falls' does suffer from a very stodgy pace, highly indicative of the story struggling to sustain the long length of the adaptation (judging by the execution of the story it felt too long and too padded) and a far too over complicated story. The ending is one of the most convoluted and head-scratching for any Sherlock Holmes adaptation. Too much of it feels like it goes nowhere, with some overlong scenes or shots, and too aimless, and too many elements came over as underdeveloped and vague. The music sounds like it was scored and like it belonged somewhere else altogether, it was so out of kilter with everything else. The direction is pedestrian and too many of the characters add nothing, serving more of an excuse to play fast and loose with history. In summary, worth a one time watch but underwhelming. 5/10 Bethany Cox

Jinn The movie's plot was good and came together well, but seeing the movie, was made in 1992, it could have been done a lot better - it looked was like it was made in the 60's. Sketchy and looked dubbed in parts.Lee was good as Holmes, and I respect him as a person and humanitarian, but in this movie but he looked too old for Holmes and seemed to me would make a better Moriarty (despite the fact the villain did not feature in this story).I borrowed this movie in a nice looking metal box set, but frankly with 5 DVD's, I'd expect at least 5 Holmes movies, not 2 (The other Sherlock Holmes & the Leading Lady) + a Jack the Ripper special (yes I know Holmes was set at that time) but it seemed to me a fancy way to sell 2 rather mediocre movies.Glad I didn't have to pay for it!

Prof-Hieronymos-Grost On the eve of his retirement to bee keeping heaven, Sherlock Holmes is summoned to the palace, where King Edward requests one last mission for the super sleuth, to travel to Sth Africa and protect the Star of Africa diamond from those who would claim it as their own. The film is hardly of Doyle quality but what it lacks in authenticity it makes up for in a Sunday afternoon mystery kind of way. At 3 hours long every situation is used to the max and the film has some good set pieces. Christopher Lee is not the ideal Holmes, he's a little too nice, he even has tome to flirt with women…..Bah Partick Macnee as Watson is out of the bumbling Nigel Bruce school of Watson's and is quite likable. The film doesn't take itself too seriously however and is played for laughs on many occasions.

Ephraim Gadsby At the brink of retirement, Sherlock Holmes (Christopher Lee) and Dr. Watson (Patrick Macnee) are sent by the King to deliver a precious jewel safely to England. This job is complicated when the jewel is stolen and an unknown man is found murdered at the site of the heist. The ensuing mystery inexplicably involves many famous people (and at least one other famous literary character) including former president Theodore Roosevelt.The casting is superb. Lee, a well-read actor, who was acquainted with Arthur Conan Doyle's son Adrian, is a fine older Holmes, while Macnee seems born to play Watson -- the fumbling old codger who proves invaluable because of his iron nerve, courage under fire, and quick thinking (the fact that we know him as John Steed makes us know that under the bumbling exterior he'll show grit when it comes to a fight).Where the movie fails is in the story. The longer versions entwines implausible story lines about Lily Langtree and her (absurd) lover, about the niece of the former president, about a wealthy Indian widow, and the precious stone. Even in the longer version, the story lines don't seem to make sense. On one viewing I'm not certain why they were at Victoria Falls at all. And it all leads up to a curious conclusion in the most inappropriate of places. POSSIBLE SPOILER: why is the thief even there? Why didn't he jump ship long before the conclusion, drop his identity, and abscond with the jewel?I'm not a fan of stories where Sherlock Holmes hobnobs with famous people of "his day" (remember, he never lived). Plots about the famous with Sherlock Holmes always come off as contrived. And Sherlock Holmes doesn't do much deducting. He stumbles accidentally into clues. He gives his adage of not making deductions ahead of the facts, then gives Watson an alternative version of an accepted story that's based on no facts at all, but solely on speculation. He seems to make what deductions he makes not so much on fact but on leaps of faith. ANOTHER POSSIBLE SPOILER: Theodore Roosevelt must've had a film projector whose quality of detail was a century ahead of its time. The cast, setting, design, costumes, and look of the show are superb. Where it fails is in the writing. It's an entertaining and even enjoyable romp, but it relies on cliches, unbelievable situations, unexplained happenings .. . and at the end of the day it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Still, it's a fine Holmes and Watson combination and any Holmes lover will want to see it -- but never the short version.