There are some good Sherlock Holmes films based on the stories of Conan Doyle. There are some bad Sherlock Homes films based on the stories of Conan Doyle.
This is neither. It's a bad Sherlock Holmes film that has nothing to do with any Conan Doyle story, and instead ropes in Jack the Ripper. I have no idea why the makers of this film ignored the many Conan Doyle stories and instead chose this B-movie screenplay, but for whatever reason it just doesn't work. The cokernee stereotypes would be more at home in a Carry On film (perhaps that's why Barbara Windsor is in it), the plot is poor and Donald Houston is perhaps the worst Dr Watson ever to disgrace the silver screen (and that's saying something, there have been many atrocious portrayals of Watson). The only slightly redeeming feature is John Neville as Holmes - he's not a great Holmes, he's a passable one, but he is head and shoulders above everything else in this.
Really only notable for an early movie appearance from Judi Dench.
This is neither. It's a bad Sherlock Holmes film that has nothing to do with any Conan Doyle story, and instead ropes in Jack the Ripper. I have no idea why the makers of this film ignored the many Conan Doyle stories and instead chose this B-movie screenplay, but for whatever reason it just doesn't work. The cokernee stereotypes would be more at home in a Carry On film (perhaps that's why Barbara Windsor is in it), the plot is poor and Donald Houston is perhaps the worst Dr Watson ever to disgrace the silver screen (and that's saying something, there have been many atrocious portrayals of Watson). The only slightly redeeming feature is John Neville as Holmes - he's not a great Holmes, he's a passable one, but he is head and shoulders above everything else in this.
Really only notable for an early movie appearance from Judi Dench.
Tell Your Friends