The Case of the Whitechapel Vampire (2002)

the audience applauded

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

This is one of the best movies I’ve seen in a very long time. You have to go and see this on the big screen.

Blistering performances.

That this 2002 Canadian TV movie is based on a made-up Holmes story rather than a canon one should be a warning in itself; this turns out to be a schlocky and entirely befuddled production that has little to do with the original stories. Purists will no doubt find themselves outraged by the antics of the producers, which reduce the story elements to their most basic level.The rest of us are left amused by a film which comes across as a cheesy B-movie instead of a classy Holmes adaptation. The entire story is set in what looks like a medieval monastery, with the sweaty monks at the mercy of a vampire killer. Wait until you see the costume! It's all very silly and of course nothing like the real Holmes.Matt Frewer starred as the Victorian sleuth in four of these movies and he portrays the detective as an upper class twit. Let's just say that his acting is entertaining for all the wrong reasons. I'm not sure why North Americans have to put on an affected RP accent every time they play a Brit; it's a bit like a Brit supposing that all Americans speak in Southern drawls, which couldn't be further from the truth. Anyway, THE CASE OF THE WHIECHAPEL VAMPIRE is a mess, but also still marginally better than the appalling BBC production of SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE CASE OF THE SILK STOCKING with Rupert Everett.

Holmes (Frewer) and Watson (Welsh) are called to a case that takes place in an Abbey inhabited by monks and nuns. A couple of monks wind up with the signature bite of the vampire on their necks. The monks are terrified. It surely has something to do with their having done missionary work in Guyana, which is full of bats. The tale is a little twisted but the general idea is that the monks and nuns think they're being pursued by some South American demon, while the atheistic Holmes and the more prudent Watson look for a material source of the problem.The photography is just fine. The chiaroscuro is masterful. No kidding. Some shots evoke images of Rembrandt. We've all seen the stone and brick walls of night-time Victorian alleys before, the cobbled streets, but rarely more vividly, never more slick with glittering patches of water. Unfortunately we don't get to see too much of London. The budget apparently didn't allow for it.None of the performances stand out much. Frewer has the right features for Holmes, but a fair-haired Holmes takes a little getting used to, and so does his gaiety and light voice. Between Rathbone and Brett, the character was ruined for everyone else. Although, come to think of it, things might have been worse -- Arthur WONTNER? Cary Lawrence turns in a polished performance as the blind Sister Helen. There are one or two evocative phrases, words, or character. Whitechapel, of course, conjures up Jack the Ripper eating somebody's kidney, probably with a nice chianti. Vampires today are all over the screen, sometimes pathetic, sometime demonic, sometimes just thirsty. There was a real Doctor Chagas -- Carlos -- who became famous in tropical medicine in South America. He had a disease named after him. (Kids, the name of the disease that was named after Doctor Chagas is Chagas' disease.) Either the structure of the story is tortuous or I'm aging at a faster rate than I'd hoped, because I kept getting all those monks mixed up. If they'd only dress differently from one another. And the ending: all the clues, ratiocination, and events that have been edited out of the narrative come crashing in all at once. It leaves you feeling as f you'd just gorged yourself on the collected works of Agatha Christie.There have been worse movies about Holmes and there have been better ones. This one will pass.

The four Sherlock Holmes movies by Hallmark are just good fun versions for kids. Don't even try to take 'em seriously folks. Don't expect them to be artistic masterpieces based on literary classics. These TV movies were made for a family audience and there's plenty of comedy for kids in these things. Frewer's Holmes must be seen to be believed! He's a hoot! He's the most eccentric Holmes EVER! Kids will love this guy! Kenneth Welsh is much more traditional in his role and he makes a very fine Watson. These Frewer Holmes flicks are sure to entertain the kids and will hopefully encourage them to read more about The Master Detective. They certainly wont get bored watching any of these with the ultra-intense and comedic Frewer on the screen.

Unlike the former three adaptations in the Hallmark series, this one makes no pretense of even loosely 'following' any of Conan Doyle's works. This is the only reason that 'The Whitechapel Vampire' can get away with near heresy. The story involves ritual, possible demonic, killings in a monastery in Whitechapel, which was only recently deprived of Jack the Ripper. Sherlock Holmes is called in to investigate, but finds himself facing the possible unknown. A skeptic of anything supernatural, he fully believes that these 'vampire killings' can be proven the work of a human hand. Thus the story involves the Christian faith, and pagan superstition, as well as a medium, in attempts to satisfy viewers of all belief systems. What it does instead is trip over its own ambitions.Christians like myself will resent that in the end, something the medium has said proves itself right. And skeptics won't like the 'divine intervention' at a key moment of the climax. As a full-length film, it's often hard to follow, and isn't entirely explained, but manages to keep viewers on the edge of their seats. Frewer remains stereotyped, but it doesn't bleed through as often as in the first three adaptations. It is not the finest pastiche ever filmed but is worth seeing at least once.