Sherlock Holmes: Incident at Victoria Falls (1992)

Good , But It Is Overrated By Some

Good films always raise compelling questions, whether the format is fiction or documentary fact.

After playing with our expectations, this turns out to be a very different sort of film.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

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

This is the 2nd of 2 very long TV movies/miniseries featuring two wonderful actors: Christopher Lee as Holmes and Patrick Macnee as Watson. (The following year a 3rd, "Sherlock Holmes in New York", promoted Macnee to Holmes.) Like the first, it has faults and virtues, although ultimately weighted on the side of the latter. As a side note, when shown on TV in this country, this film and its companion were each cut by about a quarter-hour.However loosely – and it's very, very loosely – this film is related to an old Basil Rathbone film, "Terror by Night". This involves transporting a fabulous diamond, the "Star of Rhodesia", with Holmes overseeing security. "Incident at Victoria Falls" also involves a fabulous diamond, the "Star of Africa". This latter is an actual diamond, although much larger than the gem displayed in the film. That was the Cullinan Diamond, over 300 carats (well over a pound!) in the rough. The Cullinan was eventually cut in to 9 large gems and a goodly number of smaller items. These are all now part of the Crown Jewels.The film's "Star of Africa", already cut and polished, is – like the Cullinan – going to be transported from South Africa to Britain, where it will be presented to Edward VIII. Mycroft Holmes sends his brother Sherlock to provide security with a plan involving a glass duplicate of the "Star". Yeah. You all know how this turns out: we get to play "diamond, diamond, who's got the diamond?" for the next couple of hours. But it's all in good fun, only slightly spoiled by the banality of the script – I found myself on a number of occasions saying the next highly predictable line before the character who had it. On the bright side, we only get a glimpse of Holmes wearing a deerstalker instead of being constantly treated to that particular wardrobe malfunction.As for the rest of the cast, there are few that would be much recognized on this side of the Pond. As to characters, it will turn out that one of them is a ringer – not really a fair cop, since we're given no clue that there's anything suspicious about him or her. In the cast, several well-known historical names appear … such as King Edward (played by the estimable Joss Ackland), Lillie Langtree (played by a fine actor, Jenny Seagrove), Theodore Roosevelt (played by the well-known Claude Akins), and Gugliamo Marconi (played by an unknown, Steven Gurney).The settings for the film are scenic, and the action usually brisk. The train trip from Capetown to Victoria Falls is a lot of fun, enlivened particularly by Claude Akins, who plays Teddy Roosevelt with appropriate and effective swagger and bluster.The script writers may have assumed the viewer would already know of the relationship between Langtree and Edward VIII – but in any event, this fact never appears in plot or dialogue – not to mention the fact that Ms. Langtree's participation in the story contains elements entirely antithetical to her actual character.The story takes a number of twists and turns, although Holmes's vade mecum, detection by deduction, sometimes falls by the side of the road. In this respect, the film falls short of the standard set by the great Basil Rathbone … not to mention the even greater Jeremy Brett.Well, no film is perfect. This one is a good evening's entertainment, over 3 hours long. While the cast is generally average, Lee and Macnee give the entire film centrality and impetus. The trick here is not to mind the various little problems and go along for the ride. It's a pretty good one, especially the railroad.

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.

This was taken from a mini-series, wouldn't have watched had I known that. Holmes goes to the dark continent under orders from Her Majesty's Government to guard a very valuable stone which unfortunately comes up missing. Holmes and Watson must unravel this puzzling mystery while avoiding the actions on the local constabulary headed by an unbelievably pompous, inept jackass of an inspector. Lee played the part of the aging sleuth well in a bit of a different outing for the Brit crime buster. Too many gaps in the story and an ending which even Holmes couldn't figure out. Bypass unless you can see the whole production I would say.