The Crucifer of Blood (1991)

Waste of time

If the ambition is to provide two hours of instantly forgettable, popcorn-munching escapism, it succeeds.

It’s sentimental, ridiculously long and only occasionally funny

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

There are definitely worse Holmes movies -- "Sherlock: Case of Evil" and Reginald Owen's "A Study in Scarlet," for example. And I have to admit I expected this to be worse than it actually is.I often like Charlton Heston's performances, but he is totally miscast here. Add to that the rather lame, and at times implausible, story; the often plodding pace; and the distractingly intrusive sets. However, it held my interest enough to hang on to the end -- just barely.Do yourself a favor: if you're in the mood for a good Holmes film, watch Billy Wilder's "The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes," or one of the early episodes of Jeremy Brett's Granada series.

I agree that Charlton Heston wasn't the man for this role, I had "the advantage" of watching/having to watch the French version, as such I didn't have to listen to "American English English". On the other hand I found his disguises superb. The action and the "end game" both made the film well worth watching. There are many films where the "baddy" becomes obvious - this is not one of them!Richard Johnson plays a believable John Watson. The Watson role is difficult to play in the sense that he is an educated man, so shouldn't appear stupid, just less capable of crime deduction. But we shouldn't forget that doctors are experts in deducing illnesses from the symptoms of their patients. Connie Booth is a lovely lady - a pleasure to see everything she's in!

This movie is definitely interesting. True fans of the canon will notice how much of the script was taken from several different Doyle stories, (especially the first ten minutes of the movie) as well as Irene's father's name and the Mordecai Smith character at the end. This movie was very loosely based on Doyle's 'The Sign of Four', and the outcome of the case is extremely different than the original story. The plot flows well and is quite entertaining. The only real 'flaw' is Charlton Heston's voice! You'd think he would've done a fake English accent while portraying the very English Sherlock Holmes!! People have remarked how Heston played Holmes as being too 'nice' or whatever...I thought it was refreshing to see Holmes as a normal human being, rather than a mere calculating machine. (For the record, I consider Jeremy Brett to be the best Sherlock ever.) Anyway, this movie is definitely worth watching! :)

This is a well directed and enjoyable story which captured my attention from the beginning.The cast are effective and there are some neat twists.It looks stunning at times and there is a sense of theatrical sets ( it is based on a stage play) which add another dimension to the visual style. Unfortunately the producers have cast Charlton Heston as Sherlock Holmes and he hampers the credibility of the production.Not because he is a bad actor..far from it.Unfortunately his accent suggests that he comes from that part of the UK known only to American actors and he lacks the sensitivity and intensity that I expect of Holmes. Worth catching on TV