Sherlock Holmes in New York (1976)

You won't be disappointed!

A Masterpiece!

A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

A terrific literary drama and character piece that shows how the process of creating art can be seen differently by those doing it and those looking at it from the outside.

I am puzzled by the user reviews here, which would lead you to expect this movie to be average or slightly above average. It is neither. It is bad in many different ways.Cheaply filmed, the movie has the look of a staged play, with long scenes and a few camera cuts. This was, to be fair, 70s television, when production quality was pretty low, but still, this is quite clunky.The clunkiness of the filming is mirrored by the acting, which is consistently hammy and forced. It reminded me of those famous old melodramas where a mustachioed villain would insist the innocent girl marry him or face destitution, not in the story but in the broad performances.Roger Moore is completely wrong as Holmes. A couple of reviewers describe him as a "more human" Holmes, and yes, if you want a Sherlock who is not particularly quirky or brilliant but is instead just a regular guy who solves crimes, well, this is you Homes. If you want Basil Rathbone, Jeremy Brett, or Benedict Cumberberthatch, you won't get that.There is also a ridiculous Watson that takes the bumbling approach of Nigel Bruce but removes Bruce's charm.I managed to get half way through this before giving up - I wish I'd stopped sooner. The story is uninteresting and when I read the plot synopsis on wikipedia I saw that the mystery's solution was the one I had thought it probably was, so no points for originality.This is probably the second worse Sherlock Holmes movie, right after that abysmal Peter Cook/Dudley Moore abomination.

Undoubtedly one of the worst Sherlock Holmes' versions. (Roger Moore) is in his poorest charisma and role. The whole atmosphere was ridiculous, and the very well known English coldness at its best. Except the novel idea of the movie nothing is catchy. It's the perfect afternoon movie to NOT watch ! I felt it was all a nod just to confirm how one of the upcoming progeny of the English (Moore) as Holmes from his American love would be (Moore) as James Bond, so that's the explanation why Bond is sharp and naughty ! Simply, this little movie was all heavy like Holmes' cape, and frigid as (Moore)'s attempt to be serious ! I have nothing more to say about such a movie, but the IMDb wants an addition line to allow this to be published, and I think that last one was it.

The greatest detective ever known (in fiction) appears in this really enjoyable TV film with three great actors and a great story of kidnap and robbery together. Sir Roger Moore as the very English and very professional Sherlock Holmes is a very good creation, the best (and only) one I've seen. Apparently there are scenes where John Huston as the nasty Professor Moriarty steals scenes, but I don't think that's true. Patrick Macnee (who worked with Moore in A View To A Kill) is a very good, amusing and lovable Doctor Watson. Basically they have to stop Moriarty from stealing some gold, and get Irene Adler's (Charlotte Rampling) kid back as well. The good moments are the small action, chases and sneaking moments. Moore's good breakaway from James Bond. Good!

Having captured the gang of Professor Moriarty and foiled his plan of assassination, Sherlock Holmes finds himself at a loss. Moriarty has escaped capture and vowed to show up Holmes no end. Actress Irene Adler is an acquaintance of Holmes and has sent him tickets for each of her opening nights for over 9 years - she is opening in New York and Holmes awaits her tickets. When they arrive ripped up, Holmes and Watson set out for New York immediately to find that nothing is obviously wrong. However when Adler doesn't show up for the play, Holmes finds himself drawn into a plot that involves kidnapping and an incredible theft of gold from the International Gold Exchange.Despite the fact that this is a Roger Moore film I decided to give it a stab on the basis that I quite enjoy the character of Sherlock Holmes. From the very start the weaknesses of the film are as clear as day but the basics of the film are enjoyable enough to make this worth watching. The plot is passable and is delivered with a good sense of pace that makes it enjoyable - however it must be said that the plot is hardly worthy of Moriarty, whom we are told is a master criminal. Holmes solves it all far too easily and it is to the film's detriment, although the number of steps required to get to the end is impressive they are all too simple - it would have been better to have had fewer deductions from Holmes but a more complex plot. As it is it works well enough for the material and is far from the weakest part of the film.The film's low values are clear from the start - Holmes' absurd sideburns look like they have crawled onto his face without him noticing for example. The lighting, shot-framing and cinematography all make the film feel rather dated (to the 70's rather than the turn of century). These really hurt the film and it never looks like a great deal of money was spent on it. The cast are a mixed bag. It would be easy to dismiss Moore as Holmes and, in fairness, I feared the worst but was reasonably happy with his performance. While he doesn't compare to the best of them, Moore's Holmes is strong in his display as a human rather than a perfect crime fighter. Moore is a little hammy at times (his disguises are absurd) but generally he does quite well. Macnee is given little to do and has lifted his Watson directly from the Nigel Bruce School of Acting - making Watson a bit of a buffoon; hardly original but still quite enjoyable. Of course the worst performance comes from Huston who plays his Moriarty with an Irish brogue at times and not once comes across as a match for Holmes, rather he comes over as a basic thug in charge of a poor gang and I can honestly say I have never seen the character portrayed with less ability than this. Rampling is another famous face but is given nothing to do but be part of a romantic subplot that is out of place and doesn't work. The acting is generally bad but to give him his dues, Moore is not including in my list of bad performances in this movie.Overall this is not a great movie and doesn't compare to the Rathbone series of Holmes' films (for my money anyway). The basic plot is passable but is too simply solved and includes a redundant romantic subplot. The character of Holmes is more interesting than usual and is delivered quite well by Moore (nobody's first choice for Holmes but still OK). The film is full of weaknesses but is still worth a watch for fans - however I doubt anyone will fail to be shocked by the sheer awfulness of both the character of Moriarty and the performance of John Huston in portraying him.