MartinHafer Sherlock Holmes is the most commonly featured fictional character in film history--so there are tons of versions of the man. Most, unfortunately, aren't very good. One of the biggest problems I usually notice is that the writers often think Conan Doyle didn't do a very good job with his stories and begin embellishing them. Considering the stories are among the most popular stories on the planet, this does seem a bit arrogant. Another problem is that too often, the writers keep repeating mistakes again and again until the public THINKS this is what the author originally wrote. Here is a huge example from "Hands of a Murderer": Moriarty and Lestrade are major characters in the film even though both rarely were mentioned in the original stories...rarely. Also, Sherlock's brother, Mycroft, is rather stupid in this film--something you would never say about him if you read the Conan Doyle stories (where, in many ways, he's shown as being SMARTER than Sherlock).Now you'll obviously notice that I am an Arthur Conan Doyle purist. I love the original stories and hate to see anything but the originals (such as the way they made the wonderful Jeremy Brett films). So, if you are NOT 100% nuts about Holmes, you may be a lot more forgiving of this movie. It is interesting--provided you don't mind that much of the film is based on a stupid premise--that a lady has Svengali-like powers of hypnosis that can make men to ANYTHING!! Ask any trained hypnotist--this simply isn't possible. Heck, I have training in clinical hypnosis and if I COULD use these powers to control people and make them do my evil bidding, I certainly would have used this a long time ago!! Apart from all my complaints, the film isn't bad. Holmes never wears that stupid deerstalker cap or says 'elementary my dear Watson' (thank God)--and so he does act more like Holmes than in many other films (especially in regard to his drug use). And, the actors are nice--Edward Woodward, Anthony Andrews and John Hillerman are all good actors. And, the sets are nice as well. But the story is a bit lacking at times--especially at the end when it all fizzles out. My suggestion--read the original stories and watch the Jeremy Brett films. You'll thank me for this, I am sure.

dalekilovedyou Everyone above must have watched a different film to the one I had the misfortune to sit through last night. This is not just the worst Holmes film I've ever seen but one of the worst films I've ever seen. The writing was pitiful. Everything's solved by someone drawing a gun! Turgid, simplistic and riddled with holes. For instance, why does Moriarty sit there gurning while Holmes spends 14 years grinding down his chains, or jump out of the carriage, as Holmes does? I thought the bloke was supposed to be a criminal mastermind? Oh, I could go on forever, but I'll never get back those minutes I lost watching that rubbish, and I don't want to do the same to you, whiffling on here. One final word: Avoid. Like the plague. (Sorry, that was three more.)

Ephraim Gadsby Edward Woodward is Holmes and John Hillerman is Watson. Anthony Andrews chews the scenery as Moriarty. Mycroft Holmes is kidnapped to help break a secret code to give Moriarty the key to British intelligence.The makers of this original story try to give Holmes Holmesean things to say, so dialog is lifted from "The Greek Interpreter", "The Bruce-Partington Plans" and other Holmes tales by Arthur Conan Doyle. Their research is oddly inadequate in other places, for going by the number of the _Strand_ Watson displays, it's during the period when both Holmes and Moriarty are dead. Of course, Sir Arthur wasn't always careful about these things himself.The rather silly story telegraphs most of the major plot twists well ahead of time. It ends with a chase in hearses that reminds one of the 60s comedy "The Wrong Box". Throughout, the dialog is obvious, especially one unintentionally humorous scene in the middle where Holmes and Moriarty both have each other at gunpoint and no one shoots.Moriarty is a genius of evil yet he surrounds himself with the sort of henchmen Austin Powers' Dr. Evil would be proud of. Perhaps no one would look quite adequate compared to Moriarty (there is mention that he is a mathematical genius who wrote a work on asteroids), but these guys are such obvious losers one wonders what the job market for crooks looked like in the 1890s, if this was the best he could hire.In contrast to the wonderful Granada series where Watson was perfectly portrayed as a surgeon who performed under fire (and was wounded, twice or so) in Afghanistan, and who possessed the courage, intelligence and patriotism of the ordinary Victorian gentleman who simply isn't up to Holmes' massive intelligence, John Hillerman's Watson is a slight reversion to the old days where Watson was portrayed in the first stages of senility. This Watson is not truly dumb (like, say, Nigel Bruce or Bernard Fox) but he's incredibly gullible. In the midst of a tense case where Watson knows Moriarty is roaming free and he's out to get the Holmes brothers and he's already abducted Mycroft, someone rushes up to Watson and says, basically, "Come with me, somebody's sick," and Watson dutifully tags along. But Watson does come through competently in the end. Curiously, Hillerman's Watson is sporting a beard. Perhaps that's why his wife has thrown him out of the house and he's living with Holmes at a time when none of them should be at 221B Baker Street.It's difficult to understand why Mycroft Holmes, who is conceded to be, even by Sherlock, the sharper of the two brothers, was abducted so easily. It was a trick Watson might've fallen for, but Mycroft should've seen through it in an instant.Woodward's Holmes is waspish and irritable and Hillerman's laid back Watson makes a extreme contrast. As usual, too much is made of Holmes' recreational cocaine use. No one divulges what sort of sedative Watson is on, but Hillerman never seems to raise his eyelids all the way up. Lestrade is simply a loud-mouthed jerk. The excessively loud music cues ones emotional responses, so all one has to do is watch and never really think or feel.For the Holmes completest, it's a necessary curio. For the typical viewer whose knowledge of Holmes is rudimentary at best, it's an undemanding time-killer that's a cut above most other TV-movies (they went all out on interior decoration). Why it's called "Hands of a Murderer" isn't explained, but it's a suitably lurid title.

Coxer99 Woodward is a vibrant Sherlock Holmes; Hillerman, a subdued Watson and Andrews, the best part of the picture, is an ominous Moriarty. The story rings familiar from some of Doyle's works and it is given good treatment by the cast.