It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

True to its essence, the characters remain on the same line and manage to entertain the viewer, each highlighting their own distinctive qualities or touches.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

One of the most extraordinary films you will see this year. Take that as you want.

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 in New York', as well as it having a talented cast and seeing how Roger Moore would fare.'Sherlock Holmes in New York' is not terrible. It's not all that great either. Mediocre is more like it.As said by me many times, there are better Sherlock Holmes-related films/adaptations certainly than 'Sherlock Holmes in New York', the best of the Jeremy Brett adaptations and films of Basil Rathone fit under this category. It's to me towards the bottom of Sherlock Holmes films, it is marginally 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' (then again almost anything is better than that).There are good things. The sets and costumes are handsome enough and there is evidence of atmospheric photography. The music also has atmosphere. Moore is an agreeable, if far from definitive, Holmes with a charming twinkle in his eyes, while Charlotte Rampling has elegance and class. Parts of the mystery does intrigue and engage quite a bit and likewise with some of the script. For all those good things, there are numerous major debits. It does feel too often pedestrian and stagy. Tension and suspense isn't enough and too much of the case is too simple, especially a denouement that makes the viewer feel annoyed at themselves at how they didn't solve it before very early on. How it's solved is all too easy and doesn't do Holmes' masterly deductions justice. A good deal of 'Sherlock Holmes in New York' is on the cheap side and too much of it is flatly directed and too wordy. The more romantic angle agreed felt out of place.Patrick MacNee has little to do as Watson and the buffoonish way he characterises can't help me think it was a directing issue or unfamiliarity with how Watson should be portrayed. He played opposite Christopher Lee later and that was a much better pairing and more subtle in interpretation. For me, there has never been a more hammy Moriaty than John Huston and that is not in a good way, there is nothing sinister about him and the dreadful over-the-top-ness takes one out of the film, even in the more forced moments of the script and story and there is also a fair bit of that going on.To conclude, mediocre but not unwatchable. 4/10 Bethany Cox

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.

Holmes takes on the evil Professor Moriarty, his old nemesis. I didn't like Roger Moore as Holmes any more than I care for him doing James Bond; he is alright, but I like the way other actors handle these characters better. I really didn't appreciate the phony looking sideburns on Holmes, seems the make-up department could have been more competent. Also, I thought the acting was forced at times, and at others a bit corny and hammy. I did like the great old oompaul pipe of Holmes, and enjoyed the production overall. It was another good mystery solved by the Master of Sleuths.