Too much of everything

Good concept, poorly executed.

All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

I've not ticked "contains spoiler" because I am working on the premise that a premature revelation that this episode (unlike all the others), is singularly bo**ocks, will be appreciated as it will save you from wasting 90 minutes of your life on it. Having conducted no small study of all the episodes, I can confirm with utmost confidence that this is the worst I have had the misfortune to encounter. The first half is disjointed, there is no deduction, everyone is out of sorts (perhaps Mrs Hudson slipped something in to the afternoon tea). There are only two key events, and rest is virtually irrelevant. For a while I was speechless with disappointment.

As a big fan of Jeremy Brett's Holmes, I really liked this Sherlock Holmes adaptation. I have liked a lot of the feature length adaptations, this, Hound of the Baskervilles and my personal favourite Sign of Four being the best in my opinion.I agree it is slow at times, but I still liked it because it was well acted, had an interesting story and had excellent period detail. The story it is based on isn't a favourite admittedly, but it was a good enough read, however I do think I prefer this adaptation. As you would expect the period detail, sets, photography, costumes and scenery are exceptional and the music is haunting and beautiful. The story is an interesting and involving one with a touch of regret and melancholy about it, the script is well written and sophisticated, the direction is good and the acting is very good.Jeremy Brett and Edward Hardwicke are brilliant as Holmes and Watson, no surprise they always are, Serena Gordon is a beautiful, alluring and sympathetic Eva, Sophie Thompson is lovely as Agatha and Robert Hardy is truly excellent as the villain of the piece, and a notorious villain he is too. Overall, excellent in almost every aspect, definitely recommended. 9/10 Bethany Cox

An earlier comment of mine was deleted by a complaint from a blackmailing reader, who threatened me to go more lightly on his pet world.This was never a great Holmes story. It is of the "take action and disguise self" branch of the Conan Doyle tree. I much prefer the scientist who deduces, ideally deducing what's going on the master criminal's mind.Here, the story structure has four women whose lives are touched by the bad guy. They are the center of the thing, these four, not Holmes, and every sequence is set up to illuminate them not the detective. Two are women who have been successfully blackmailed. One (the redhead) not yet. The fourth sets a kind of symmetry as she is employed by the criminal and exploited emotionally not by him, but by Holmes. These four are mirrored by other women and men dressed as women in a portrayal of a sort of survivalist London underground.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

At the end of this episode Holmes asks Watson not to record the case for posterity.For a good reason! The super sleuth left his little grey cells(sorry Agatha)at home for this tale. There is no deductive reasoning,no acute analysis of signs at crime scenes. Holmes bumbles along fifty yards behind the plot. The dastardly CAM is finally dealt to by an old frail-in a manner that would have made Charles Bronson's heart swell with pride-six bullets in the breadbasket.In an ensuing chase a pursuer gets hold of one of Watson's shoes.Mercifully the writer didn't decide to tack on the story of Cinderella to lengthen the film.The murderess,Holmes and Watson,escape scot free. Oh well,it is a bit of a change of pace in late Victorian London.A bit of sixgun law:-)