When Professor Moriarty escapes the gallows - literally in a puff of smoke - Sherlock Holmes finds himself once again in pursuit of his old nemesis. Soon after the escape, Holmes' brother Mycroft asks him to work at identifying a leak in British Intelligence. Uncharacteristically, he refuses to help until he realizes that Moriarty is behind the missing State secrets. He learns that a very seductive woman, Sophy DeVere, has been hypnotizing one of Mycroft's young assistants to steal the information. When Moriarty is unable to decode the secret message he has stolen, he kidnaps Mycroft in order to get the information. Professor Moriarty is loose in London with spies everywhere, and only Sherlock Holmes can figure out what he's up to and stop it. The man that played Sherlock, Edward Woodward was to old and too heavy and did not look the part of the Sherlock Holmes of the past in other movies. He also was very arrogant for a character that was usually has some class. Mycroft his brother was way to old as well.<br/><br/>The man that played Dr Watson-John Hillerman was good. It seemed this Sherlock kept getting fooled by Moriarty who escaped being hung with the help of his girlfriend.<br/><br/>It was very violent in parts. The crowd at the hangings were cheering and waiting in anticipation for a number of men to be hung. They reminded me more of ISIS terrorist which kill people on camera an celebrate. I don't believe these actors were like that even though they presented them in that way. Christians were also in the crowd and presented kind of stupid. But then again the creator of Sherlock, Arthur Conan Doyle was involved in the occult not religion. I don't know if he wrote this story though.<br/><br/>Check out this link. "THE ODD SPIRITUALISM OF SIR ARTHUR CONAN DOYLE " http://moreintelligentlife.com/story/conan-doyle-spiritualism<br/><br/>The man that plays Moriarty is much younger than Sherlock so it does not seem like he could be Sherlock's enemy for many years. The movie is long and draggy. There are many characters and lots of running in the dark or riding in a horse drawn carriage in the dark. Holmes fight with Moriarty and others was way to long. <br/><br/>Anyway I did not like it. 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).<br/><br/>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!! <br/><br/>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. <br/><br/>My suggestion–read the original stories and watch the Jeremy Brett films. You'll thank me for this, I am sure.
Ranshzevul replied
295 weeks ago