Good movie but grossly overrated

Better Late Then Never

Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

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: Incident at Victoria Falls', especially with such an interesting idea for a story.There are better Sherlock Holmes-related films/adaptations certainly than 'Sherlock Holmes: Incident at Victoria Falls', the best of the Jeremy Brett adaptations and films of Basil Rathone fit under this category. It's not one of the worst either, it is 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'.'Sherlock Holmes: Incident at Victoria Falls' is not terrible certainly. The always dependable, even legendary, Christopher Lee, is excellent as Holmes, regardless of any reservations about him being too old. Patrick MacNee is both bumbling and loyal, without being too much of a buffoon or an idiot. The chemistry between them really lifts the proceedings, lots of fun and charm in it. The rest of the cast are fine, Claude Akins in particular enjoys himself as Roosevelt (yes you saw it).Parts of the mystery are intriguing and there are a few exciting set pieces. Some of the dialogue is fun and thought-provoking. It is very nicely filmed with evocative and handsome production design. However, 'Sherlock Holmes: Incident at Victoria Falls' does suffer from a very stodgy pace, highly indicative of the story struggling to sustain the long length of the adaptation (judging by the execution of the story it felt too long and too padded) and a far too over complicated story. The ending is one of the most convoluted and head-scratching for any Sherlock Holmes adaptation. Too much of it feels like it goes nowhere, with some overlong scenes or shots, and too aimless, and too many elements came over as underdeveloped and vague. The music sounds like it was scored and like it belonged somewhere else altogether, it was so out of kilter with everything else. The direction is pedestrian and too many of the characters add nothing, serving more of an excuse to play fast and loose with history. In summary, worth a one time watch but underwhelming. 5/10 Bethany Cox

The movie's plot was good and came together well, but seeing the movie, was made in 1992, it could have been done a lot better - it looked was like it was made in the 60's. Sketchy and looked dubbed in parts.Lee was good as Holmes, and I respect him as a person and humanitarian, but in this movie but he looked too old for Holmes and seemed to me would make a better Moriarty (despite the fact the villain did not feature in this story).I borrowed this movie in a nice looking metal box set, but frankly with 5 DVD's, I'd expect at least 5 Holmes movies, not 2 (The other Sherlock Holmes & the Leading Lady) + a Jack the Ripper special (yes I know Holmes was set at that time) but it seemed to me a fancy way to sell 2 rather mediocre movies.Glad I didn't have to pay for it!

There's no doubt that, given the cast, this could have been a rousing good Sherlock Holmes film. Unfortunately, the producers decided to go for the mini-series. Bad move! The film we have left drags in moments, the story is overly convoluted with plot elements going nowhere, the pacing lags.Still, Lee and MacNee make an excellent Holmes-Watson duo, and most of the acting is really good for a television project of this kind. The mystery elements, when we finally get them, are on a par with that of better Holmes material - although they often feel somewhat borrowed from Christie-Poirot films. The denouement is satisfying in a quirky way, as it involves playing fast and loose with history.Enjoyable for a viewing - the second half is probably the superior, but that's a matter of taste.

This is the 2nd of 2 very long TV movies/miniseries featuring two wonderful actors: Christopher Lee as Holmes and Patrick Macnee as Watson. (The following year a 3rd, "Sherlock Holmes in New York", promoted Macnee to Holmes.) Like the first, it has faults and virtues, although ultimately weighted on the side of the latter. As a side note, when shown on TV in this country, this film and its companion were each cut by about a quarter-hour.However loosely – and it's very, very loosely – this film is related to an old Basil Rathbone film, "Terror by Night". This involves transporting a fabulous diamond, the "Star of Rhodesia", with Holmes overseeing security. "Incident at Victoria Falls" also involves a fabulous diamond, the "Star of Africa". This latter is an actual diamond, although much larger than the gem displayed in the film. That was the Cullinan Diamond, over 300 carats (well over a pound!) in the rough. The Cullinan was eventually cut in to 9 large gems and a goodly number of smaller items. These are all now part of the Crown Jewels.The film's "Star of Africa", already cut and polished, is – like the Cullinan – going to be transported from South Africa to Britain, where it will be presented to Edward VIII. Mycroft Holmes sends his brother Sherlock to provide security with a plan involving a glass duplicate of the "Star". Yeah. You all know how this turns out: we get to play "diamond, diamond, who's got the diamond?" for the next couple of hours. But it's all in good fun, only slightly spoiled by the banality of the script – I found myself on a number of occasions saying the next highly predictable line before the character who had it. On the bright side, we only get a glimpse of Holmes wearing a deerstalker instead of being constantly treated to that particular wardrobe malfunction.As for the rest of the cast, there are few that would be much recognized on this side of the Pond. As to characters, it will turn out that one of them is a ringer – not really a fair cop, since we're given no clue that there's anything suspicious about him or her. In the cast, several well-known historical names appear … such as King Edward (played by the estimable Joss Ackland), Lillie Langtree (played by a fine actor, Jenny Seagrove), Theodore Roosevelt (played by the well-known Claude Akins), and Gugliamo Marconi (played by an unknown, Steven Gurney).The settings for the film are scenic, and the action usually brisk. The train trip from Capetown to Victoria Falls is a lot of fun, enlivened particularly by Claude Akins, who plays Teddy Roosevelt with appropriate and effective swagger and bluster.The script writers may have assumed the viewer would already know of the relationship between Langtree and Edward VIII – but in any event, this fact never appears in plot or dialogue – not to mention the fact that Ms. Langtree's participation in the story contains elements entirely antithetical to her actual character.The story takes a number of twists and turns, although Holmes's vade mecum, detection by deduction, sometimes falls by the side of the road. In this respect, the film falls short of the standard set by the great Basil Rathbone … not to mention the even greater Jeremy Brett.Well, no film is perfect. This one is a good evening's entertainment, over 3 hours long. While the cast is generally average, Lee and Macnee give the entire film centrality and impetus. The trick here is not to mind the various little problems and go along for the ride. It's a pretty good one, especially the railroad.