Fresh and Exciting

Very interesting film. Was caught on the premise when seeing the trailer but unsure as to what the outcome would be for the showing. As it turns out, it was a very good film.

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

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

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

The greatest detective ever known (in fiction) appears in this really enjoyable TV film with three great actors and a great story of kidnap and robbery together. Sir Roger Moore as the very English and very professional Sherlock Holmes is a very good creation, the best (and only) one I've seen. Apparently there are scenes where John Huston as the nasty Professor Moriarty steals scenes, but I don't think that's true. Patrick Macnee (who worked with Moore in A View To A Kill) is a very good, amusing and lovable Doctor Watson. Basically they have to stop Moriarty from stealing some gold, and get Irene Adler's (Charlotte Rampling) kid back as well. The good moments are the small action, chases and sneaking moments. Moore's good breakaway from James Bond. Good!

This may be the worst Sherlock Holmes film ever. I haven't seen the '70s version of "The Hound of the Baskervilles," but it's hard to imagine that it could be worse than this.The acting is awful, the dialog is horrible and the plot is rice paper thin. Why must we assume that whenever two characters have affection for one another they immediately jump in the sack and make a baby? How elementary could a crime committed by a 'criminal genius' be? Why must Watson, a physician, almost always be portrayed as a total idiot? Why, why, why must there be a romantic angle?I'll stop ranting now. I do give the film high marks for production design, but that's about it. The cinematography is amateurish at best and even the lighting and makeup are bad. Roger Moore is just awful as Holmes and Patrick MacNee was obviously poorly directed to act the moron. If you want a good Holmes film, check out "Murder by Decree." For my money, it's the best. If you want Holmes with a romantic bent, find the BBC TV series "A Scandal in Bohemia" episode. As for this bit of tripe, don't bother.

Roger Moore is a bit handsome for Sherlock Holmes and Patrick Macnee uses a hoarse voice that sounds cured by cigar smoke, but this is an interesting and watchable flick. The story is a double one: Holmes can either save his own son by Irene Adler or solve the mystery of several megatons of missing gold bullion which would lead to an economic catastrophe and possibly war. I won't say whether he succeeds at both. The gold business is given rather short shrift and is solved in about one minute by the perceptive detective. Indeed the solution is so simple that it leaves the authorities in New York looking like dolts for not having figured it out themselves. Well, Moore is no Rasil Bathbone, and Macnee hasn't got very much to do except offer a few wisecracks -- "Holmes, the problem with tea here is that it comes in POUCHES." But very effective use is made of the extensive sets left over from an earlier Twentieth-Century-Fox period movie -- I forget which one. Horse-drawn vehicles chase each other clippity-clop across cobbled streets glistening with rain. Charlotte Rampling plays an upright woman, more or less, in this one. She's quite good, although her eyes remain sensuously hooded and her voice continues unwittingly to carry a throaty invitation. Best is John Huston, overacting for all the part of Moriarty is worth, red-faced, snarling, hair-mussed, rolling his eyes, and that marvelous voice. You must catch Huston and Moore exchange insults at the beginning. Huston: "You never could resist the 'tour day force', the 'coo day grass.' Your ego is insatiable." Moore: "Yes. Atrocious -- along with your French."It's fun to watch. I kind of find myself wishing that Moore hadn't played the later, less individuated Holmes. No cocaine use, no misogyny, but he does play the violin and smoke his non-canonical calabash a lot. Oh -- and thanks to the name of the bank where the gold is stored I finally realized where "the Bowery" came from. The name of the institution is "The Bouwerie Bank," giving away its Dutch ancestry.