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).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!! 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. My suggestion--read the original stories and watch the Jeremy Brett films. You'll thank me for this, I am sure.

An odd, one-off television movie involving Sherlock Holmes vs Professor Moriarty in a battle for state secrets. The strangest thing about HANDS OF A MURDERER is the casting of the rotund Edward Woodward as Holmes. Now, as fine an actor as Mr Woodward was, I don't really think he's anyone's first choice when it comes to playing the almost cadaverous Holmes. Watching a movie in which Holmes is bigger than Watson is rather odd.Of course, Woodward handles the acting of the part well, and along with the excellent John Hillerman as Watson, he helps to hold the movie together. He needs to – the script for this one is a patchwork mish-mash of various Holmes stories and Victorian mystery conventions, with contrived escapes from the gallows, mysterious disappearances and an arch-villain at large. The film is far from perfect and could have been a lot worse, even if the thrills are subdued by the cosy, TV-production style atmosphere.As Moriarty, Anthony Andrews is delightfully hammy, chewing up and spitting out the scenery at every opportunity. He makes the other actors look sedate, and the film benefits a great deal from his energy. The lovely Kim Thomson also makes for effective support as a femme fatale. There isn't much in HANDS OF A MURDERER to impress or thrill, and elements of actual detection do seem to be in short supply, but fans of the fictional detective should find a few elements of interest here.

This one-off Sherlock Holmes film for television starts in quite focused, dynamic, and dramatic fashion with a scene of Professor Moriarty escaping his hanging in quite a clever fashion. Unfortunately, the rest of the film doesn't really maintain this standard, and it descends into what is for the most part a laughable, though interesting, muddle.The plot first. On the whole, it doesn't seem to make much sense, and I couldn't tell quite whether the filmmakers were trying to cleave to the Sherlock Holmes canon (they included many rehashed incidents and lines of dialogue from Arthur Conan Doyle) or strike out on their own (this certainly resembles no particular story), but what they do come up with is mainly vague hints of danger and a bit about a disgraced actress with unexplained superpowers of hypnosis. It doesn't really hold the attention nor does it come together cohesively. Edward Woodward notoriously looks nothing like Sherlock Holmes, but I got past that quite quickly. He actually does a very good job with the part. His Holmes is in the Jeremy Brett mold and while he certainly not as good as Brett's masterful performances as the detective, he is very worth watching. His Holmes is appropriately spiky and irascible but with a sense of humor, and he manages to make the exaggerated dialogue written for him to show how loyal he is to his brother Mycroft believable. Mycroft as played by Peter Jeffrey is very much the creature-of-habit civil servant, and important element of the the Mycroft Holmes character that we don't often see. However, after the scene lifted from "The Greek Interpreter" in which the brothers have a deduction contest through the window, we don't get the slightest hint that Mycroft is is supposed to be the intellectual better of the world's greatest detective -- or even of higher than average intelligence. Many scenes of Mycroft being tortured for information pile up and become repetitive as well as exploitive. Moriarty here, and most of the scenes he appears in (as well as that in which mystery-hypnotist-woman puts her lover in a trance) are so overplayed that they become complete unintentionally funny cheese. Anthony Andrews overacts completely as the professor; his only character work seems to consist of "I am utterly evil." The villain is portrayed as sashaying around an office full of Egyptian mummies, while apparently keeping a poisonous snake in a cigar box just so he can kill people by asking them to get a cigar. John Hillerman is largely adequate as Watson, though a little shallow in his constant semi-bewilderment. To top it off, most of the dialogue is quite cliché-ridden and content-free. There's a certain interest to this film as another interpretation of Holmes and an apparent attempt to "darken" the detective for the 1990s, but it mostly comes off as misguided and silly.

I am a lifelong fan of The Great Detective; I yield place to no one as a fan of Edward Woodward. I even believe I understand why Mr Woodward would wish to play Sherlock Holmes; I too would like to play Sherlock Holmes. I recuse myself from the role (even though no one has asked me to perform as the Wizard of Baker Street) since I bear no resemblance whatsoever to Sir Arthur's descriptions of Holmes. Nor does Edward Woodward, and it is simply too great a stretch to see a burly Holmes. Woodward would make a fine radio Holmes. Hillerman is as solid a Watson as any, which is in itself amazing as Hillerman is from Texas. Perhaps this presentation suffers most when compared with the British series starring Jeremy Brett. In short, despite its good points, not for Sherlockians.