Wow! Such a good movie.

The first must-see film of the year.

It's simply great fun, a winsome film and an occasionally over-the-top luxury fantasy that never flags.

One of the film's great tricks is that, for a time, you think it will go down a rabbit hole of unrealistic glorification.

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.

I found the pace to be glacial and the original story blown way out of proportion to the content. My wife slept through most of it and I did not try to wake her because I felt she was not missing anything.When Holmes and Watson enter the house and then are potentially caught, it is unclear how they could hide all of their entry and burglary tools so quickly. It is also unclear how the door to the study is locked, preventing the servants from getting in.The thing that puzzled me was right at the end when there was a glint in the eye of the broken statute. I have no clue what this was supposed to represent.

The Master Blackmailer, based off of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's short story, "the Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton," is the first feature length Sherlock Holmes story with Jeremy Brett that I have seen. The story is interesting and dark. The film has a somewhat dreary, sad feel to it, but it is quite entertaining (with some especially funny scenes).*Spoilers* Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson attempt to uncover the identity of an illusive blackmailer who has been ruining some of the most prominent families of England by publishing private letters that will, in one way or another, destroy their lives. They eventually find out that he is Charles Augustus Milverton, an "art dealer," after the few tragic consequences for victims that could not pay up. Our heroes must next help Lady Eva Blackwell, who must pay a sum that is beyond her means or else her upcoming marriage will most definitely be called off. The scene in which Holmes and Watson burglarize Milverton's house are intense. Although the film has an essentially happy ending, the tone is sad and regretful.Outstanding performances by Jeremy Brett and Edward Hardwicke (as usual), and Robert Hardy as the notorious villain (most audiences probably recognize him today as Cornelius Fudge in Harry Potter), Serena Gordon as Lady Eva Blackwell, Norma West as Lady Swinstead and Sophie Thomson as Agatha (the scenes involving her and Holmes are a riot). I give it a ***1/2 out *****. My only complaint is that there wasn't enough Inspector Lestrade. (I wish they would have added in the scene at the end of the short story where he gives the description of the two burglars, one of which matches Watson.)

I tend to look askance at departures from Doyle's sacred writings, but the additions in this film were well-chosen and done well. Those of us who have most of the Holmes canon mostly memorized tend to forget that for many viewers this may be their first exposure to Holmes, Watson and the foggy streets of Victorian London. A bit more atmosphere and additional plot may be a good introduction for newcomers to the Foggy Fables.The large body of work left by Brett and his associates is, I believe, the best and most faithful Holmes films so far.