Sorry, this movie sucks

I wanted to but couldn't!

It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.

The storyline feels a little thin and moth-eaten in parts but this sequel is plenty of fun.

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

I am puzzled by the user reviews here, which would lead you to expect this movie to be average or slightly above average. It is neither. It is bad in many different ways.Cheaply filmed, the movie has the look of a staged play, with long scenes and a few camera cuts. This was, to be fair, 70s television, when production quality was pretty low, but still, this is quite clunky.The clunkiness of the filming is mirrored by the acting, which is consistently hammy and forced. It reminded me of those famous old melodramas where a mustachioed villain would insist the innocent girl marry him or face destitution, not in the story but in the broad performances.Roger Moore is completely wrong as Holmes. A couple of reviewers describe him as a "more human" Holmes, and yes, if you want a Sherlock who is not particularly quirky or brilliant but is instead just a regular guy who solves crimes, well, this is you Homes. If you want Basil Rathbone, Jeremy Brett, or Benedict Cumberberthatch, you won't get that.There is also a ridiculous Watson that takes the bumbling approach of Nigel Bruce but removes Bruce's charm.I managed to get half way through this before giving up - I wish I'd stopped sooner. The story is uninteresting and when I read the plot synopsis on wikipedia I saw that the mystery's solution was the one I had thought it probably was, so no points for originality.This is probably the second worse Sherlock Holmes movie, right after that abysmal Peter Cook/Dudley Moore abomination.

I watched this on its premiere on NBC back in 1976 when I was really starting to have a real interest in Sherlock Holmes. Roger Moore struck me as looking a bit young for the part (even though he wasn't), but his performance really impressed me. Patrick MacNee was very much my idea of Watson, and Charlotte Rampling was beautiful, dignified and ladylike as Irene Adler (although I really doubted the likelihood of Holmes actually being romantically involved with her). But the grandest part of the show was John Huston in the role of Moriarty. Here was a professor who reeked of evil, was fiendish, devilish, and to top it all off, wickedly brilliant. So with a cast this impressive (Gig Young and David Huddleston as well), a production this stylish, and a thorough sense of fun all the way through, it's a great oversight that the powers that are in control of this movie are not making it more widely available than just finding it on a TV schedule sometime (and I haven't found it lately myself) by releasing it to VHS or DVD (especially for us Holmes fans). If I am wrong here, please let me know and set me straight. So far, my hunts for a video release have come up empty and I really would like to see it again. My e-mail is as above: name, Philip Davis.

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.