TheLittleSongbird 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

Robert J. Maxwell If you didn't know better, you'd take this for one of Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot stories. Just add twenty years and make the hero short and squat instead of so tall and narrow that he seems to be on stilts. Imagine Holmes and Watson in pith helmets and white suits, tramping through the jungle in an exotic location, with Holmes using his little gray cells to solve the theft of the Ranchipur Refulgence or whatever the MacGuffin called here.The story actually sticks rather closely to Holmes' character and location while he and Watson are given the task of guarding the huge diamond on its way from South Africa to England. Holmes is beginning to pack his gear, preparatory to retiring to Sussex and keep bees, and the sad Mrs. Hudson gives him a slight hug, which revolts him.Speaking of Sussex, this is the dirtiest movie ever to involve the world's only consulting detective and his Boswell. Twice, Neil McCarthy gets to make love to two topless women -- one a pale young American, the other a coffee-colored Indian Maharani. The swine. Neither of the women, alas, is Jenny Seagrove, who plays Lilly Langtree. She and the fictional thief named Raffles make love too, but it's relatively decorous.I don't think I'll try to describe the plot. It's turgid and tangled. I couldn't follow it, at any rate, even though I was relatively lucid at the time. I lost track of the fabulous jewel too. There's a fake one involved. There are several flashbacks. Everyone seems to be a suspect at one time or another, even Teddy Roosevelt, played by a jowly Claude Akins.Once the characters are moved to Capetown, Holmes and Watson more or less disappear and turn into an ordinary detective and his friend. The writing still carries some wit with it. Jenny Seagrove is quite beautiful with her wide, startled eyes. I think she was Miss Mary Morstone in one of the Jeremy Brett episodes. Watson is naturally attracted to her, especially when she takes him aside and asks if she can ask him a personal question. The eager Watson is receptive. "Do you think," she asks, "that Mr. Holmes finds me interesting?" If he doesn't, there's something wrong with him. There's nothing ELSE wrong with him. He's impeccably dressed, polite, aloof. He doesn't do any dope or exhibit other bad habits. Well -- he smokes a pipe, which I guess is a devalued practice these days. Christopher Lee doesn't put any brio into the part, although, given the character, not much may be called for. Still, Jeremy Brett's quirkiness and Basil Rathbone's quick darting glances livened up the character in a way that Lee's performance doesn't. He has a tendency to sit quietly, puffing his pipe, and bringing Watson up to date on who might and might not be the treacherous thief and murderer.A lot of that sluggishness is the director's fault. Bill Corcoran has too many shots of people standing still, staring at one another, and having a conversational exchange. At one point, Watson is preparing tea and Holmes begins one of his little analyses. Instead of listening while he continues with the brewing process, Watson simply stops and stares back at Holmes, teapot in one hand, tea cup in the other. These static encounters happen over and over. And the music is terrible. The theme is a boop-de-boop electronic tune that should be an accompaniment to some cartoon about a duck. Later on there are violins but they're electronically amplified and the effect is lost, which is too bad because the score is rather pretty -- a serious Grieg, a Mozart sonata.It's diverting without being in the least exciting -- lions or no lions.

Prof-Hieronymos-Grost On the eve of his retirement to bee keeping heaven, Sherlock Holmes is summoned to the palace, where King Edward requests one last mission for the super sleuth, to travel to Sth Africa and protect the Star of Africa diamond from those who would claim it as their own. The film is hardly of Doyle quality but what it lacks in authenticity it makes up for in a Sunday afternoon mystery kind of way. At 3 hours long every situation is used to the max and the film has some good set pieces. Christopher Lee is not the ideal Holmes, he's a little too nice, he even has tome to flirt with women…..Bah Partick Macnee as Watson is out of the bumbling Nigel Bruce school of Watson's and is quite likable. The film doesn't take itself too seriously however and is played for laughs on many occasions.

winner55 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.