Exoticalot People are voting emotionally.

ChicRawIdol A brilliant film that helped define a genre

ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Sarita Rafferty There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.

Leofwine_draca SHERLOCK HOLMES: INCIDENT AT VICTORIA FALLS is the sequel to the previous 3-hour TV series SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE LEADING LADY, bringing Christopher Lee and Patrick Macnee back as Holmes and Watson and pairing Frank Agrama and Harry Alan Towers as producers. Despite being shot on location in Africa, this is slightly stodgy stuff, weighed down by a slow paced and occasionally uninteresting script.The main problem I have with these productions lies with the American scriptwriter, Bob Shayne. His characterisation of Holmes and Watson never rise above the level of a pastiche; Holmes does virtually no deductive reasoning here, and could have been replaced by any other fictional history (Marple or Poirot, for instance). Lee is wonderful, and Macnee is great comedy value, but that's all you get.The plot of this miniseries is complicated beyond belief and mired down with irrelevant, extraneous characters. Shayne's unwelcome obsession with mixing real-life people into his story continues with Theodore Roosevelt (!) playing an important role. Despite the presence of such luminaries as Richard Todd, Joss Ackland, Jenny Seagrove, and Claude Akins, this is a disappointment. I can't help but imagine what INCIDENT AT VICTORIA FALLS would have been like had it been written by somebody who really knew their stuff.

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.

Ephraim Gadsby At the brink of retirement, Sherlock Holmes (Christopher Lee) and Dr. Watson (Patrick Macnee) are sent by the King to deliver a precious jewel safely to England. This job is complicated when the jewel is stolen and an unknown man is found murdered at the site of the heist. The ensuing mystery inexplicably involves many famous people (and at least one other famous literary character) including former president Theodore Roosevelt.The casting is superb. Lee, a well-read actor, who was acquainted with Arthur Conan Doyle's son Adrian, is a fine older Holmes, while Macnee seems born to play Watson -- the fumbling old codger who proves invaluable because of his iron nerve, courage under fire, and quick thinking (the fact that we know him as John Steed makes us know that under the bumbling exterior he'll show grit when it comes to a fight).Where the movie fails is in the story. The longer versions entwines implausible story lines about Lily Langtree and her (absurd) lover, about the niece of the former president, about a wealthy Indian widow, and the precious stone. Even in the longer version, the story lines don't seem to make sense. On one viewing I'm not certain why they were at Victoria Falls at all. And it all leads up to a curious conclusion in the most inappropriate of places. POSSIBLE SPOILER: why is the thief even there? Why didn't he jump ship long before the conclusion, drop his identity, and abscond with the jewel?I'm not a fan of stories where Sherlock Holmes hobnobs with famous people of "his day" (remember, he never lived). Plots about the famous with Sherlock Holmes always come off as contrived. And Sherlock Holmes doesn't do much deducting. He stumbles accidentally into clues. He gives his adage of not making deductions ahead of the facts, then gives Watson an alternative version of an accepted story that's based on no facts at all, but solely on speculation. He seems to make what deductions he makes not so much on fact but on leaps of faith. ANOTHER POSSIBLE SPOILER: Theodore Roosevelt must've had a film projector whose quality of detail was a century ahead of its time. The cast, setting, design, costumes, and look of the show are superb. Where it fails is in the writing. It's an entertaining and even enjoyable romp, but it relies on cliches, unbelievable situations, unexplained happenings .. . and at the end of the day it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Still, it's a fine Holmes and Watson combination and any Holmes lover will want to see it -- but never the short version.

helpless_dancer This was taken from a mini-series, wouldn't have watched had I known that. Holmes goes to the dark continent under orders from Her Majesty's Government to guard a very valuable stone which unfortunately comes up missing. Holmes and Watson must unravel this puzzling mystery while avoiding the actions on the local constabulary headed by an unbelievably pompous, inept jackass of an inspector. Lee played the part of the aging sleuth well in a bit of a different outing for the Brit crime buster. Too many gaps in the story and an ending which even Holmes couldn't figure out. Bypass unless you can see the whole production I would say.