Reviews

This is a Canadian television production, and it doesn't rise anywhere near the level of a good film. We have been blissfully exposed to much better Holmes films and TV shows. But, in my opinion, it wasn't a wasted effort. Not quite, anyway.

The acting is energetic, but suffers from inadequate direction, editing, and camera angles, all of which are distracting. Macnee was a very experienced thespian, and he had done fairly decent turns as Watson before this, but here he was 71 years old and clearly hired for his name. IMBd offers very little information about the supporting cast, and I had heard of none of them: my impression is that they were stage actors and not very experienced in capturing the camera. Other than that I found them all adequate--no stand-outs. The settings are okay; the costumes are fine; the lighting and other technical aspects again seemed to be transposed from a stage production. The story was vague, rambling, and a pastiche of other Holmes shows--not very much of Doyle is here. And, I think that's the most significant shortcoming. The definition of a poor Holmes production is attempting to re-write or otherwise adulterate Arthur Conan Doyle. I mean--why?

So, it isn't the worst Holmes interpretation I've seen; and I believe in kindness I'll end this review with that.

We are so blessed to have the first episode of the wonderful (Jack) Benny (Kubelsky) television show. This guy was, and still is, absolutely tops. After eighteen fantastic years on radio, most episodes of which still exist, the Benny gang made a triumphant transition to the little screen, in a live production, which is a sheer delight. Announcer Don Wilson, butler Rochester, wife Mary Livingston, and many others, made the trip to New York to do this show, beginning a 15-year reign on TV. Dinah Shore was the guest, too. He continued his radio show for another six yearsEnjoy--you probably won't be able to help it.

This series of eight episodes, produced in Japan in 2018, is an Oriental-flavored take on the brilliant, resourceful crime fighter who was created for Victorian England times. It always seems strange to see him (or in this case, her) re-cast into modern times which actually began with Basil Rathbone in the 1040's; but, the character and his adventures have clearly been proven to work anywhere and in any time. So, after some getting used to, this is a moderately enjoyable series of adventures. The cast is superb: Yûko Takeuchi as Sherlock is brilliant, quirky and fun, and I believe her interpretation will be found extremely valuable in years to come. Shihori Kanjiya as Wato is delightful, and so pretty and charming she often distracts the scene. The supporting actors are also faultless, and show a clear discipline to the long history of Japanese theatre. The stories are somewhat light, and imply some difficulty in interpreting the action-packed stories to the Oriental mind set. The production is very well done.

This is a marvelous series. At first startling in its dissimilarity to Western productions, it quickly draws the viewer in to its rich interpretation of the material. And yes, this is an entirely fresh and different interpretation of the very familiar material. We are constantly treated to exciting new plot twists, too.

A seamless, ensemble production, the highly competent actors are unrestrained; sets and costumes are beautiful and lavish. Direction, cinematography, editing--no problems at all.

Highly recommended; most enjoyable.

Around the time of this production, the mighty Sherlock was exploding on European cinema and television screens. Peter Cushing was making TV episodes in England; Erich Schellow was starring in a series for West German television. Later came French TV with Paul Guers, Australian cartoons with Peter O'Toole, and some superb Russian shows with Vasily Livanov and Igor Petrenko. In the 2010's, we got Japanese productions, with Yûko Takeuchi and Dean Fujioka. Interspersed with these were continuous and brilliant British and American productions. We even have an animated series about Holmes in the 22nd century, and we hope IMDb readers will be enjoying those shows and all these others then.

Here, then, is my review of this Italian production: watch those, skip this one.

Here is the second of two Italian producions of Sherlock Holmes, done again in three parts for television, in 1968-9. For some reason the producers retitled it "The Last of the Baskervilles." I am naturally off balance as I don't understand Italian, and my DVD set had no English track or subtitles, but I detected several other plot deviations as well. That brings the question: why dilly with such a great plot? There have been many, many productions of this greatest of Holmes stories: the best ones stay close to Conan Doyle and seek to present the excitement, the chase, and the terror which have been delighting audiences and readers for many years. I will not try to make an exhaustive comparisons of various movies and TV shows here, but instead invite IMDb readers to enjoy digging them up for themselves. (But surely one little hint will be welcome: Peter Cushing!)

This production is in black and white, but the cinematography did well with that. Settings are sumptuous; costumes and props are lavish; acting seemed adequate but of course I would have appreciated it better if I could have understood. Sound recording was spotty and somewhat distracting; the direction and editing were slow and plodding and seemed to be, to some extent, filling in the time.

I have spoken of Senor Gazzolo in my review of La Valle della Paura (The Valley of Fear). He is again off the mark. The Hound itself was at first only filmed with its legs, running; when we finally saw its face . . . But that would be a "spoiler." I'll only remark that finally seeing its face spoiled a lot for me!

Just can't recommend it.

Here we have an Italian production of The Valley of Fear, in three parts; the first of six episodes from a series from 1968. The settings are lovely; costumes and props are carefully done--though a little bizarre back at Baker Street--and clearly a lot of money was spent to make the show. It's curious it's a black-and-white production, but lighting and cinematography are tastefully done.

The direction is slow and stately, and the acting is precise and measured, all in quite a contrast to Italian fiims of the era. Clearly everyone had a great respect for their story and a deep desire to do it well. Senor Gazzolo is the blandest Holmes I've ever seen. He doesn't seem brilliant, or particularly dedicated to law and order, or driven to solving anything. Of course, I don't understand Italian, and my package didn't have an English track or subtitles.

Historically interesting; off the mark.

This series, produced and broadcast in 1979-80, is a remake of a 39-episode series from the same producer, Sheldon Reynolds, which was done in the early 1950's. Many of the episodes are repeats, and all are very well conceived and produced. The production was done in Poland, but some fine English actors were brought in, many of whom went on to have stellar careers. All of the acting is very well done.

The settings and costumes, however, are sensational. Apparently no expense was spared to fill the screen with authentic, interesting, and lovely period pieces. Time and again I was most charmed to see the palaces, the parks, the ballrooms, the props, and indeed everything that went in to make this show sparkle.

A special comment should go to the star: the brave actor who joined a long distinguished pantheon of Sherlocks. Mr Whitehead is an underplayer, much removed from the near-bombastic Jeremy Brett. His Holmes, in fact, takes some getting used to. But he is assured, masterful, and shows brilliance; and he provides an interesting take on our hero. Not my favorite, but an interesting one and he's a good story teller.

After searching for the series for several years, I found a German set, which includes some scenes tipped in in German even though I selected the English sound track. The explanation was that these were scenes which had never been broadcast in English before, though the series seems to have appeared in Britain in 1979-80. I assume that means it was also presented on German television, but I understand it disappeared for many years due to copyright issues.

This show is the first of six episodes videotaped for West German television in 1967, fortunately preserved for us on YouTube. It is a good production, well prepared and executed; though naturally dated and seems to drag. The acting is fine, keeping in mind these actors were more used to the stage and that it was taped as a play, within infrequent cuts and retakes, albeit with thoughtful camera settings and other direction by Paul May. (I do wish he had told his lead, Mr Schellow, to project a bit more!) I'm glad the Germans tackled Holmes, like many other countries did--I think they have a good product. As far as dramatic tension, you'd better be ready for the killer to slide down that bell pull! It's intense!

This film marks the last one Eille Norwood did as Sherlock Holmes; and apparently as anything else. He died twenty-five years later, but did no more film work. There were two feature films in this series, and about two dozen shorts, done in a two-year period, and the vast majority are lost. What we have, though, reveals a great Sherlock lauded by Conan Doyle himself.

This film is expansive, has a welcome action flow, pretty good settings, appropriate humor, and an unrecognizable plot. Its story line is vastly removed from the book and has some puzzling variations, keeping the viewer guessing at what was happening. Historical value.

I believe there is value in studying great mens' lives; I believe that helps the rest of us attain to greatness. Certainly there has never been a greater writer than the subject of this film, and incidental to my review I urge you to delve deeply into his writings for your life's duration--you will find immense value in that.

And now some of our favorite contemporary interpreters of Shakespeare have gathered to produce for us a beautiful, thoughtful, sweetly sentimental concept of his homecoming. Very well done.

The story is insightful and mostly satisfying; the acting is superb; the cinematography is breathtaking. I found the pace a little slow, and I found some questions still unanswered, and I wish there had been more examination about why he quit both writing and the London theater at his and its height. Could he have found someone in his life who could have better encouraged him? Was he rich enough, had he attained all the accolades he wanted, was he discouraged, was he homesick? Was he tired, or sick, at forty-nine years old, dying three years after his return to Stratford?

Well, maybe this movie will stimulate the aforementioned Shakespeareans to bring us well-mounted filmed plays. I think it's high time for a proper Macbeth; I think there's room on my DVD shelf for a good Othello and Lear.

Professor John Ronald Reuel Tolkien, author of The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, and other related and non-related works, has now become the object of a biographical British film, directed by a Finn. Since Peter Jackson's films were so successful a few years ago, it is natural the film world would explore the possibility of another success, and so now we have this fairly nice take on his life. Tolkien was a private man: he didn't give many interviews and there are very few biographies available. He was first and foremost a scholar of languages, and not a pop icon.

Let me interrupt my comments on the film to share with you my own association with Professor Tolkien's works. I first read The Lord of the Rings in the late sixties, and like most people I was swept away with the breadth of this otherworld, Middle-earth. I joined the Tolkien Society of America and wore "Frodo Lives!" buttons (briefly). When I first went to England in 1974, a year after the professor had passed away, I visited Oxford and met Charley Boswell, his last caretaker; and phoned his son Christopher to ask when The Silmarillion would be ready. (He thanked me for ringing.) So, I'm a big fan.

This movie, then, does a pretty good job depicting his tragic childhood, his early struggles, and his courtship of Edith Bratt. I liked the premise of visions and flashbacks during his combat experiences--tantalizing views at Sauron, the Nazgul, and other objects of his horror were very nicely placed. There wasn't much said about his Christianity, but he wasn't very explicit about it either, and his deep Catholic faith was portrayed as a negative influence on him. Like other reviewers, I wish it would have gone on a little longer, perhaps until we met C. S. Lewis and the other Inklings, who were such a powerful influence on his creativity. I would have liked to have seen him submitting The Hobbit typescript to his first publishers, Raynor and Unwin, and to be reminded that it was the publisher's ten-year-old son who approved its publication and thus began the Tolkien furor.

The acting was good, the settings were lovely (though I wish we had been treated to more of Oxford), and the story moves along pretty well. Recommended for subscription viewing.

This production began as a short episode Mr. Jenkins did for his church's Christmas Eve service, which was a short take of a shepherd's perspective of the nativity. That appeared on FaceBook in the last year or so; and it was seen by many millions of people, including promoters who encouraged a series. We now have four one-hour episodes which were funded by 16,000 "investors" who contributed $10,000,000. The production is thus independent in the truest sense of the word: no studios, no star performers, no theater bookings, no advertising campaigns. Is it, however, skillfully crafted, very well presented and very, very moving. New investors have emerged, and a second series is, at this writing, about to go into pre-production.

The story of Jesus Christ has been told many many times in every conceivable media. Comparison to Mel Gibson's The Passion of the Christ, Franco Zeffirelli's Jesus of Nazareth, and so forth is useful: what is new about this show is that we are presented more of the people surrounding Jesus and how they learned about Him and came to believe. It makes for great stories and a fresh approach--it is very watchable.

Acting, sets and other technical aspects are exceptional. It is a beautiful film sacrificing no authenticity. It is clearly exhaustively researched and will be a valuable teaching tool for generations. But, most of all, it does what a good film ought to do: it moves us, and into a good place. Bravo!

Here is an ambitious early effort by the BBC to bring Holmes to the small screen, in faithful live adaptations of the original stories. The 1964-5 series of thirteen programs starred a surprisingly capable Douglas Wilmer, who reads Holmes as brilliant (of course), lofty, bland, and a trace condescending--it is a well-crafted portrayal. Mr Wilmer seems to have been a Holmes devotee, and picked up several other related shows in his later years, including his last acting appearance as an irate member of the Diogenes club, in 2012. His devotion to this production reportedly included deep uncredited script rewrites--whoever is responsible for these teleplays did a very commendable job.

The 1968 series of sixteen episodes, of which unhappily only five survive, went to Peter Cushing. He provides us a typically brilliant, mercurial, skillful interpretation though with no new personality traits of the character. He is quite a showman, however, and easily captures the camera and propels the stories along. Both these great actors had difficulty with the confines of live, serial British television of the 1960's. The production, while very skillfully made, looks pretty inexpensive and generally lacking in retakes. Clearly rehearsals were hurried as well.

So, recommended for Holmes scholars; most people, fast-forward to the Granada series of the 1980's and 90's.

This long-lost series was produced in the early 1950's, after long definitive success of Basil Rathbone in the early '40's. There had been a few other attempts at cinema, but these 39 half-hour stories were the first crack at television.

Very well cast, period settings including background shots of London, strong scripting, droll and humorous, and some very neat mysteries, it only ran one season. What went wrong? Marketing: or the lack thereof. Movies knew how to promote themselves very well in the 50's; television didn't, especially in Britain. And, this series, which boasted fine British acting talent, wasn't filmed there--or even shown there! We're lucky to have what we have of it now.

It's a charming show. Holmes' genius, so important to the canon's enduring success, is adroitly exhibited by Mr Howard. The all-important relationship of Holmes and Watson, often very clumsily portrayed through the years, comes off nicely here. Things have to move along in a half-hour show, but stories don't seem forced and they are engaging. The producers also elected to offer new stories, apart from Mr Doyles' (unlike the popular Granada series thirty years later), and so we have some new adventures of Sherlock Holmes.

I have a 5-disc set from Mill Creek Entertainment, which contains the complete--though woefully brief!--series. Enjoy!

This is one of the best of the Jack Benny vehicles, based on his very popular radio character Buck Benny, itself a fond satire of the Lone Ranger. No pretensions here, no classy "schtick," just good escapist box office gold. The pace seems slow by modern standards, and I missed Cactus Face too. (OTR fans will know who Cactus Face is!). Enjoy.

I found this movie enjoyable, with great performances from some great people. There is no pretense of high art, or even an attempt at it; but mostly, I believe, intended as a vehicle for the great radio star Jack Benny. Typical late-Depression fare: and very important

So don't expect too much, and you'll be pleased.

This movie, which seems to have come about because the producers felt the story should be re-told, is a beautiful production. It has value as an exciting race scene, which was the centerpoint of the film, and an almost-felt sentimentality about family love: its main theme. Happily, the theme of the 1959 version--comparisons will be inevitable--of bitter revenge was only a sub-theme here. There were some nice plot devices, and all in all I was mostly pleased with this telling of the story.

I was disappointed that the subtitle, "A Tale of the Christ," that MG Wallace put to his book wasn't imported into this film; and I was most disappointed by the maudlin presentation of Jesus Christ. It is not accurate to portray Him as doing carpentry work alone in Jerusalem; and only a calm, pious presentation of His three hours on the cross has surely been corrected by Mel Gibson's film.

There is an apocryphal story about Ben-Hur's origin that I heard in my youth. MG Wallace was riding in a train one day with Robert Ingersoll, a very popular public speaker of the time who was an agnostic. He and Wallace were discussing how Christianity has damaged civilization, human progress and the American way; and Ingersoll challenged the general to write a book disproving the faith. Instead, after earnest research, Wallace came to belief in Christ and this is the book which came about. Published in 1880, it was the most popular novel in America until the advent of Gone With the Wind. So there's a little background for you and the reason I wanted this movie to be good.

But, I wanted to enjoy this movie, and I was able to do so. Again, the production itself was great, the acting though unevenly directed served to move the story along, and the story was worth telling. After all, this has been an American classic for many years. It could have been better, though, and we want our movies to be 10/10 every time out of the chute!

First of all, it's been great to see a spate of movies about Jesus Christ, the carpenter from Nazareth, Who has been proved to be the Son of God Almighty. As one of his great followers said, it only matters that, in every way, Christ is proclaimed, including on the silver screen.

Next, and with no apologies for the brief Christian message above, this movie is a worthy addition to the others out there. I'm happy to see some filmmakers' ideas about Jesus as a boy, incorporating Bibilical stories into their own; I believe it can add to our understanding in the same way a good Sunday sermon can do. This film was very well made: the production, the acting, the editing all commendably done.

Finally, we enjoyed this nice movie very much! Thanks a lot.

I believe I speak for a great many viewers, particularly Christians, who are grateful to the producers for this effort. I think no one argues that it is well crafted. Costumes, settings, writing, editing: they're wonderful. The actors here are very skillful. Beside that, it seems truly heartfelt and genuine. I'm happy it appeared on network television if that was the best market; and I expect more viewers are being found than had it gone to a premium cable service. I believe it will sell well eventually as a DVD set. But most remarkable here, and the most important impact, is the irrefutable proof that there's a great market for Christian- based media; and I believe this mini-series, as it joins other efforts, will go very far to prove that.

I think everyone is aware that drama must be embellished to build tension and interest: that you can't film a page of print, even if it's sacred Scripture. So I have no problem with the script or the characterizations. At this writing, we have seen only the first episode; and it would be unfair to judge it by itself as clearly there are many more stories to tell. (Also at this writing there are continuous threats of nuclear annihilation, enormous terrorist threats, and bitter violence all around the world.)

All that, however, sounds defensive, and I would like to use the remainder my review to be positive. This mini-series, then, is the incredible story of uneducated, unrefined people who went all over the world to talk about their King. They did miracles. They preached powerful messages. Persecution couldn't stop them then, and it can't stop us today. The message that is still going out is 100% good news: that you and I, in spite of our faults, are precious and forgiven. I invite you to watch this mini-series, and to talk to our King about it afterwards, with that background in mind: you are completely loved. Thanks.

Bright, sweet, very funny stuff here. A little dated; but after all, the date is 1942! Jack Benny was the top comedy star of the day, very busy in radio at this time, and he didn't get to take too many movie roles. When he did, they were top market. And, due to his extremely generous nature, he sparked everyone else in the cast to their best efforts. The camera follows him as the star, but everyone looks good. Beautiful Ann Sheridan serves ably as the "straight" (wo)man here, and there are many other delightful character actors weaving in and out.

A disadvantage he had in this film is that his legendary timing was off a little. All comedians do better with a live audience, so he didn't have that here; and, he found Percy Kilbride hysterically funny and had to make himself totally exhausted to play his scenes with him. Kilbride, who became Pa Kettle in that successful series, had been a Broadway actor, and Benny insisted he be brought out to repeat his role from the play. That plan almost wrecked the film! But it worked out okay. The director seems to have been a bit antagonistic as well, which may not have helped much.

Very enjoyable!

I have read all the reviews and agree with most of the comments. (I've also read all the Nero Wolfe books.) I agree this is an exceptional television production (it's quite interesting it was made in Canada, not Hollywood), and that the late Maury Chaykin, though skillful and entertaining, doesn't interpret Nero Wolfe correctly. For my contribution, I offer a little perspective.

Detective literature has been the most popular fiction of all time. Beginning with Sherlock Holmes--whose film and television interpretations encompass the entire history of film and television--, through Inspector Morse, Miss Marple, Perry Mason, Magnum PI, and on and on and on, people have loved the chase; especially if there's a smart guy doing the chasing. Nero Wolfe is one of the smartest, the greatest fictional American detective, and it's sheer joy to watch him go. But, actually, he doesn't go!

And that was the interesting facet of Wolfe persona when the books were being written: his fictional peers were all over the place, but his creator decided to leave him at home. So, even more than this series shows us, Wolfe almost never leaves his house! Imagine Sherlock staying ensconced in Baker Street for all those years. Wolfe is Mycroft with a burr under his saddle, named Archie Goodwin. Well, every hero needs a personality or the books wouldn't sell.

Wolfe battled murderers, gangsters, and scheming in-laws. He turned up in a couple of movies in the '40's, a radio show in the 50's, and a TV show in the '80's. His bad guys weren't as ugly as Ed McBain's, but much nastier than Holmes'. There was a Moriarty, named Arnold Zeck. If he had been introduced halfway through the second season of this show, there would have been two more seasons. (Oh well.) There were brilliantly constructed heroes and hangers-on. And the plots were up there with Agatha Christies'.

The point I'm making is that this genre is a lot of fun. A lot of people have made fortunes writing it, and acting in it. I personally never mind that the protagonist is always miles ahead of me: feeling dumber than the hero is part of the fun. Good guys are admirable; bad guys are not. Issues are right and wrong, which in this confusing world is comforting. It's escapist; it's entertaining; and I maintain it's great literature.

Will we see a better filmed version of Wolfe? I doubt it. Will there be other, better detective stories? I doubt that too.

Here is a great Holmes story, well adapted and produced on location--at least, the exteriors look like Cornwall. The staging is good; the acting fine; the action fairly crisp. I hope more of there titles turn up, and I hope someone restores these shorts someday.

Mr Norwood set a high standard for subsequent Holmes interpreters, though it appears William Gillette, who played the part on stage for twenty years, exerted more of an influence. Orson Welles, in an introduction to a radio production, paid high tribute to Gillette; Bosley Crowther, an influential New York theater critic, wrote "I would rather see William Gillette play Sherlock Holmes than to be a child again on Christmas morning." At eighty-three years old, he starred in the very first Holmes radio show, on 20 October 1930.

Probably these two-reel Stoll shorts didn't get much marketing in America--Hollywood productions were going strong by the '20's and maybe there wasn't much interest. But the ones I've seen stand up well.

Enjoyable: historic.

Considering the wonderful cinema that Holmes has inspired since the little nickeloden title "Sherlock Holmes Baffled" in 1903, this little one doesn't stack up well. Filmed in England by a French (!) production company in 1912, presumably supervised and produced by Sir Arthur himself, it is no more than a filmed pantomime performed by actors who had no concept of the camera. We realize stage actors have to make grandiose gesticulations, but didn't the director know something about filming? Hard to follow, strays far away from the story, a "quickie" very forgettable. I recommend you fast-forward nine years to the Stoll productions.

Okay, this episode of The Jack Benny Show isn't very funny. Admittedly, there's a definite lack of comedy motif. Milton Berle wouldn't have touched it; Red Skelton couldn't have pulled it off. Jack Benny brought a president to commercial television, and his low-key humor fit right into the picture. (Well, maybe the show drags a little . . .)

Mr Benny made a visit to The Harry Truman Library, and was escorted by the 75-year-old first citizen of Independence, Missouri: President Harry S Truman. He gave Jack a personal tour of the library, and shared some of his insight into the history of the time. Jack wisely avoided interviewing, made a few jokes, and actually made Mr Truman laugh a little.

Not too funny, but really interesting . . .