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.
Both loosely based on, and also in a way closely indebted to, 'The Sign of Four', 'The Crucifer of Blood' is worth a look, but more as a one time watch rather than repeat viewings. Not one of the best Sherlock Holmes adaptations, like the best of the Jeremy Brett Granada series and the best of the Basil Rathbone films. Also not one of the worst, not like any of the Matt Frewer films (particularly 'The Sign of Four') or the abominable Peter Cook version of 'The Hound of the Baskervilles'.
There are a good deal of strengths here. It has an eerie opening and the ending is attention-grabbing and really quite genius. The touches of the 'The Sign of Four' story provided a good deal of entertainment, as do the detective work and deductions that there's a heavy emphasis of.
Some thought provoking dialogue and nice photography also. There are some good performances, with Richard Johnson a strong, loyal Watson and Susannah Harker quite touching. Bernard Fox and John Castle give scene-stealing turns, especially Castle as the most interesting supporting character. Clive Wood is a good Jonathan Small, though nowhere near as much as John Thaw in the Brett adaptation, and Kiran Shah is quite freaky as Tonga.
Charlton Heston didn't work for me as Holmes. Like Heston, just not as Holmes, a character that he portrays almost like he was spoofing Holmes or something, with nowhere near enough nuance, warmth or intensity, and it doesn't work. Although Lestrade was never the most intelligent of inspectors, he has rarely been this much of an idiot or bumbler which Simon Callow overdoes.
Enough of the story does intrigue but there is some plodding pacing, a general lack of suspense and at times too much tongue-in-cheek, some implausibility or things not explained as well as they ought and it all feels rather stagy and restricted and with too much of a standard made for television feel. The production values generally look like they were hastily made on a tight budget and the direction doesn't seem to know whether to go the suspense or tongue-in-cheek route, instead going for both and doesn't gel.
Overall, not great but far from bad. Worth a one-time watch. 5/10 Bethany Cox
Both loosely based on, and also in a way closely indebted to, 'The Sign of Four', 'The Crucifer of Blood' is worth a look, but more as a one time watch rather than repeat viewings. Not one of the best Sherlock Holmes adaptations, like the best of the Jeremy Brett Granada series and the best of the Basil Rathbone films. Also not one of the worst, not like any of the Matt Frewer films (particularly 'The Sign of Four') or the abominable Peter Cook version of 'The Hound of the Baskervilles'.
There are a good deal of strengths here. It has an eerie opening and the ending is attention-grabbing and really quite genius. The touches of the 'The Sign of Four' story provided a good deal of entertainment, as do the detective work and deductions that there's a heavy emphasis of.
Some thought provoking dialogue and nice photography also. There are some good performances, with Richard Johnson a strong, loyal Watson and Susannah Harker quite touching. Bernard Fox and John Castle give scene-stealing turns, especially Castle as the most interesting supporting character. Clive Wood is a good Jonathan Small, though nowhere near as much as John Thaw in the Brett adaptation, and Kiran Shah is quite freaky as Tonga.
Charlton Heston didn't work for me as Holmes. Like Heston, just not as Holmes, a character that he portrays almost like he was spoofing Holmes or something, with nowhere near enough nuance, warmth or intensity, and it doesn't work. Although Lestrade was never the most intelligent of inspectors, he has rarely been this much of an idiot or bumbler which Simon Callow overdoes.
Enough of the story does intrigue but there is some plodding pacing, a general lack of suspense and at times too much tongue-in-cheek, some implausibility or things not explained as well as they ought and it all feels rather stagy and restricted and with too much of a standard made for television feel. The production values generally look like they were hastily made on a tight budget and the direction doesn't seem to know whether to go the suspense or tongue-in-cheek route, instead going for both and doesn't gel.
Overall, not great but far from bad. Worth a one-time watch. 5/10 Bethany Cox