Customer Reviews

Crucifer of Blood [VHS]

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

As an avid reader of the stories of Sherlock Holmes written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, this movie exceeded my expectations. The screenplay, although somewhat modified from the original novel, was a fine adaptation to the TV film medium. The characters were both real and well acted by this international cast. I especially enjoyed the portrayals of Shelock Holmes and Dr. John Watson by Actors Heston and Johnson respectively. This movie is a must see for all fans of Sherlock Holmes.

It took us a long time to get this film region free so we were very happy with this company and the fact that most of there films are region free. Charlton Heston makes a fine Sherlock Homes,although the normal americanisations of sherlock stand out in abundance, for instance the deerstalker hat, the mearsham pipe. If only they had stuck to the story and had not gone of in a different direction this film would have rated 5 stars instead of 3,but did we enjoy it? you bet we did.

Being a Sherlock Holmes fan, I saw "The Crucifer of Blood" when it opened on Broadway during the 1980s. I remember thinking that it was enjoyable although nothing great. I later read that Charlton Heston was starring in the play in Los Angeles and thought how much I would have liked to see him play Holmes. Well I got my chance when this made-for-tv version was produced for TNT. This film was produced, written and directed by Heston's son Fraser. I remember thinking it was okay when I originally saw it on tv and my opinion hasn't changed after seeing it on dvd last night.
The plot is basically a rerun of Conan Doyle's "The Sign of the Four." Even though it was filmed in London and has some decent sets and large amounts of fog rolled in, this is obviously not a big budget production. Heston is basically miscast as Holmes. However he was such a fine actor and a great American that I really didn't mind. Richard Johnson is terrible as Watson, back to portraying the good doctor as a pathetic buffoon, falling madly in love with and making goo-goo eyes at a young woman half his age, after knowing her for about an hour. (It was so wonderful not to see Watson portrayed as a fool in the Grenada Sherlock Holmes films with Jeremy Brett, the greatest Sherlock Holmes ever.) The actor who portrays Inspector Lestrade portrays him as a low-grade moron. (Holmes even refers to him as "comic relief.")Edward Fox and John Fraser overact outrageously as the two main victims of the curse. The one true bright spot is an actress named Susannah Harker as the femme-fatale of the plot (and Watson's budding love interest.) She is very good (and looks quite fetching at the conclusion.) I'm not sure if I have seen her in anything other than this.
As stated, this is a fairly enjoyable way to spend an hour and forty minutes, nothing more and nothing less. And while Heston was probably the most miscast Sherlock Holmes since Roger Moore in "Sherlock Holmes in New York," it still was a pleasure to see this great actor again. He is missed.

I may not be unbiased enough to give a fair review of this product. I am a lover of all things "Sherlockian" so that each and every new story or DVD I come to I will add it to my collection. Now there is a little bit of a stretch of the imagination to see Charlton Heston as Sherlock Holmes since Heston was a pretty large and sturdy man and Holmes was described as "over 6 feet tall and slender. BUT I like Heston too. So, I say buy it and enjoy it. It's worth the cost for a couple of hours entertainment on a rainy day or a cold wintery evening.

I first saw this movie when it was broadcast on tnt. I wasn't sure that heston could pull this off being about twice the characters age and looking more like an aging dracula than holmes,but he rose to the occasion and is very good!This a version of the sign of four based on the broadway play. Richard Johnson is very good as watson,he reminded me a little of Nigel bruce without the muttering and bumbling. A must for your collection for all Holmes fans. The movie was directed by Hestons son Fraser.

I have always liked Sherlock Holmes and Charleton Heston is an excellent Holmes. The story moves along well and is totally enjoyable to anyone who likes this type of mystery story. Short of having Basil Rathbone in it, I don't know what more you could ask for.

BEING A FAN OF CONAN DOYLE'S WORK,I"VE OFTEN BEEN DISAPPOINTED WITH MOST OF THE ADAPTATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE ON FILM OR TV,SOMETIMES THE ACTING IS POOR,SOMETIMES THE WRITING IS DULL AND PREDICTABLE,BUT I EXPECTED MORE OF TUIS ONE,MAINLY BECAUSE THE STORY IS,in my VIEW,ONE OF DOYLE'S BEST. AFTER A VERY SLOW AND THEATRICAL PROLOGUE, which GAVE ME NO REASON TO BE OPTIMISTIC,BOTH THE FILMING AND THE ACTING GET MUCH BETTER ONCE OLD SHERLOCK GOES TO WORK.THE FACT THAT HE IS PLAYED BY A CHUCK HESTON IN GREAT FORM CERTAINLY HELPS,WHILE HIS GOOD FRIEND RICHARD JOHNSON IS EQUALLY EFFECITVE AND SOMETIMES MOVING AS A ROMANTIC WATSON; I!LL ALWAYS BE AMAZED BY THE FACT THAT WE SAW SO LITTLE HESTON WORK IN THE NINETIES,GIVEN THAT HE WAS REALLY AT THE TOP OF HIS GAME AT THE TIME,MAYBE BECAUSE OF HIS POLITICAL BELIEFS? ONLY AN AMERICAN COULD ANXWER THAT THORNY QUESTION! IN ANY CASE,THIS REMAINS A VERY GOOD MOVIE,THE ATMOSPHERE OF DREAD AND BIZARRE IS CONSTANT THROUGHOUT,NOT TO MENTION THE VERY ASTUTE DENOUEMENT,ABOUT WHICH I WILL KEEP SILENT.ALL IN ALL,A GREAT FIND,SO THANK YOU AMAZON!

This is a disappointing effort, given that it was made by the same production company - and around the same time - as the masterful 1990 "Treasure Island," which is just about the most perfect rendition of that classic story imaginable. Unfortunately, Sherlock Holmes was simply not the right role for an aging Charlton Heston. (Though if you think he couldn't pull off Long John Silver, you would be wrong.) Here, he's simply too ponderous, too American and too lacking in Holmes' mercurial temperament. It might possibly have worked if he'd played Holmes in retirement, but this is set in the heyday of Holmes' career. Nor does Heston's portrayal mesh with the flagrant melodrama of much of the story, though Richard Johnson does a solid Watson and there is support from a good to excellent team of classically trained actors. At the excellent end, I'd put Clive Wood as Jonathan Small (at least in the prologue, as later he is so covered in grotesque make-up and his voice so distorted as to be unrecognizable). The prologue, set during the Indian mutiny and also featuring John Castle and Edward Fox as the most obnoxious of British officers, is worth a repeat viewing for Wood's nuanced portrayal of a sturdy private who tries to do his duty and is keen on protecting his men (despised natives though they may be) but is caught up in the spiral of death and greed. His "Sir, ye must not abuse my men..." is really a wonderful moment.

First off, I'm a HUGE Sherlock Holmes fan and have seen MOST of the movies and TV series. I've read all of the books by the age of 10 and have continued my research into the Victorian Era. I even have a friend who has a Masters in English with her thesis on Sherlock Holmes.

All of that being said, this movie, while covering "the essentials" of a Sherlock Holmes story, misses out on catching several key elements: suspense, pace of the story (this was less of a mystery and more of a continuing jumping of sequence to sequence), the "aura of mystery", the element of surprise. Not much of the "outside world" was covered: 1 train shot, an estate manor in north of London, an opium den and a foggy Thames River. Of all the scenes, the opium den and Dr. Watson wandering through Limehouse was the best part.

The "catch" of getting scared or trying to figure out the mystery was lacking IMHO. I got the feeling that the actors were paid to say their lines and that was it. Believe it or not, the most acting came from the bumbling Scotland Yard detective. All other acting was mediocre.

Witnessing the small Indian assassin in the beginning and having the actors voice all the "secrets" during the follow ups of Sherlock Holmes showing up all but revealed what was going on. This destroys any "mystery" of the curse- it's obviously about 3 men and greed/revenge.

During the movie, near the end, Sherlock Homes returns home and acts normal. This is wrong since many of his letters and correspondences have been scattered on the floor and a letter opener is missing. He goes about putting everything in place but then leaves to "fetch" the police when the police were with him in the first place. Sherlock Holmes would have noticed the haphazard condition of his residence immediately and busted the "main criminal" right then and there but the movie opted to deal with dragging the story out with a deus-ex-machina arrival of Sherlock Holmes in the end to save the day. Obviously, I hate cliche'd, deus-ex-machina endings.

Sorry, I love Sherlock Holmes and all associated workings of him (movies, books) but if I was allowed to rate this movie, it would be a 2.5. I rated it at a 3 because it's not above the rating of 2 stars but doesn't quite make it to 3.

"The Crucifer of Blood" is a tarted-up re-write of "The Sign of the Four," with Conan Doyle's original chivalrous romance replaced by some queasy, ugly modern sadism. It would be bad enough on its own, but here you also get beetle-browed Charlton Heston, as unconvincing as ever, clutching a meerschaum between those dentures as if it were some hapless liberal. Not the worst Sherlock Holmes of all time -- that honor goes to Leonard Nimoy -- but close enough.