Plantiana Yawn. Poorly Filmed Snooze Fest.

Jeanskynebu the audience applauded

Softwing Most undeservingly overhyped movie of all time??

FrogGlace In other words,this film is a surreal ride.

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.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

jmkeating I agree that Charlton Heston wasn't the man for this role, I had "the advantage" of watching/having to watch the French version, as such I didn't have to listen to "American English English". On the other hand I found his disguises superb. The action and the "end game" both made the film well worth watching. There are many films where the "baddy" becomes obvious - this is not one of them!Richard Johnson plays a believable John Watson. The Watson role is difficult to play in the sense that he is an educated man, so shouldn't appear stupid, just less capable of crime deduction. But we shouldn't forget that doctors are experts in deducing illnesses from the symptoms of their patients. Connie Booth is a lovely lady - a pleasure to see everything she's in!

JohnHowardReid By the deadbeat standard of TV movies, The Crucifer of Blood (1991) is a really remarkable achievement. For one thing, the budget is extensive enough to pass muster as a theatrical feature. For another, it has an interesting, suspenseful screenplay. But even more importantly, it has a really great cast led by Susannah Harker (who is absolutely terrific), Richard Johnson (an excellent Watson), and Simon Callow (perfectly at home as Lestrade). Although miscast as Holmes, Charlton Heston does pick up his game as the movie progresses and – provided you ignore his accent – is not as great a liability as his first scene suggests. Yes, the movie could stand a bit of re-editing (I would scissor at least ten minutes, particularly from the opening scenes), but all told – and thanks principally to Miss Harker – a must-see installment for Sherlock's legion of fans.

helenatepper This is a well directed and enjoyable story which captured my attention from the beginning.The cast are effective and there are some neat twists.It looks stunning at times and there is a sense of theatrical sets ( it is based on a stage play) which add another dimension to the visual style. Unfortunately the producers have cast Charlton Heston as Sherlock Holmes and he hampers the credibility of the production.Not because he is a bad actor..far from it.Unfortunately his accent suggests that he comes from that part of the UK known only to American actors and he lacks the sensitivity and intensity that I expect of Holmes. Worth catching on TV