Sherlock Holmes: Incident at Victoria Falls (1992)

A lot of fun.

Tells a fascinating and unsettling true story, and does so well, without pretending to have all the answers.

This is a small, humorous movie in some ways, but it has a huge heart. What a nice experience.

Through painfully honest and emotional moments, the movie becomes irresistibly relatable

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.Furthermore, interest in seeing early films based on Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories and wanting to see as many adaptations of any Sherlock Holmes stories as possible sparked my interest in seeing 'Sherlock Holmes: Incident at Victoria Falls', especially with such an interesting idea for a story.There are better Sherlock Holmes-related films/adaptations certainly than 'Sherlock Holmes: Incident at Victoria Falls', the best of the Jeremy Brett adaptations and films of Basil Rathone fit under this category. It's not one of the worst either, it is better than all the Matt Frewer films (particularly 'The Sign of Four') and also much better than the abominable Peter Cook 'The Hound of the Baskervilles'.'Sherlock Holmes: Incident at Victoria Falls' is not terrible certainly. The always dependable, even legendary, Christopher Lee, is excellent as Holmes, regardless of any reservations about him being too old. Patrick MacNee is both bumbling and loyal, without being too much of a buffoon or an idiot. The chemistry between them really lifts the proceedings, lots of fun and charm in it. The rest of the cast are fine, Claude Akins in particular enjoys himself as Roosevelt (yes you saw it).Parts of the mystery are intriguing and there are a few exciting set pieces. Some of the dialogue is fun and thought-provoking. It is very nicely filmed with evocative and handsome production design. However, 'Sherlock Holmes: Incident at Victoria Falls' does suffer from a very stodgy pace, highly indicative of the story struggling to sustain the long length of the adaptation (judging by the execution of the story it felt too long and too padded) and a far too over complicated story. The ending is one of the most convoluted and head-scratching for any Sherlock Holmes adaptation. Too much of it feels like it goes nowhere, with some overlong scenes or shots, and too aimless, and too many elements came over as underdeveloped and vague. The music sounds like it was scored and like it belonged somewhere else altogether, it was so out of kilter with everything else. The direction is pedestrian and too many of the characters add nothing, serving more of an excuse to play fast and loose with history. In summary, worth a one time watch but underwhelming. 5/10 Bethany Cox

If you didn't know better, you'd take this for one of Agatha Christie's Hercule Poirot stories. Just add twenty years and make the hero short and squat instead of so tall and narrow that he seems to be on stilts. Imagine Holmes and Watson in pith helmets and white suits, tramping through the jungle in an exotic location, with Holmes using his little gray cells to solve the theft of the Ranchipur Refulgence or whatever the MacGuffin called here.The story actually sticks rather closely to Holmes' character and location while he and Watson are given the task of guarding the huge diamond on its way from South Africa to England. Holmes is beginning to pack his gear, preparatory to retiring to Sussex and keep bees, and the sad Mrs. Hudson gives him a slight hug, which revolts him.Speaking of Sussex, this is the dirtiest movie ever to involve the world's only consulting detective and his Boswell. Twice, Neil McCarthy gets to make love to two topless women -- one a pale young American, the other a coffee-colored Indian Maharani. The swine. Neither of the women, alas, is Jenny Seagrove, who plays Lilly Langtree. She and the fictional thief named Raffles make love too, but it's relatively decorous.I don't think I'll try to describe the plot. It's turgid and tangled. I couldn't follow it, at any rate, even though I was relatively lucid at the time. I lost track of the fabulous jewel too. There's a fake one involved. There are several flashbacks. Everyone seems to be a suspect at one time or another, even Teddy Roosevelt, played by a jowly Claude Akins.Once the characters are moved to Capetown, Holmes and Watson more or less disappear and turn into an ordinary detective and his friend. The writing still carries some wit with it. Jenny Seagrove is quite beautiful with her wide, startled eyes. I think she was Miss Mary Morstone in one of the Jeremy Brett episodes. Watson is naturally attracted to her, especially when she takes him aside and asks if she can ask him a personal question. The eager Watson is receptive. "Do you think," she asks, "that Mr. Holmes finds me interesting?" If he doesn't, there's something wrong with him. There's nothing ELSE wrong with him. He's impeccably dressed, polite, aloof. He doesn't do any dope or exhibit other bad habits. Well -- he smokes a pipe, which I guess is a devalued practice these days. Christopher Lee doesn't put any brio into the part, although, given the character, not much may be called for. Still, Jeremy Brett's quirkiness and Basil Rathbone's quick darting glances livened up the character in a way that Lee's performance doesn't. He has a tendency to sit quietly, puffing his pipe, and bringing Watson up to date on who might and might not be the treacherous thief and murderer.A lot of that sluggishness is the director's fault. Bill Corcoran has too many shots of people standing still, staring at one another, and having a conversational exchange. At one point, Watson is preparing tea and Holmes begins one of his little analyses. Instead of listening while he continues with the brewing process, Watson simply stops and stares back at Holmes, teapot in one hand, tea cup in the other. These static encounters happen over and over. And the music is terrible. The theme is a boop-de-boop electronic tune that should be an accompaniment to some cartoon about a duck. Later on there are violins but they're electronically amplified and the effect is lost, which is too bad because the score is rather pretty -- a serious Grieg, a Mozart sonata.It's diverting without being in the least exciting -- lions or no lions.

The movie's plot was good and came together well, but seeing the movie, was made in 1992, it could have been done a lot better - it looked was like it was made in the 60's. Sketchy and looked dubbed in parts.Lee was good as Holmes, and I respect him as a person and humanitarian, but in this movie but he looked too old for Holmes and seemed to me would make a better Moriarty (despite the fact the villain did not feature in this story).I borrowed this movie in a nice looking metal box set, but frankly with 5 DVD's, I'd expect at least 5 Holmes movies, not 2 (The other Sherlock Holmes & the Leading Lady) + a Jack the Ripper special (yes I know Holmes was set at that time) but it seemed to me a fancy way to sell 2 rather mediocre movies.Glad I didn't have to pay for it!

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.