RipDelight This is a tender, generous movie that likes its characters and presents them as real people, full of flaws and strengths.

Tayloriona Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

Tymon Sutton The acting is good, and the firecracker script has some excellent ideas.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

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!

Deana_1977 This movie is definitely interesting. True fans of the canon will notice how much of the script was taken from several different Doyle stories, (especially the first ten minutes of the movie) as well as Irene's father's name and the Mordecai Smith character at the end. This movie was very loosely based on Doyle's 'The Sign of Four', and the outcome of the case is extremely different than the original story. The plot flows well and is quite entertaining. The only real 'flaw' is Charlton Heston's voice! You'd think he would've done a fake English accent while portraying the very English Sherlock Holmes!! People have remarked how Heston played Holmes as being too 'nice' or whatever...I thought it was refreshing to see Holmes as a normal human being, rather than a mere calculating machine. (For the record, I consider Jeremy Brett to be the best Sherlock ever.) Anyway, this movie is definitely worth watching! :)

peacham A strong script and atmospheric direction highlight this tv adaptation of the broadway play. Richard Johnson is a nearly authentic Watson, Simon Callow is a grand and humourous Lesrade and John Castle ( one of my favorite actors ) and Edward Fox lend strong support. the only casting flaw is the American Heston. never a versatile actor he does not invoke Holmes; crusty almost cold manner. he is far too pleasant and at time seems as if he is winking at camera. Too bad they couldn't have used Jeremy Brett. For the best characterizations and story adaptations i wholly recommend his granada television series.