This is the Michael Keaton phenomenon all over again. Nobody ever imagined or envisioned Keaton as the Dark Knight, but he stepped up to the plate and nailed it. In a similar vein, few saw that guy from the television series, THE SAINT (1962-1969) as the venerable Holmes, but once he traded in his halo for the deerstalker we were surprised to be off and running into a cracking good time, wot? Here was a Holmes of supreme confidence and charm, but with enough humor and wit to let us in on the joke. This is a fun ride from start to finish and who knew that 007 could be such a master of disguise? I can vividly remember suddenly discovering our hero underneath those wrinkles or whiskers and thinking to myself, 'My God! The Saint can ACT!'.

John Huston plays a Professor Moriarty just a shade less loathsome that Noah Cross in CHINATOWN (1974). But he is still not adverse to kicking little kids through trap doors in the floor. Moore as Holmes finds himself, you guessed it, involved in the Crime of the Century, and with a whole lot of sleuthing going on it certainly gets darkest before the dawn. Patrick Mcnee, of THE AVENGERS fame (1961-1969),makes an excellent foil as Doctor Watson for the Master Detective. He takes many a lighthearted, suave jibe on the chin from Holmes with an almost incredulous wonderment.

The temptation is to be inclined to believe that this film adventure is merely a vehicle to promote Moore's star persona. But you easily go with his virile, romantic take on the ace from Baker Street from start to finish. Moore's Holmes seems to owe nothing to the steely eyed Rathbone or any of his predessors, though this may be stretching things a bit. But none can deny that Moore's conception of Holmes appears to be entirely his own and certainly makes up for the boyish thrill of indulging in a three-pipe solution. This is a Holmes for the Saturday afternoon serials, and acts and looks the way Steve Reeves might have played the Baker Street Manhunter after losing thirty to forty pounds.

The marvel is that there is an actual story here at all. A plot is revealed that is nearly as knotty and deft as A. Conan Doyle's THE PROBLEM OF THOR BRIDGE (1922). Charlotte Rampling takes a convincing and glamorous turn as Irene Adler, not to be rivaled until Gayle Hunnicutt's interpretation in A SCANDAL IN BOHEMIA (1984). There is kidnapping and deception and theft on an international scale while the master criminal Moriarty effectively ties Holmes' hands so that he can do no good or speak no good. The scenes between Holmes and Adler are also an unusual and fascinating take on the sleuth's relationship with the fairer sex.

The fight scenes become as muscular as anything you would see in an episode of THE SAINT or a Bond movie, but this should come as no great surprise. Director Boris Sagal ably evokes the murky, fog bound and shimmering rain drenched London streets with a fond relish. You can sense that the ensemble is having a merry old time, from Marjorie Bennett as Mrs. Martha Hudson to David Huddleston as Inspector Lafferty of the NYPD and also Gig Young as Mortimer McGrew. But it still makes one ponder how Moore does not come across as clunky or wooden in a role that requires the most elegant and sophisticated interpretation. Moore is no Rathbone or Jeremy Brett, but you have to chuckle to yourself at the authority with which he handles the role and gives you a Holmes that easily swirls into the mists of a treasured memory with a twinkle in his eye.

The greatest detective ever known (in fiction) appears in this really enjoyable TV film with three great actors and a great story of kidnap and robbery together. Sir Roger Moore as the very English and very professional Sherlock Holmes is a very good creation, the best (and only) one I've seen. Apparently there are scenes where John Huston as the nasty Professor Moriarty steals scenes, but I don't think that's true. Patrick Macnee (who worked with Moore in A View To A Kill) is a very good, amusing and lovable Doctor Watson. Basically they have to stop Moriarty from stealing some gold, and get Irene Adler's (Charlotte Rampling) kid back as well. The good moments are the small action, chases and sneaking moments. Moore's good breakaway from James Bond. Good!

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 in New York', as well as it having a talented cast and seeing how Roger Moore would fare.

'Sherlock Holmes in New York' is not terrible. It's not all that great either. Mediocre is more like it.

As said by me many times, there are better Sherlock Holmes-related films/adaptations certainly than 'Sherlock Holmes in New York', the best of the Jeremy Brett adaptations and films of Basil Rathone fit under this category. It's to me towards the bottom of Sherlock Holmes films, it is marginally 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' (then again almost anything is better than that).

There are good things. The sets and costumes are handsome enough and there is evidence of atmospheric photography. The music also has atmosphere.

Moore is an agreeable, if far from definitive, Holmes with a charming twinkle in his eyes, while Charlotte Rampling has elegance and class. Parts of the mystery does intrigue and engage quite a bit and likewise with some of the script.

For all those good things, there are numerous major debits. It does feel too often pedestrian and stagy. Tension and suspense isn't enough and too much of the case is too simple, especially a denouement that makes the viewer feel annoyed at themselves at how they didn't solve it before very early on. How it's solved is all too easy and doesn't do Holmes' masterly deductions justice.

A good deal of 'Sherlock Holmes in New York' is on the cheap side and too much of it is flatly directed and too wordy. The more romantic angle agreed felt out of place.

Patrick MacNee has little to do as Watson and the buffoonish way he characterises can't help me think it was a directing issue or unfamiliarity with how Watson should be portrayed. He played opposite Christopher Lee later and that was a much better pairing and more subtle in interpretation. For me, there has never been a more hammy Moriaty than John Huston and that is not in a good way, there is nothing sinister about him and the dreadful over-the-top-ness takes one out of the film, even in the more forced moments of the script and story and there is also a fair bit of that going on.

To conclude, mediocre but not unwatchable. 4/10 Bethany Cox