Watch The Case of the Whitechapel Vampire For Free

So much average

Powerful

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

It's a good bad... and worth a popcorn matinée. While it's easy to lament what could have been...

That this 2002 Canadian TV movie is based on a made-up Holmes story rather than a canon one should be a warning in itself; this turns out to be a schlocky and entirely befuddled production that has little to do with the original stories. Purists will no doubt find themselves outraged by the antics of the producers, which reduce the story elements to their most basic level.The rest of us are left amused by a film which comes across as a cheesy B-movie instead of a classy Holmes adaptation. The entire story is set in what looks like a medieval monastery, with the sweaty monks at the mercy of a vampire killer. Wait until you see the costume! It's all very silly and of course nothing like the real Holmes.Matt Frewer starred as the Victorian sleuth in four of these movies and he portrays the detective as an upper class twit. Let's just say that his acting is entertaining for all the wrong reasons. I'm not sure why North Americans have to put on an affected RP accent every time they play a Brit; it's a bit like a Brit supposing that all Americans speak in Southern drawls, which couldn't be further from the truth. Anyway, THE CASE OF THE WHIECHAPEL VAMPIRE is a mess, but also still marginally better than the appalling BBC production of SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE CASE OF THE SILK STOCKING with Rupert Everett.

Holmes (Frewer) and Watson (Welsh) are called to a case that takes place in an Abbey inhabited by monks and nuns. A couple of monks wind up with the signature bite of the vampire on their necks. The monks are terrified. It surely has something to do with their having done missionary work in Guyana, which is full of bats. The tale is a little twisted but the general idea is that the monks and nuns think they're being pursued by some South American demon, while the atheistic Holmes and the more prudent Watson look for a material source of the problem.The photography is just fine. The chiaroscuro is masterful. No kidding. Some shots evoke images of Rembrandt. We've all seen the stone and brick walls of night-time Victorian alleys before, the cobbled streets, but rarely more vividly, never more slick with glittering patches of water. Unfortunately we don't get to see too much of London. The budget apparently didn't allow for it.None of the performances stand out much. Frewer has the right features for Holmes, but a fair-haired Holmes takes a little getting used to, and so does his gaiety and light voice. Between Rathbone and Brett, the character was ruined for everyone else. Although, come to think of it, things might have been worse -- Arthur WONTNER? Cary Lawrence turns in a polished performance as the blind Sister Helen. There are one or two evocative phrases, words, or character. Whitechapel, of course, conjures up Jack the Ripper eating somebody's kidney, probably with a nice chianti. Vampires today are all over the screen, sometimes pathetic, sometime demonic, sometimes just thirsty. There was a real Doctor Chagas -- Carlos -- who became famous in tropical medicine in South America. He had a disease named after him. (Kids, the name of the disease that was named after Doctor Chagas is Chagas' disease.) Either the structure of the story is tortuous or I'm aging at a faster rate than I'd hoped, because I kept getting all those monks mixed up. If they'd only dress differently from one another. And the ending: all the clues, ratiocination, and events that have been edited out of the narrative come crashing in all at once. It leaves you feeling as f you'd just gorged yourself on the collected works of Agatha Christie.There have been worse movies about Holmes and there have been better ones. This one will pass.

From the opening few seconds it is immediately obvious that this is a TV movie. The production values scream this out. The music and sets all show their limitations pretty clearly, while the acting on display is very much of television standard. So from the get-go you are at least under no false impressions of the scope of this one and that's probably a good thing in the long run because this Sherlock Holmes mystery doesn't really ever ascend above the level of mediocre.The story is about a series of murders at a monastery seemingly committed by a vampire in the same area as Jack the Ripper operated. One of the monastic Brothers believes that it is the work of a demon he claims to have encountered before in British Guyana called Desmondo. The 'agnostic' Holmes is sceptical from the outset regarding this explanation and sets about applying his famed logic to solving the murder-mystery.Apparently this is not actually based on an Arthur Conan Doyle original story. This may go some way to explaining some of the more ambiguous supernatural material such as a possibly-maybe divine intervention moment towards the end. Despite a very promising set-up, it isn't a particularly exciting or well written story. The actor who played Holmes didn't seem right to me, on the other hand Dr Watson was portrayed in a textbook manner. But overall, the acting was sub-par amongst the side characters, with the character who played the police inspector spouting a truly dreadful 'Scottish' accent. Despite all this, it was an acceptable enough way of spending ninety minutes and I was interested enough to discover the solution to the mystery. But overall there was little in the way of actual atmosphere or inspiration in this one.

2002 The Case of the Whitechapel Vampire Sherlock Holmes investigates a series of death rumored to be caused by a vampire. He makes fun of religion right off. He claims he is agnostic. A religious brother invites Sherlock to investigate a vampire who is killing church members a Whitechapel. The brother claims to be a man of god but he has a storage room of all kinds of statues to other gods and liberal attitudes. So contradictory. The costumes of the sisters and brothers look terrible compared with others. To add more insult the religious brother that is killed is said to have fallen on a Cross and that is how he got bleeding neck injuries. In this movie a man who played in the Sign of Four- Inspector Jones is someone who is easy to dislike. He hates Sherlock he is loud and angry when he talks. He is just another actor over acting to make an impression.This movie was better then the Sign of Four. There was not a whole lot of nonsense in it. I was very surprised with the ending. Sherlock loses his pipe which is way to long but at the end through some miracle gets it returned by a person named "Mr Church".Watson tried to convince Sherlock to believe in a fortune tellers prediction. That was a downer for me but I am not surprised Arthur Doyle believed in mediums, spiritualist etc. He went to Catholic schools but did not practice his faith.So like my mother would say "Consider the source."