Le mystère de Whitechapel

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.

This starts off with a rather curious disclaimer stating it has taken the characters from the public domain and that no effort has been made to liaise with the estate of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. All perfectly legal, of course, but it did make me wonder what liberties they were about to take with the long established characters of "Sherlock Holmes" (Matt Frewer) and "Dr. Watson" (Kenneth Welsh). Well, as it happens, that intrigue is about as good as this gets as our super-sleuthing duo become embroiled in a series of murders that people suspect might be the work of a vampire. Frewer and Welsh are not Rathbone/Bruce, but they make for a decent pairing in this otherwise unremarkable drama that seems to draw more from "Cadfael" then from "Hound of the Baskervilles". The mystery develops pretty routinely, as you'd expect from a ninety minute television movie, before an ending that reminded me of "Scooby Doo". It isn't terrible, indeed the production looks fine, but the sum of the parts is underwhelming, with some pretty wordy dialogue and too many characters to clutter up any participation from the audience in the investigation. Maybe one for die-hard fans of these iconic characters, but otherwise just daytime telly fodder.

It's hard not to watch this and compare it with Jeremy Brett's The Last Vampyre, and once again, as with all of Matt Frewer's Sherlock Holmes films, it's a mix of good and bad.

Let's start with the good, the story, I liked it, I'm not a huge fan of vampires in general, but this works rather well. I like the visuals, it looks authentic enough, it's atmospheric, it looks murky, and lacks some of the usual polish you get in such productions.

The acting, is a little patchy it's fair to say, some of the cast are a little hammy, Frewer though I did enjoy, I liked his accent, I liked his quirkiness, he had some presence.

On the debit side, it felt a little clunky at parts, some of the dialogue is a little over the top. I mentioned earlier that you shouldn't compare, the trouble is when you do compare this with Brett's, it's just not in the same league.

It's watchable, 6/10.

Matt Frewer's four films for Hallmark television are never likely to budge memories of the series made for Granada in the 1980s and 1990s; however, they are meant to appeal to a young audience and in this respect, they probably succeed.

Frewer is saddled with a comedy deerstalker, the worst British accent since Robert Duvall played Watson in 'The Seven-Per-Cent Solution', and an annoying range of tics, smirks and general non-Holmes type behaviour. But he does have a rather good Watson in Kenneth Welsh who is a more serious version of Nigel Bruce from the 1940s Holmes films, so there are some compensations.

The story here is nothing to do with Conan Doyle's 'The Sussex Vampyre'; it concerns a group of monks who are slowly being killed by what appears to be a vampire bat - each are found slumped and cold and bleeding from two wounds to the neck. Is there something supernatural going on, or, as Holmes believes, it this an inside job? The filming is actually not that bad - Canada passes for Victorian England, and set dressing isn't that inaccurate. With a better actor in the lead, these could be worthy additions to the screen Holmes. It's just that Frewer's version doesn't work - unless you see him as a kind of cartoon, comedy, superhero Holmes.

If you are a Holmes completist, then of course you will want to watch these. But otherwise, you won't miss anything by staying away.

Unlike the former three adaptations in the Hallmark series, this one makes no pretense of even loosely 'following' any of Conan Doyle's works. This is the only reason that 'The Whitechapel Vampire' can get away with near heresy. The story involves ritual, possible demonic, killings in a monastery in Whitechapel, which was only recently deprived of Jack the Ripper.

Sherlock Holmes is called in to investigate, but finds himself facing the possible unknown. A skeptic of anything supernatural, he fully believes that these 'vampire killings' can be proven the work of a human hand. Thus the story involves the Christian faith, and pagan superstition, as well as a medium, in attempts to satisfy viewers of all belief systems. What it does instead is trip over its own ambitions.

Christians like myself will resent that in the end, something the medium has said proves itself right. And skeptics won't like the 'divine intervention' at a key moment of the climax. As a full-length film, it's often hard to follow, and isn't entirely explained, but manages to keep viewers on the edge of their seats. Frewer remains stereotyped, but it doesn't bleed through as often as in the first three adaptations. It is not the finest pastiche ever filmed but is worth seeing at least once.