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.
The third film in the generally negatively received (though not unwatchable) four films starring Matt Frewer, 'The Royal Scandal' fares better than 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' and 'The Sign of Four'. It at least doesn't have the dubious distinction of butchering classic stories, 'The Sign of Four' was particularly disappointing. There are far better Sherlock Holmes adaptations though, even the worst Jeremy Brett adaptations are superior than any of Frewer's films. Not terrible, but should have been much better.
Again, Kenneth Welsh is the best thing about 'The Royal Scandal' and the only good actor in the film. He is an excellent Watson and more the faithful interpretation of a loyal and intelligent Watson and not the bumbling buffoon for comic relief purposes.
Found some of the locations suitably atmospheric, if perhaps not authentic, and the adaptation shot competently enough.
However, my negative feelings on Frewer's Holmes remains unchanged. He is far too manic and eccentric, with too much of an over-emphasis on hammy humour in places, and his rapport with Watson too abrasive and borderline bullying. The supporting cast range from bland (Irene Adler) to pantomimic (the villains, which are basically barely developed caricatures).
Moreover, 'The Royal Scandal' has a lack of tension and suspense and is pretty dull. It further suffers from being somewhat over-stuffed, too many various and different ideas cobbled together and it just feels muddled and disjointed. The costumes are not particularly appealing to look at and some of the dialogue, apart from some thought-provoking moments, is ham-fisted. Having too much emphasis on Holmes taking on the case on a more personal level didn't feel right either.
Overall, lacklustre while not being unwatchable. 4/10 Bethany Cox
The third film in the generally negatively received (though not unwatchable) four films starring Matt Frewer, 'The Royal Scandal' fares better than 'The Hound of the Baskervilles' and 'The Sign of Four'. It at least doesn't have the dubious distinction of butchering classic stories, 'The Sign of Four' was particularly disappointing. There are far better Sherlock Holmes adaptations though, even the worst Jeremy Brett adaptations are superior than any of Frewer's films. Not terrible, but should have been much better.
Again, Kenneth Welsh is the best thing about 'The Royal Scandal' and the only good actor in the film. He is an excellent Watson and more the faithful interpretation of a loyal and intelligent Watson and not the bumbling buffoon for comic relief purposes.
Found some of the locations suitably atmospheric, if perhaps not authentic, and the adaptation shot competently enough.
However, my negative feelings on Frewer's Holmes remains unchanged. He is far too manic and eccentric, with too much of an over-emphasis on hammy humour in places, and his rapport with Watson too abrasive and borderline bullying. The supporting cast range from bland (Irene Adler) to pantomimic (the villains, which are basically barely developed caricatures).
Moreover, 'The Royal Scandal' has a lack of tension and suspense and is pretty dull. It further suffers from being somewhat over-stuffed, too many various and different ideas cobbled together and it just feels muddled and disjointed. The costumes are not particularly appealing to look at and some of the dialogue, apart from some thought-provoking moments, is ham-fisted. Having too much emphasis on Holmes taking on the case on a more personal level didn't feel right either.
Overall, lacklustre while not being unwatchable. 4/10 Bethany Cox