Holmes thinks a woman's claim to have seen a man at her upstairs bedroom window is related to the theft of several apes.Holmes thinks a woman's claim to have seen a man at her upstairs bedroom window is related to the theft of several apes.Holmes thinks a woman's claim to have seen a man at her upstairs bedroom window is related to the theft of several apes.
Michael Cox
- Zoo Cleaner
- (uncredited)
Storyline
Did you know
- TriviaMichael Cox: Being the last episode of the series to be involved with as producer, he performs a cameo as zoo cleaner in the background of the zoo scene where Lestrade talks to the zoo director. His face is barely recognizable, but this event is mentioned in "A Study in Celluloid: A Producer's Account of Jeremy Brett as Sherlock Holms" by Michael Cox, 1999, Rupert Books Cambridge.
- Goofs(at around 36 mins) Holmes idly picks up the newspaper and looks through it. His attention is immediately caught by the headline of 'Monkey Theft.' It makes mention of the 'Lonon Zoo', when it should be London Zoo.
- Quotes
Sherlock Holmes: A dog a reflects family life, Watson.
Dr. John Watson: [uninterested] Does it, indeed?
Sherlock Holmes: Whoever heard of a frisky dog in a gloomy home? Or a sad dog in a happy one? Snarling people have snarling dogs.
- ConnectionsVersion of Splhající profesor (1992)
Featured review
Juiced Up
This is an extraordinarily good Holmes. And it is so, independent of Brett's jumpy characterization which sometimes works.
Usually these are dreadful, but the practice of passing them around to different adapters and directors means you will sometimes hit a gem. Oddly, this is packaged on a DVD with one of the all-time worst episodes.
What makes this good is the way the director performs two tricks. One is that he settles on objects. He examines them, even though they may seem ordinary. Its roughly what Holmes is described as doing. The second trick he pulls is misdirection. The story itself is rather simple and it itself is a matter of unintentional misdirection.
These two are combined in the an opening scene which begins with a slow pan around the room of a man of science. This is obviously Holmes' room, we think, all the way up to and even after the first few moments of seeing some unfamiliar characters. Then we see a stuffed monkey and get some lines that tell us this is the study of a zoologist, a biologist who studies primates.
This misdirection is done again in the beginning. We see a kidnapped gorilla and then we see a point of view shot with gorilla panting and a woman sees the outline of a gorilla on her window ledge. We obviously think these are the same. No no. Tut tut.
As a detective story, its weak; it was in the original. But it is one of the Holmes stories where Doyle dealt with matters of science.
The whole business of the invention of Holmes was the sudden appearance of rational science in the affairs of men. The belief was that if Darwin could bring science to evolution, a similar science could be brought to the governance of thought and behavior. Holmes was the extension of Darwin in London thought, a superscientist. No intuition, no guessing, just pure rational deduction.
This story is on the extreme end of that fantasy of science. I won't give it away, but lets say just that its rather brilliant in superimposing the deepest science on the needs of libido.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
Usually these are dreadful, but the practice of passing them around to different adapters and directors means you will sometimes hit a gem. Oddly, this is packaged on a DVD with one of the all-time worst episodes.
What makes this good is the way the director performs two tricks. One is that he settles on objects. He examines them, even though they may seem ordinary. Its roughly what Holmes is described as doing. The second trick he pulls is misdirection. The story itself is rather simple and it itself is a matter of unintentional misdirection.
These two are combined in the an opening scene which begins with a slow pan around the room of a man of science. This is obviously Holmes' room, we think, all the way up to and even after the first few moments of seeing some unfamiliar characters. Then we see a stuffed monkey and get some lines that tell us this is the study of a zoologist, a biologist who studies primates.
This misdirection is done again in the beginning. We see a kidnapped gorilla and then we see a point of view shot with gorilla panting and a woman sees the outline of a gorilla on her window ledge. We obviously think these are the same. No no. Tut tut.
As a detective story, its weak; it was in the original. But it is one of the Holmes stories where Doyle dealt with matters of science.
The whole business of the invention of Holmes was the sudden appearance of rational science in the affairs of men. The belief was that if Darwin could bring science to evolution, a similar science could be brought to the governance of thought and behavior. Holmes was the extension of Darwin in London thought, a superscientist. No intuition, no guessing, just pure rational deduction.
This story is on the extreme end of that fantasy of science. I won't give it away, but lets say just that its rather brilliant in superimposing the deepest science on the needs of libido.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
helpful•1623
- tedg
- Mar 17, 2007
Details
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content