Sherlock Holmes contra Moriarty

... played live whenever you happen to be around.

This is the second of two Fox films made for the series with Basil Rathbone as Holmes. The film starts with a jury acquitting Dr. Moriarty (George Zucco) of murder. Right after that, in bursts Holmes and Watson with evidence that proves Moriarty was guilty, but the judge says it is too late. And believe me the judge is not happy about it. As Moriarty shares a cab with Holmes as they leave the courthouse, they both provoke and prod each other verbally. Moriarty says that he intends to break Holmes by pulling off the crime of the century right under his nose. Then he says, with Holmes' reputation ruined, he can retire in peace.

In the following days Holmes gets two requests for help. One is for the crown, helping guard a rare emerald that is to be added to the crown jewels. The other is from a young wealthy woman (Ida Lupino as Ann Brandon) who has received a drawing indicating her brother will be murdered and even gives the date. Ann is not being hysterical, as her father received exactly the same kind of note right before he was murdered when she was a child. This double duty requires Holmes to practically be in two places at once. Is Moriarty up to something? Of course he is! But as to what, watch and find out.

Zucco makes a very good Moriarty. After returning home after his acquittal he goes into his greenhouse to admire his plants and notices one of them is dead. He chastises his manservant for having "murdered" a plant by not watering it properly. Later, when his manservant is shaving him, he practically dares him to kill him with the bare blade. He's evil, he's edgy, and he prevents his role from descending into camp.

There are a couple of odd things I had questions about. At one point, Holmes and Moriarty are having it out in a gun battle and Holmes runs up the stairs of a building. Moriarty chases Holmes. With the police on the way. Up the stairs of a building where there is no exit. Did Moriarty get confused and think this is the twentieth century where a helicopter can arrive with his minions and help him make his escape? Also, the bit with the death threat to the Brandon family. Did Moriarty have something to do with the murder of Ann Brandon's father years ago, or did he just know about it and duplicate the elements? This is never explained.

Nigel Bruce gets some good lines in as Dr. Watson. At one point he is lying in the street helping Holmes reenact a crime. A passerby asks him if he should get a doctor. Watson replies "I'm a doctor, what's the matter with you?".

Every great hero needs at least one arch enemy that nearly is his equivalent in intellectual faculties and ingenious working methods. For Sherlock Holmes this nemesis is Professor Moriarty and the fact that he appears in this film first, moreover portrayed by the more-than-brilliant cult star George Zucco, makes "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" maybe the single best entry in the long-running Basil Rathbone/Nigel Bruce movie cycle! The sublime interactions between Holmes and Moriarty lift the quality of this film up to an higher level and, for the first time ever, you get the impression that our master detective is up against an opponent who really forces him to use ALL of his intellect for once. Almost purely for the fun of it, Professor Moriarty decides to embarrass Sherlock Holmes and steal the hugely valuable crown jewels right from under his nose. Through well thought out red herrings and distractions, Moriarty manages to confuse Holmes and to mess up his sense for priority, giving him with a perfect opportunity to steal the jewels. This installment is less of a horror film because the emphasis merely lies on the nuanced acting performances as well as on the light-hearted rivalry between Holmes and Watson. The Victorian setting & timing is excellent, and you should enjoy it as much as you can here, because the series got uplifted to the actual 1940's after this, resulting in a lot of redundant wartime propaganda. Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce are splendid as usual, but the show is undeniably stolen by George Zucco in his familiar role of criminal mastermind. Particularly the sadistic yet sophisticated conversations with his butler are pure class. The only elements that slightly disappointed me was the rushed and action-packed ending which stands in contrast with the rest of the patiently scripted story. Nevertheless, highly recommended!

The only other in-period Rathbone Holmes film, this is brim full of atmosphere and high production values, never mind about how good the acting and direction was too. The many long scenes were taken leisurely which enabled me to get a real feel for Victorian London with all the fog outside the Fox set windows. Sadly the one aspect slightly lacking was the story but only through the comparison to Hound, overall Adventures is easily the best of the rest and the best Holmes-Moriarty duel on film.

Rathbone and Zucco souped up the mental jousting and added something more to the legend, it really was a pity Zucco couldn't do the other two Moriarty outings at Universal. Although Atwill and Daniell were both excellent as well - maybe the part couldn't fail as Holmes' foil! Ida Lupino played her melodramatic part well, she could have smiled at least once though! Nigel Bruce as faithful Watson was perfect as usual, at one point even to lying down and rolling over in the gutter for his ... master.

All in all, a notch down from Hound but in quality a long drop down from this to the Universals, much as I love them too.

Released in the landmark movie year of 1939, this is my favorite Sherlock Holmes film. It is set in the proper period, has a reasonable budget, excellent sets, and fog so thick one would have to cut it with a razor. The story has to do with Professor Moriarity's scheme to steal the crown jewels. More than anything, however, the movie is a vehicle for Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce, whose interpretations of Holmes and Watson are so engaging and larger than life that several decades later actors are still compared (usually unfavorably) to these two whenever they attempt to take on these roles. Rathbone makes an impressive Holmes,--cunning, gentlemanly, high-minded, somewhat competitive, intensely focused. One of the many things that makes Rathbone so perfect as Holmes is that while he may fall short of the mark in his portrayal of the character Conan Doyle created in print, he is an ideal movie Holmes. There's an heroic quality to him. Rathbone was more than a bit of a swashbuckler on screen, as is obvious in his many duels with Flynn and Power, and he brought some of this edgy, assertive quality to his interpretation of Holmes, and as is so often the case when an actor varies somewhat from a character created in fiction (Bogart is a far cry from Hammett's "blonde Satan" of a Sam Spade), this can actually work in his favor. Rathbone is Hollywood's Sherlock Holmes, and I can't imagine a better one. Bruce often played Watson as a bumbler later in the series, but in the early entries was more serious and competent. His movie Watson is overall somewhat comical, and creates a charming contrast to the grim, determined Holmes, and works for me because I like a little respite from the seriousness of a mystery, any mystery, since the genre is melodramatic, and hard to take when it gets too heavy. With Bruce on hand it never does.

Some national critics rated this the best of the old Sherlock Holmes films. I don't agree with that, but it's a good one. It's also a film I didn't fully appreciate the first time. On the second look, thanks no doubt to the wonderful "restoration" job on the DVD, it brought the cinematography to the forefront and made the whole story more attractive, too.

There are some wonderful scenes with light and shadows and foggy London streets. Story-wise, it's okay nothing that memorable except we see a very young and innocent-looking Ida Lupino playing a nice British girl. Holmes (Basil Rathbone) is his usual deductive self and Dr. Watson (Nigel Bruce) elicits a few laughs along the way, not as many as he did in future films but more than he did in his first Holmes film, "The Hound Of The Baskervilles."

There weren't as many suspects in this SH adventure as in most of them, but that was fine with me. It was more a battle of wits between the good detective and his nemesis, "Dr. Moriarity" (George Zucco), which is better than having a dozen suspects.