Sherlock Holmes

This film, one of many to be generically titled "Sherlock Holmes," now seems to receive notice most frequently for being the earliest talkie film featuring the detective as the protagonist which is today available for viewing. This was a couple of years into the talking era, though, and there's not really any of the static awkwardness that marred many of the earliest sound movies.

Instead, it's a very dark and atmospheric piece of film-making that certainly deserves recognition for this fact. William K. Howard hangs some really spooky or creepy scenes on this pastiche story of the feud between Holmes and Professor Moriarty, including haunting silhouettes headed to the gallows, tense moments waiting in darkened houses, and a great sequence in which we meet a series of gangsters at a fairground by seeing them all score perfectly at the shooting game.

I like Clive Brook as Sherlock Holmes (giving an encore performance in the role; his first was, confusingly, in "The Return of Sherlock Holmes"). He doesn't inject very much emotional subtlety into the role of the detective, but he's a forceful, intense, charismatic presence in the role who demands attention. Judging from the one surviving audio recording of William Gillette, the most influential Holmes of the era, in the role, Brook seems to have absorbed some of his vocal inflections - to no ill effect.

Fun to watch as the lead actor may be, Holmes is in other ways not recognizable as the iconic character we all know. Perhaps it is shame Brook was not the most introspective of Holmeses, as when we meet him at the start of the film he is engaged and seen in flirtatious exchanges with his fiancée. Strangely as this strikes us, it does generate some valid personal struggle, as Holmes must wrestle with the consequences of his promise to give up his life of chasing Moriarty as he gets married. It all leads to a scene between the future Mrs Holmes and Billy the Baker Street Irregular that is actually rather touching.

Holmes is updated to the then-present day, as he was in most films in the first half of the twentieth century, so we get the amusing incongruity of the sleuth using 1930s-era slang, even if it isn't disparagingly. He also seems to be a cutting edge inventor who demonstrates his car-related discoveries with little model cars that work exactly like the big ones.

In fact, I think it's almost best to think of this as a straight-up tense crime film, with a protagonist who happens to be called Sherlock Holmes. The plot too lends itself better to being a good crime movie rather than a detective picture, with no hint of a whodunnit but a nice twist near the end to increase the stakes of the chase.

Reginald Owen gets little to do and does it pretty stiffly as Watson; it remains a mystery to me why he was cast as Holmes in another film the next year, unless the filmmakers wanted to cash in on nae association. Ernest Torrence, though he doesn't really look the part, turns out to be an excellently believable and threatening Professor Moriarty (even if one of his better scenes is marred by some very terrible back projection).

The strength of this movie isn't its evocation of the Holmes ethos, though Clive Brook brings his magnetism to the altered Holmes. Instead it's a well-shot, tense, and sometimes macabre crime drama with a human element and a Sherlock Holmes flavor. When all is said and done, this works pretty nicely.

I think the casting for "Sherlock Holmes" (1932) is pretty much spot-on: Clive Brook is a well-rounded Sherlock Holmes, Reginald Owen is an enthusiastic (if underused) Dr. Watson, and Ernest Torrence is a sinister, dastardly Professor Moriarty. William K. Howard's direction is sometimes-dynamic and the film is enjoyable and even funny in spots, although if you take out the names of the principal characters it plays more like a regular crime / gangster film than a detective / deductive film (it all ends with an undergound shootout). But it does tick most of the right boxes along the way. **1/2 out of 4.

The famous sleuth is marked for death by his nemesis, Moriarty. Clive Brook makes a rather dour Holmes in this early '30s incarnation of the famous detective. Fox updated his story to the modern day, and relegated Watson (Reginald Owen) to the sidelines to be replaced by a glamorous fiancé (Miriam Jordan) who is a nuisance most of the time and, incredibly, has a disapproving father (Ivan F. Simpson), and some kid from Canada (Howard Leeds) whose presence is never satisfactorily explained. Perennial bad guy Ernest Terrence steals the film as Moriarty.

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.

Furthermore, interest in seeing early films based on Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories and wanting to see as many adaptations of any Sherlock Holmes stories as possible sparked my interest in seeing 'Sherlock Holmes', especially one with such a great idea. Anything with one of literature's most iconic arch-enemies Moriaty is always worth the watch.

'Sherlock Holmes' is very problematic and not one of the best Sherlock Holmes adaptations certainly, the best of the Jeremy Brett adaptations and films of Basil Rathone fit under this category. It's also not among the very worst, although one of the lesser ones overall, being better than any of the Matt Frewer films (particularly 'The Sign of Four') and much better than the abominable Peter Cook 'The Hound of the Baskervilles'.

Ernest Torrence is the best thing about 'Sherlock Holmes', being an effectively sinister Moriaty. Clive Brook is also pretty good and enigmatic as Holmes.

There is a suitably spooky and creepy atmosphere in the film, and some scenes come off effectively. Especially the trial and the escape. There are some nice starkly beautifully and eerie shots and the direction has some inspired visual and atmosphere touches.

However, the rest of the cast are not great, though Alan Mowbray is okay if not electric. Not just Miriam Jordan's dull Alice and Howard Leeds' grating Billy (who has too much screen time), but Reginald Owen is even stiffer as Watson than he was when he portrayed Holmes in 'A Study in Scarlet', Watson is very underused here which robs us of one of the most legendary partnerships to fully make impression and Owen does very little with what he has.

Other than the visual and atmosphere touches, the direction struggles in some of the direction of the actors and giving the mystery consistent momentum. The script is talky and rambling, with some over-played and extraneous comedy that was merely padding. The pace tends to be on the dull side and the tension and suspense too often is lacking in the story, the mystery not fully coming to life and occasionally could have been clearer. Only Moriaty and Holmes are interesting of the characters.

To conclude, alright but a long way from exceptional. 5/10 Bethany Cox

William K. Howard directed this at the top of his powers. Most sources claim he was influenced by Murnau. I think his stuff looks like Tod Browning, but it doesn't really matter where he got that fast-cutting-between-askew-images-from. It's compelling and exciting. On the other hand, the script is the least Sherlockian thing I have ever seen. It's a sequel to the Gillette play. Ernest Torrence, playing Moriarity with a gotch eye is to be hanged, so Holmes is set to retire, marry Miriam Jordan and live a life of riding to the hounds. But Moriarity escapes and begins to wreak a terrible vengeance.

Clive Brooks makes an adequate Holmes, , since he lives in a world of morons. Watson disappears early on, which is a good thing, since the role is played by Reginald Owen.

So, how do I rate this? It's a movie that is worth watching, because it is such a visual treat, with some wonderful ur-Noir cinematography by George Barnes, including a sequence that is mostly lit by arc welding light. However, pretend it's Bulldog Drummond and not Sherlock Holmes.