The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes

I am afraid that I am a complete sucker for the Arthur Wontner series of Sherlock Holmes films. These films aren't presented in a very good form, in fact the copies of each of these Wontner titles have awful soundracks, soft focus and very flat contrast, seemingly copied from the worst scource possible. It is a pity that we should be subjected to this third class sort of presentation, as I have seen them on British television in a much more acceptable form, so a liitle bit of effort could have produced the goods! I am quite ellated that one of the two missing Wontner films , 'THE SLEEPING CARDINAL', has been found alive and well in the states...I suppose it is a bit too much to expect that this will be be an improvement in picture quality.

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 'The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes', part of the series of film with Arthur Wontner. Would also see anything that has Holmes encountering his arch-nemesis Professor Moriaty.

'The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes', based on one of Conan Doyle's longer and best stories, turned out to be very much worthwhile. 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 worst, being much better than any of the Matt Frewer films (particularly 'The Sign of Four') and the abominable Peter Cook 'The Hound of the Baskervilles'.

It's not perfect. The sound quality is less than great, while some of the pace could have been tighter, the over-reliance on the flashback structure bogs it down a bit, and some of the dialogue unnecessarily rambles a bit. The Holmes retiring aspect is agreed out of character.

However, the period detail is handsome and evocative. The writing generally is thought-provoking, Holmes' deductions and crime solving are a huge part of the fun as well as very true in detail and spirit to Conan Doyle's writing, the mystery and suspense is generally intact and the story is intriguing and not hard to follow.

Arthur Wontner may technically have been too old for Holmes but he did not look too old and his portrayal is on the money, handling the personality and mannerisms of the character spot on without over-doing or under-playing. Ian Fleming is a charming, loyal, intelligent and amusing Watson, with nice chemistry between him and Wontner, really liked his inferior attempts at deduction. The support is solid, with the best coming from Lyn Harding's sinister Moriaty.

In summary, not quite triumphant but very worthwhile. 7/10 Bethany Cox

TRIUMPH OF SHERLOCK HOLMES stars British thespian Arthur Wontner, today a forgotten interpreter of Holmes who would soon be overshadowed by the glossy American productions starring the illustrious Basil Rathbone, for some people the greatest Holmes ever. Wontner is actually a terrific Holmes, and looks remarkably like the first illustrations of Holmes. Wontner also prepared the dialog for the movie, and sticks relatively close to the source material, in this case THE VALLEY OF FEAR. Ian Fleming's Dr. Watson is a lot closer to the Watson of the stories, a retired Army officer and dapper fellow with an eye for the ladies. Wontner and Fleming have a palpable chemistry and affectionate interplay that reminds me more of the Holmes and Watson of the original stories than most other cinematic Holmes and Watsons. If you don't know the plot of VALLEY, and I admittedly had forgotten, you will be kept guessing right up to the very end the identity of the killer. A word on Lyn Harding as Holmes' archfoe Moriarty: He is as good a Moriarty as I have ever seen on screen. What keeps me from giving this film an extra point is its primitiveness. By 1935, most films looked and sounded a lot better than this. Also, this is a "modern" Holmes adaptation; that is to say, Holmes has been moved forward in time to the present day, in this case 1935, which may save on costumes and sets, but slightly impairs the atmosphere. See it for its historical value, and also to see someone other than Rathbone tearing it up as the world's greatest detective.

This is a good entry in the Arthur Wontner series of Sherlock Holmes movies, adapting one of Arthur Conan Doyle's most interesting and involved stories. The movie does a solid job of telling the story within its obvious budgetary constraints, Wontner as usual looks authentic as Holmes, and the story does the rest. Lyn Harding is solid as Moriarty, but as this series tended to do, the character is played more as a tough guy than as a twisted genius of crime.

The original story is a particularly good one because it takes a Holmes mystery with the usual intriguing details and puzzles, and combines it with an elaborate story about the backgrounds of the other characters involved. The original story has rarely been used in the movies, and it was unfortunately one of the ones not included in the outstanding Jeremy Brett series. So it's particularly fortunate that this version of it is still around.

The settings range from an old English castle to a rough part of the USA where outlaws are in charge. It's too bad that the production values were so low, because with some extra work, the settings could really add a lot to the atmosphere. Here, at least, they provide just enough to make a believable backdrop to the interesting story.

"The Valley of Fear" is an interesting part of the Sherlock Holmes canon. Most with casual interest in the great detective don't know much about this story. It concerns a brotherhood of evil that runs a town and its people. The implication is that they are drunk with power and may go beyond their current climes. In the movie, Professor Moriarity is furious that Holmes has gotten in his way on numerous occasions, "inconveniencing" him. He is the evil equal of Holmes and usually gets what he wants. This film has a nice mix of a flashback, which takes place in America. There is revenge and spying and romance. There is secrecy and surprise. For a fairly low budget film, this captures the spirit of the original pretty well. Holmes is really at the center of things for only a few moments. This is acceptable because much of his talent for solving crimes takes place between his ears. I would urge someone who enjoys some of the less often dramatized Holmes stories to enjoy this one. It's quite good.