अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंHolmes, retired to Sussex, is drawn into a last case when his arch enemy Moriarty arranges with an American gang to kill one John Douglas, a country gentleman with a mysterious past.Holmes, retired to Sussex, is drawn into a last case when his arch enemy Moriarty arranges with an American gang to kill one John Douglas, a country gentleman with a mysterious past.Holmes, retired to Sussex, is drawn into a last case when his arch enemy Moriarty arranges with an American gang to kill one John Douglas, a country gentleman with a mysterious past.
- निर्देशक
- लेखक
- स्टार
George Spence
- Scowrer
- (बिना क्रेडिट के)
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
I am thoroughly enjoying making my way through my Mystery DVD set. One of the simple pleasures is in coming across an unheralded, long-forgotten movie that is a cut above. The "Triumph of Sherlock Holmes" is one of these. I thought the story was absorbing and it was well-acted down to the smallest role, although somewhat stagey. I struggled with the soundtrack and took into account that the film is almost 75 years old and may have been copied from a copy, and that the sound system may have been primitive to begin with.
I am beginning to think that Arthur Wontner is the definitive Sherlock Holmes. I enjoy his characterization and that of Lyn Harding, who makes a sinister Moriarty. Other entries have given capsule summaries and filled in some background. I just want to endorse this picture as well worth the time. I try to pretend how well some of them would work on a big screen, as in a movie theater, and this one would be worth the price of admission.
Warts and all, I give it a rating of 8.
I am beginning to think that Arthur Wontner is the definitive Sherlock Holmes. I enjoy his characterization and that of Lyn Harding, who makes a sinister Moriarty. Other entries have given capsule summaries and filled in some background. I just want to endorse this picture as well worth the time. I try to pretend how well some of them would work on a big screen, as in a movie theater, and this one would be worth the price of admission.
Warts and all, I give it a rating of 8.
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.
The Story holds pretty true to the book (The Valley of Fear), especially the flashback segment. Wontner and Fleming have excellent chemistry as Holmes and Watson, and Harding is a great Moriarty. The only drawbacks to the film, are the claustrophobic sets, and the silent movie style of direction.
An excellent Holmes story that benefits greatly by going directly to the source (mainly Arthur Conan Doyle's "The Valley Of Fear") and not only sticking pretty much to the original plot but also using a lot of the great dialog that Doyle wrote for Holmes. The problem with translating Sherlock Holmes to the screen (or writing new Holmes stories in full-length novel form) is that Doyle's original creation was such a brilliant detective he solved most mysteries almost instantly. Therefore, the short story was the best medium in which to present his adventures. If a story has to be stretched out to novel or feature film length, some other means had to be found to fill out the time and pages. Thus, beginning with Basil Rathbone (or maybe even earlier with William Gillette's original play), Sherlock Holmes became an action hero rather than a thinker. Arthur Wotner's Holmes and the script of "Triumph" retains the original essence of "the best and wisest man I have ever known" and shows us that he can delight and thrill us even more by seeing him as he was intended to be seen.
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
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
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाThis movie is based on the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle novel The Valley of Fear, and the name appears as a title reference in the movie itself. For the movie, Mr. Douglas' wives were combined into one character; in the novel, he married another woman, Ivy, after Effie died of scarlet fever.
- कनेक्शनEdited into The Advisor's Mystery Theater: The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes (1959)
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- Is this production based on a novel?
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- भाषा
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- Sherlock Holmes triumf
- उत्पादन कंपनी
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
- चलने की अवधि1 घंटा 24 मिनट
- रंग
- पक्ष अनुपात
- 1.37 : 1
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें
टॉप गैप
By what name was The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes (1935) officially released in India in English?
जवाब