A Study in Scarlet

This early sound-era portrayal of Sherlock Holmes is good for its era and genre, with solid acting and an interesting story that is set in a believably mysterious atmosphere. An important note is that the story has no real similarity with the Arthur Conan Doyle story titled "A Study in Scarlet", but rather draws its characters and material from several different stories, plus at least one Agatha Christie novel. As long as you don't expect to see the original story, there is certainly enough to make this a feature worth seeing.

Reginald Owen is solid as Holmes, although he does not leave his mark on the role in the way that Basil Rathbone and Jeremy Brett did. Owen does have the unique distinction of having played both Holmes and Dr. Watson (having played the latter in "Sherlock Holmes" the year before "A Study in Scarlet").

The rest of the cast likewise play their characters in a straightforward fashion, allowing the story and atmosphere to get the main focus. The one who does stand out is Anna May Wong, who adds beauty and a mysterious presence, although unfortunately she does not get a lot of screen time.

The story itself has numerous turns, and keeps you guessing. The atmosphere might not always be Holmes-like, but it is quite suitable for the story, and it is aided by good use of the lighting and photography. Overall, if you can set aside the misleading (for Holmes fans) title, it is an entertaining mystery with some good touches.

"A Study in Scarlet" was produced by the low-budget E. W. Hammons at the low-budget Tiffany Studios starring a former Watson (possibly cast because of his association with Holmes films), Reginald Owen, as Sherlock Holmes. The presence of Holmes and Watson is the only connection to the Arthur Conan Doyle story of the same name, and that, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. I have no problem with a Sherlock Holmes film straying from slavish fidelity to the creator of the character. However, this one seems to deviate from the original not as a result of the filmmakers' creativity being exercised in order to make something new, but often in ways that make Holmes into someone that resembles a generic detective protagonist more than the most recognizable of them all.

It's a little odd to see a supposed Sherlock Holmes dart around wearing clothes clearly dated to the 1930s (the only appearance of the famous deerstalker is in cartoon form in the opening titles), but since the story doesn't depend on anything terribly time-period appropriate, the transposition to the contemporary setting doesn't have too much of an effect. A curiosity here is that we are repeated told that Sherlock Holmes lives at 221A Baker Street, not the traditional 221B, even though he still seems to be living upstairs. Whether that's a simple error on somebody's part or a nod to the liberties being taken with the original stories there is no way to tell.

Owen, unfortunately, is rather stiff and unremarkable in is portrayal of Sherlock Holmes. Many point out that he doesn't look the part (and, traditionally, he doesn't) but that hasn't been a problem for countless other actors. If he had managed to make the role his own through his performance it wouldn't have been for him either. He has little presence and seems to think that if he bellows each line with enough conviction and self-satisfaction he'll sound as if he knows what he's talking about.

Sadly the rest of the actors are rather wooden and unimpressive as well, including Anna May Wong. Warburton Gamble makes no impression as Watson, and some of the murder victims are laughably unconvincing in their hesitant screams for help at their dying moments. Everything is taken deadly seriously except for some overplayed comic relief involving characters at a pub, which only semi works.

There is a good mystery story at the heart of this film about a circle of criminals whose members are being murdered one-by-one, but the execution (including the direction which, the exception of one clever shot inside Merrydew's office near the end, mainly doesn't go beyond static two- an three-shots) is too lackluster to serve it well. The scriptwriter deserves credit for a good concept and for a good method of developing the story through showing us going on in all quarters without completely explaining its significance, but nobody else seems to have been trying very hard.

It's still entertaining most of the time, and fun for viewers who will eat up anything Holmesian, but it's far from the best executed film version of the detective's adventures.

I was intrigued by the thought of Reginald Owen playing Sherlock Holmes because I disliked him as Ebeneezer Scrooge in MGM's " A Christmas Carol" (1938). In that role he was very subdued and did not bring the character to life, although I have been spoiled in this regard by Alastair Sim; would the same happen here?

Happily, he was much better as Holmes, but once again I have been spoiled by Basil Rathbone and Arthur Wontner. Nevertheless, he was more than adequate but was done in by the leaden pace of the proceedings in A Study In Scarlet - it could have been so much better with a little tension and suspense and a few less dead spots, as the the storyline was excellent. I especially enjoy mysteries in which the murderer is unknown until the last scene.

A good entry in the Holmes series - unless you've seen the aforementioned Rathbone or Wontner in the title role.

I had never seen Reginald Owen in anything but a somewhat weak Christmas Carol. He plays a larger, more imposing Sherlock Holmes. Holmes' appearance is usually rather striking, so actors play on his idiosyncrasies. In this movie, he sort of blends in. The story has nothing to do with the story. It will probably never be produced as written because of it's religious issues. This is an attempt to apprehend the big cheese in a series of murders involving the "Scarlet Circle." Men are dying according to the same poem used in Christie's Ten Little Indians (And Then There Were None). Holmes is aware of what is going on, but can't really strike quickly. This results in deaths not being prevented. While there is a seriousness to this film, there is a lot of humor as well. The characters are rich and interesting and the acting is pretty good. See it for another angle on the Holmes canon.

As long as one understands this version of A STUDY IN SCARLET bears no resemblance to its source material, one can enjoy the performance of Reginald Owen -- best known for playing Scrooge -- as the inimitable Sherlock Holmes. The story as such involves a secret group of individuals who are being knocked off one at a time. A fortune is at stake! Holmes is called in and more or less immediately identifies the killer(s), but the movie stretches events out to feature length, and a bad movie it is not. Owen makes an acceptable Holmes, even though the story has been moved forward to the time in which the movie was made. Warburton Gamble's Dr. Watson leaves something to be desired, but most movie Watsons can be found lacking. Only Ian Fleming in 1935's TRIUMPH OF SHERLOCK HOLMES and the Dr. Watsons of the Jeremy Brett TV series come even close to the Watson of the Conan Doyle stories. Worth a look as a novelty.