The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes

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.

Good camerawork helps this stylishly shot although slightly stagily performed version of Doyle's THE VALLEY OF FEAR. The principals are excellent in their roles, but the supporting actors tend to ham it up a bit. Wontner gives a witty performance as Holmes and Ian Fleming -- no, not that Ian Fleming -- is an intelligent Watson.

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

The movie opened in 1935 and appears to be set in the 1930s. The original Arthur Conan Doyle serial, from which the screenplay was written, was published in 1914-15, and was set in the 1880s.

The movie's flashback to the U.S.A. introduces the Scowlers, a secret society of thugs. The fictional Scowlers appears to be based on the Molly Maguires, an actual secret society of immigrant Irish coal miners in eastern Pennsylvania, USA, in the 1860s and 1870s. They were set up as a secret network of local committees, and they did not brand their members, since they wished to remain anonymous.

Conditions in the mines were abominable, as this was long before child labor laws, a minimum wage, suitable standards on working conditions, or any organized form of labor union. The Mollies fought back with threats, beatings, riots, and murder against abusive mine owners, supervisors, police, and anyone who spoke out against them.

The powerful owner of many coal mines hired the Pinkerton Detective Agency to infiltrate the society, and one of their detectives managed to join the Mollies and stay under cover for nearly five years. When his investigation was finished, trials in were held, twenty convicted society members were hanged, and the Mollie Maguires were history.

So the film's use of a local committee of thugs, and the triumph of the Pinkerton Detective Agency, are quite realistic, based on Pennsylvania history.

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.