L'arma segreta

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote a fair number of Sherlock Holmes accounts but the popularity of the famous detective insured that sequels in both print and on film would extend far beyond the author's works.

In "Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon," Holmes, Basil Rathbone, patriotically serves British intelligence in order to secure a Swiss scientist's desperately needed bombsight. The film is from 1942 and I wonder if the producers and writers realized how vital bombsight secrets were (the American Norden bombsight was guarded almost as zealously as the new radar sets that would change the course of World War II).

Holmes and his faithful but expectedly bumbling companion, Dr. Watson, Nigel Bruce, battle Dr. Moriarty, Lionel Atwill. As evil as Moriarty has always been it's a bit of a shock to see he's signed up with Hitler. Has the man no vestige of decency? I guess not. But Atwill is deliciously evil.

The story is reasonably fast-paced as Holmes and Watson seek to recover stolen bombsight components before they can be delivered to a U-boat. Rathbone is his usual suave self and several Holmsian disguises are well carried out.

This and other 1940s Holmes stories are now available on DVD and oldies.com has put out a very nice four-disc set in a wooden box: this film is included along with a bonus CD of an interview with the aged Doyle. The set retails for about $26 in major DVD and CD stores but I found this and other sets from oldies.com at a warehouse club for $14.98. The transfers are very good.

Very nice and relaxing late night viewing.

7/10.

The first two Rathbone/Bruce movies were pretty good. Not just because they were in period but because their production values were good and because some effort went into the script. Only the first, "The Hound of the Baskervilles", was based on a Conan-Doyle novella. The second was a pastiche made famous on the stage by Gillette.

Then the franchise was moved to Universal Studios and a series of mostly declining quality was established. This was an early example. It's not terrible, not embarrassingly bad, it just loses something in being updated to the 1940s and in not having the atmosphere Conan-Doyle managed to inject into his characters and into the atmosphere itself. Not to mention some of Conan-Doyle's sometimes unwittingly delicious bon mots -- "The wind sobbed like a child in the chimney."

"The Secret Weapon" doesn't tell us much we don't already know about Holmes and Watson. There is a variation on Conan-Doyle's "Dancing Men" but not really much else that's too interesting. I never cared much for Lionel Atwill as an actor, and he looks especially clunky as Moriarty. Moriarty should be a reptilian ectomorph with an oscillating head.

Still, this is okay for fans of the series. Homes wears his hair combed from back to front on the sides, which is a little different. I wish the code had allowed him to do some cocaine once in a while. The best of the Universal films was unquestionably "The Scarlet Claw," so if you have to choose, choose that one to watch.

It was an interesting enough idea, I suppose, to set a series of Sherlock Holmes films in the "modern day"...at the time, the WWII era...but those who are familiar with the first two Rathbone/Bruce films might be thrown off by it. When the rights passed from Fox to Universal, the two stars were retained, but apparently our two heroes stepped through a hole in the space-time continuum. The Fox films were Victorian period pieces, whereas Universal took the opportunity to utilize Sherlock Holmes in the series of modern-day B-movies into which this entry falls, several of which were fairly standard wartime propaganda...pretty much the order of the day for Hollywood films circa 1942-1945.

While the film may boast some entertainment value, the plot is actually quite silly. Sherlock Holmes (sporting a remarkably bad haircut) has been charged with the task of guarding Dr. Franz Tobel, the inventor of a bomb sight (which, when you see it, will give you an idea of what the film's budget was) that will apparently revolutionize airborne warfare. Holmes's task is to keep Tobel safe (at which he fails) and to keep the bomb sight out of the hands of the Nazis. When Tobel is abducted, Holmes must unravel a coded message before his arch-nemesis, Professor Moriarty does. Though the credits state that the film is an adaptation of Conan Doyle's story, The Dancing Men, only the code itself is taken from said story. And a small reference to another story, The Empty House, also shows up early in the film. Apart from that, you'll find no Conan Doyle here.

Interestingly enough, what makes Tobel's bomb sight so remarkable, apart from the fact that the bombs seem to land where they're supposed to, is never expounded upon...leaving the viewer to assume that both Allied and German bomb sights were abysmally inaccurate, as both sides are clamoring to get their hands on one that actually works. Probably not the best way to bolster confidence in the Allied fighting machine...but then, logic is scarce in this outing. Holmes relies just as heavily upon chance and educated guesses as he does upon deduction, and it's the bumbling Watson (who was never bumbling in the original stories) who inadvertently provides the solution to the major stumbling block (despite the fact that the solution should have been obvious to someone as brilliant as Sherlock Holmes).

All in all, this film has its moments, but fails to live up to the legend of the world's greatest detective. Rathbone is a fine Holmes and Bruce (despite the almost unforgivable dumbing down of the Watson character) does a good job, as well. But much of the supporting cast seem to be phoning in their performances. The production values are rather noticeably low and the script is fairly ludicrous. I still watch this one from time to time, and certainly prefer it over Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror (the first Universal Holmes entry)...but I can't help but think that Sherlock Holmes deserves better than this.

Interesting sidenote - This film contains the series' one and only reference to Sherlock Holmes's hypodermic cocaine usage. As Holmes is describing to Moriarty an elaborate hypothetical death scenario involving an intravenous needle, Moriarty interjects "The needle to the last...eh, Holmes?" How this managed to slip by the censors at the Breen Office (which, at the time, strictly forbade such references) is perhaps the one great mystery to be found in this film.

Sherlock Holmes (Basil Rathbone) smuggles a Swiss inventor of a new bombsight into England and out of Nazi hands. But when the inventor is kidnapped right from under the nose of Scotland Yard, Holmes discovers it's not just the Nazis he has to contend with but his old nemesis Professor Moriarty (Lionel Atwill) as well.

The second in Universal's highly enjoyable Sherlock Holmes series is also the first directed by Roy William Neill, who would direct every Universal Holmes film after this. This is also the first appearance of Inspector Lestrade (Dennis Hoey), a pleasant addition to the series. Rathbone and Nigel Bruce are excellent, as usual. Rathbone gets to dress up in a few disguises, which are fun. He's still sporting that silly haircut from Voice of Terror. Lionel Atwill is a good Moriarty. Not the series' best but still very good. Any movie that features Basil Rathbone vs Lionel Atwill is one where you will be entertained.

For some reason, as with other WWII Holmes movies, a lot of reviewers seem to really hate the idea of Sherlock Holmes fighting against the Nazis or for England. They claim Holmes was never intended for "propaganda" and that he should be left to simple detective stories. Someone should have told Sir Arthur Conan Doyle that when he wrote "His Last Bow," a WWI-era story which saw Holmes helping his country catch German spies.

In the Universal series of modern Sherlock Holmes stories with Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce, SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE SECRET WEOPON is not one of the top films - although it is entertaining. I think the problem with it is that much of the film's "dueling" between Holmes and his nemesis Moriarty (here played by Lionel Atwill) seems to delay the actual point of the Professor's work.

Moriarty appears in three of the Holmes films with Rathbone. In THE ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES he was played by George Zucco, who gave real relish to the love of villainy for its own sake to the role. For my money Zucco's performance as the Professor was the best of the three (there is even a brief moment of comedy in his performance, when he's disguised as the "Sergeant of Police" towards the end - like he's preparing to sing "A Policeman's Lot" from Gilbert & Sullivan). Next comes Mr. Atwill's performance here - more of that later. Finally there is Henry Daniell's intellectual Moriarty in SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE LADY IN GREEN. It's a typically cool, classy performance by Mr. Daniell, but his confrontations with Holmes seem to be a tedious bore to him. They keep him from completing the main plan. In the stories that the Professor pops up in, he really senses Holmes is a nemesis who will remain a danger as long as he is alive. Yet, because of the intellectual tennis match between him and Rathbone, Rathbone (in his autobiography) actually felt Daniell was the best of the film Moriartys.

If Zucco captured the love of evil in the Professor, and Daniell seemed to demonstrate the tired Oxford Don (in the stories the Professor is a well regarded mathematician, whose volume on the binomial theorem had a "European vogue", and who wrote an intriguing book, THE DYNAMICS OF THE ASTEROID), Atwill demonstrates the Professor as pragmatic businessman. First of all, he's sold his services (apparently) to Nazi Germany. This is never gone into, but one presumes (as this is before the Nazis began to really collapse) he figures they will win the war. Secondly, he is not a fool. When Dr. Tobel (William Post Jr.) has shown he is a state of near physical collapse due to the torturing of Moriarty's gang, the Professor decides to kidnap one of the other scientists who are assisting Tobel, because he's as good a scientist as Tobel and would be able to put together the bomb site. I somehow can't quite see Zucco making such a sensible decision on the spot, and if Daniell had to make it, he would seem annoyed that there is yet another delay to his plans.

By the way, one trick used in all the Holmes series regarding the Professor is how to rid the film of him. If you read the Holmes stories, Moriarty appears as the villain three times: in THE MEMOIRS OF SHERLOCK HOLMES' last story ("THE ADVENTURE OF THE FINAL PROBLEM"), in THE RETURN OF SHERLOCK HOLMES' first story ("THE ADVENTURE OF THE EMPTY HOUSE") and the last of the four novels/novellas (THE VALLEY OF FEAR). It's amazing how much mileage the Professor got out of so few appearances (he is mentioned in two or three other stories as well - in passing). But because of his fate at the Reichenbach Falls in "THE FINAL PROBLEM" and "THE EMPTY HOUSE", we always see him fall to his death. Zucco falls off the White Tower on Tower Hill. Daniell (with more imagination) tries to flee Gregson and the police, but is shot as he jumps, and wounded fails to hold on to the wall of an adjacent building. Atwill (here it is not seen, but heard) seems to fall down a trap door he's planted in an escape tunnel). It is really tedious after awhile to see the Professor always fall in these films. One turns to the Gene Wilder comedy (admittedly a comedy) SHERLOCK HOLMES' SMARTER BROTHER, wherein Leo McKern is a wonderfully wacky and villainous Moriarty (complete, finally, with an Irish accent), who is not killed at the end, but just left mulling - in a rowboat - over how his careful schemes did not work out. I rather liked that better.

The use of the "Dancing Men" code here, like the use of the "Devil's Foot Root" in DRESSED TO KILL, snags a part of a mystery from a short story. "THE ADVENTURE OF THE DANCING MEN" appeared in THE RETURN OF SHERLOCK HOLMES, and deals with a client of Holmes whose wife has been getting weird, blood-curdling messages in this code. Charles Higham, in his biography THE ADVENTURES OF CONAN DOYLE suggests Sir Arthur may have picked up the code from a magazine game in the 1870s, but we really don't know. The code is basically one of letter substitutions for the figures of the dancing men. The story in the short story is dramatic, but deals with a triangle. The only innovation in the film is that Tobel makes a slight change that confuses both Holmes and Moriarty.

The film will entertain, but I still think THE HOUSE OF FEAR, THE SCARLET CLAW, and SHERLOCK HOLMES FACES DEATH are better films.