La perla della morte

The Universal Holmes series was on a roll at this point, having just released what is probably the best film in the series, The Scarlet Claw, earlier the same year. This one is a bit of a step down, but on a par with earlier films like Sherlock Holmes Faces Death and The Spider Woman...and on a much higher level than the first three flag-waving WWII propaganda films.

This entry is based on the Arthur Conan Doyle story, The Six Napoleons. And while numerous changes were made, it actually follows the original story more closely than any of the other Universal pictures did. Most of the films were either very loose adaptations, amalgams of several different Holmes stories, or original scripts that were merely inspired by the Conan Doyle canon. This one, however, follows the general outline of the original story, while adding various subplots along the way. Overall, it works, even if it does seem to veer off-track at a few points.

These films were produced at breakneck speed (it was not uncommon for three Holmes films to be released in a single year) with fairly low budgets, but Roy William Neill knew how to achieve great results with his limited resources. As with its immediate predecessors, the camera-work in The Pearl of Death is strong and evocative, the direction is confident and effective, and the performances are, at least for the most part, fine to excellent. Rathbone's Holmes is once again in his proper element here, and Rathbone makes the most of the character.

The Pearl of Death is just a step below The Scarlet Claw, in my estimation...which still makes this outing quite enjoyable. Anyone who liked The Spider Woman, Sherlock Holmes Faces Death, or The House of Fear will definitely appreciate this one. Out of the dozen Holmes films that Universal churned out between 1942 and 1946, this is one of the eight that I would say deserve to be called "great."

At this point the creative team behind the ongoing Sherlock Holmes saga in Universal could probably churn them out with their eyes closed and their hands behind their back. Director Roy William Neill and the acting duo of Rathbone and Bruce return to their positions for another short but delightfully entertaining murder mystery. Everything that made the previous entries with Neill in the helm so successful are reprised but not rehashed. The diabolic criminal mastermind (and master of disguises good enough to rival Holmes himself), this time one called Giles Connover, the henchmen taking potshots at Holmes and Watson, Nigel Bruce playing Dr. Watson as a bumbling fool and providing welcome comedic touches in doing so, Holmes disguises, the dark, almost noirish cinematography and on-the-spot deductions - all here once more and no less entertaining for that matter. It also provides the series with one of its most creepy goons, aptly named as The Creeper, whom Neill wisely conceals for most of his screen time in shadows and reveals as a *gasp* moment in just the right time. PEARL OF DEATH shows that Hollywood once had and has long now lost the knowledge of how to make worthwhile sequels on a budget that live up to their predecessor's name.

Somehow the ending of THE PEARL OF DEATH was picked up and plunked down into MURDER, MY SWEET: The unarmed Detective in the dark, faced up against Miles Mander and a hulking brute, turns the tables through his understanding of the relationships between the characters. I wonder if the writers at RKO ever acknowledged this swipe from Universal? At any rate, both films make good use of lighting and creepy sets to exploit the situation, and both directors (Dmytrick & Neill) know how to use the limited acting skills of Mike Mazurki and Rondo Hatton to best advantage. I liked Rathbone's pithy comment to the Police when they arrive to catch the baddies, "You won't need your revolver. Nor handcuffs. Worthy of a hard-boiled Private Eye in any film noir!

Here is yet another solid Sherlock Holmes entry, featuring Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce. This story centers around a chase by crooks to seize a valuable pearl, a bunch of murders that take place as a result of that pursuit, and Holmes trying to make sure the pearl stays with its rightful owner.

It turns out the pearl is hidden in one of six plastic Napoleon busts. Whoever buys these busts winds up dead by a hired killer, monstrous fiend called "The Creeper," a huge man-beast who literally breaks backs.

Holmes (Rathbone) narrowly avoids getting hurt several times himself while Watson (Bruce) mumbles his way through to provide comic relief. Dennis Hoey, who plays "Inspector Lestrade," is as dumb as a brick and adds more humor to the story.

This entry in Universal's awesome and prolific series of Sherlock Holmes films is one of the best that I've seen. The series works because it offers a solid hour (or so) of light entertainment, which it peppers with good humour and an engaging plot; and that is something that is masterfully handled with this movie. The plot of this film is great, and it follows Sherlock Holmes as he makes a rare blunder which leads to a rare and valuable pearl being stolen from a museum. It is then left up to the main man to make up for his mistake as he attempts to search for the lost gem and get to the bottom of the mystery surrounding it's disappearance. This plot makes a great base for a tale about the great detective as it puts him in a position that we don't usually see him in - the man in the wrong. Aside from being amusing, this also gives us the chance to see a different side of Basil Rathbone's portrayal of the great detective. His mannerisms and facial expressions as he realises the trouble that his showboating has brought are priceless, and a highlight of the series on the whole.

Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce make for a great on-screen duo as Sherlock Holmes and his sidekick, Dr Watson and they are joined by the inept police sergeant; Lestrade, and that only increases the comedy element of the movie. The plot line this time doesn't break any new boundaries where mystery plotting is concerned, but it ensures that the film always runs smoothly through it's short running time. It also makes for some great dialogue, and Holmes' speech towards the end is of particular note for being really well done. The atmosphere for this movie is really well done, and as we follow someone that breaks people's backs during the night; this helps the story immensely. My only criticism of this film really is the same one that could be applied to most of the series, and that's that the film is far too short, and we can never really get our teeth into the mystery because the film just isn't on for long enough. However, aside from that this is still a very good Sherlock Holmes adventure and if you've enjoyed other entries in the series, no doubt you'll like this one too.