The Sleeping Cardinal

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 Sleeping Cardinal', part of (and the first?) of the series of film with Arthur Wontner. Would also see anything that has Holmes encountering his arch-nemesis Professor Moriaty.

'The Sleeping Cardinal' 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 great, while some of the pace could have been tighter and some of the dialogue unnecessarily rambles a bit.

However, there are some starkly beautiful images on display and 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, the mystery and suspense is generally intact (the chemistry between Holmes and Moriaty thankfully do not underwhelm) 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 failed attempts at deduction. Lestrade is not too much of an idiot thankfully. The support is solid, though only Norman McKinnell's creepy Moriaty and refreshingly sassy Minnie Raynor are truly memorable.

Overall, worthwhile. 7/10 Bethany Cox

While there are so many actors that portrayed Sherlock Holmes over the years and the discussion about the most faithful one could go on forever, one thing is certain: nobody looked more similar to the original Holmes illustrations than Arthur Wontner. His resemblance to Sidney Paget's illustrations is truly uncanny, it is as if he was actually modelling for those... which is impossible of course as those were made some 30 years before this film. Of course that similarity alone would not be enough to make him a good Holmes, but fortunately his portrayal of the famous detective is also excellent and very close to the novels.

Ian Fleming gives a sometimes bit wooden, but otherwise also very good portrayal of Watson and even thought at points the film does make fun of him not being able to keep up with Holmes, he definitely is not reduced to being a comic relief (as it happened to Nigel Bruce way too often) and is portrayed as a trustworthy friend and helping hand for Holmes. The rest of the cast is also fine, except maybe Norman McKinnel, whose overacting gets a bit annoying at times.

And while several of the Rathbone movies wandered off very far from the source material, this movie, even though it is not flawless, stays true to Doyle's spirit. It is based on two shorts, The Final Problem and The Empty House (which were actually the last before and the first after the detective's The Great Hiatus), borrowing from both's plot, but it also adds new elements to the mix and the result is a bit messy at points. It stars with a bank watchman getting killed during what appears to be a robbery, but we soon learn that apparently no money was stolen. As we go on a young man who likes to cheat during card games gets involved in the story along with her sister (played by the beautiful Jane Welsh), we have Moriarty giving orders while hiding behind the painting of a sleeping cardinal (hence the film's title), a shoemaker who is not what he seems to be and Inspector Lestrade, played by Philip Hewland, being completely unable to follow Holmes' thinking. So, we have a lot going on, but the story is somewhat strained at times, however it isn't much of a problem really, and the good performances, along with the witty dialogue more than make up for it.

The Sleeping Cardinal eventually spawned four sequels and while unfortunately one of those, The Missing Rembrandt is lost, all the others are in public domain now, so they are very easy to come across. This was also considered a lost film for a long while, but now there are obviously at least two copies available and the version I came across was pierced together from those. The majority of the film came from a copy with quite OK sound and picture quality, while a few short scenes (about 5% or less of the film) that were probably missing from that print are from another copy with way inferior picture quality. But overall this version is very watchable, unlike some of the copies described in older reviews. The film was also released in the US (screed under the somewhat sensationalist title, Sherlock Holmes' Fatal Hour) where it proved to be a surprise hit and I wouldn't be too surprised to learn that the series' (that run from 1931 till 1937) success was an inspiration for 20th Century-Fox to try their hands on a Holmes movie in 1939.

This is probably the picture with the first portrayal of the famous sleuth that would have absolutely satisfied his 'creator', Arthur Conan Doyle. Arthur Wontner (who would play Holmes in four more movies) is exactly the eccentric, clever, cool and slightly sarcastic type that Doyle's 'Holmes' was in the novels - maybe even more exactly than Basil Rathbone, who would later become the most famous and 'characteristical' Holmes, playing the role no less than 15 times, because Wontner lacks Rathbone's haughtiness, which of course makes him more sympathetic to the audience... And the way he speaks in riddles, until the others actually think he's got some mental problem - although he's just giving them (and us) clues to the solution of the mystery - is also 'typically' Holmes; just like his favorite expression: "Elementary, my dear Watson, elementary!"

The VERY clever and twisted story is also treated in a masterful way and makes this movie, complete with the great acting of ALL involved and the moments of suspense and drama, but also of pure British humor, a REAL enjoyment for any fan of the crime genre or of classic movies in general; it's true that it doesn't have to show the scary special effects that the films with Rathbone had 10 years later - but it's a REAL treat for even the most demanding film fan to watch Holmes, obsessed with the idea that his arch-enemy, the criminal mastermind Moriarty, is behind all this, untangle the seemingly incoherent stories of card sharks and diplomats, real and forged money, boot makers and park trees; and maybe even be able to follow the master sleuth's thoughts and deductions!

One of the VERY best adaptations ever of a Sherlock Holmes adventure, this movie can easily compete with most of the - today much more famous - films starring Rathbone.

It's nice that this film exists, but as it stands it's a major disappointment. Director Leslie Hiscott and cinematographers Sydney Blythe and William Luff get some nice proto-noir compositions into the first and last reels, but in between it's a very claustrophobic movie that seems to take place entirely indoors, either in the home of Ronald Adair or in Sherlock Holmes' and Dr. Watson's digs at 221B Baker Street. We know the film is set in 1930 instead of the 1890's because Holmes deduces that Watson is having trouble with his car, but we never see any cars — or much action of any kind. It's just eight reels of dull, ill-paced talk (where was Alfred Hitchcock when they needed him? Actually working at a bigger, more prestigious British studio than Twickenham!), sloppily recorded by Baynham Honri, who for some reason gets an on-screen credit in type as big as the director's. And though I usually respect the critical judgments of the late William K. Everson — who said Arthur Wontner was one of the two best actors ever to play Holmes — he's never convinced me in the role. He's perfectly adequate in the scenes showing Holmes as a cerebral "armchair detective" but utterly wrong for the neurotic man of action Sir Arthur Conan Doyle also intended Holmes to be. But then to me (to paraphrase the opening of the Conan Doyle Holmes story "A Scandal in Bohemia") Basil Rathbone (who looked uncannily like the Sidney Paget illustrations for the original Holmes stories and did both the cerebral and the active sides of the character consummately well) will always be THE Sherlock Holmes.

SHERLOCK HOLMES' FATAL HOUR (1931) shows its age as a creaky early talkie, and the mystery isn't particularly thrilling. But Arthur Wontner is fantastic in the role of Sherlock Holmes and it's a real treat to see him play the sleuth here (for the first of several times).

Holmes is up against his arch-rival, the elusive Prof. Moriarty, the brain behind a vast criminal organization. It's true that there's very little action in this film, but listening to Wontner (as Holmes) explain his deductions and seeing him face off against his nemesis is fun stuff. The subplot about the card cheat gets tedious and it's a little annoying how Watson and Lestrade can never keep up with even the simplest jumps in Holmes's logic ("No one could've shot into this window from street level. And why are you blabbering about trees?"), but it's an enjoyable flick for fans of Arthur Conan Doyle's detective.