Sherlock Holmes

In this day and age, we have been exposed to some excellent, enthusiastic actors tackling the mighty Sherlock. In 1932, there was nothing to speak of. Sir Arthur had died a few years before, and fans knew there would be no more original stories.

So, I think this is a pretty good "tour DE force." Sure, it's nowhere near any "real" Holmes story; and sure, it includes some pretty bizarre elements. But, given the times, it's worthwhile. There is some great acting, from underplaying of Holmes to really fun overplaying of the villains; a good pace to the story; and I was very happy with the production.

Think B-gangster movie and you won't be disappointed. But, if you really want Sherlock, fast forward to Basil Rathbone!

One of the earliest Sherlock Holmes films this is interesting if only for the fact that Holmes is about to get married as the film opens and even dons drag part way through. It may be best not to reflect too much on his relationship with Billy, the Canadian boy who Holmes is training in the arts of criminology. Dr Watson is relegated to an occasional appearance and the arch-villain Moriarty is played with a heavy leering menace that doesn't quite fit with the books. But there's not a lot here that does fit with the books although that does not necessarily detract. The impressive opening, with Moriarty cast in shadows as he proceeds to and from the courtroom for sentencing, sets an appropriate atmosphere which holds throughout. Not a great Sherlock Holmes by any stretch of the imagination, but an interesting example.

William K. Howard directed this at the top of his powers. Most sources claim he was influenced by Murnau. I think his stuff looks like Tod Browning, but it doesn't really matter where he got that fast-cutting-between-askew-images-from. It's compelling and exciting. On the other hand, the script is the least Sherlockian thing I have ever seen. It's a sequel to the Gillette play. Ernest Torrence, playing Moriarity with a gotch eye is to be hanged, so Holmes is set to retire, marry Miriam Jordan and live a life of riding to the hounds. But Moriarity escapes and begins to wreak a terrible vengeance.

Clive Brooks makes an adequate Holmes, , since he lives in a world of morons. Watson disappears early on, which is a good thing, since the role is played by Reginald Owen.

So, how do I rate this? It's a movie that is worth watching, because it is such a visual treat, with some wonderful ur-Noir cinematography by George Barnes, including a sequence that is mostly lit by arc welding light. However, pretend it's Bulldog Drummond and not Sherlock Holmes.

The famous sleuth is marked for death by his nemesis, Moriarty. Clive Brook makes a rather dour Holmes in this early '30s incarnation of the famous detective. Fox updated his story to the modern day, and relegated Watson (Reginald Owen) to the sidelines to be replaced by a glamorous fiancé (Miriam Jordan) who is a nuisance most of the time and, incredibly, has a disapproving father (Ivan F. Simpson), and some kid from Canada (Howard Leeds) whose presence is never satisfactorily explained. Perennial bad guy Ernest Terrence steals the film as Moriarty.

I think the casting for "Sherlock Holmes" (1932) is pretty much spot-on: Clive Brook is a well-rounded Sherlock Holmes, Reginald Owen is an enthusiastic (if underused) Dr. Watson, and Ernest Torrence is a sinister, dastardly Professor Moriarty. William K. Howard's direction is sometimes-dynamic and the film is enjoyable and even funny in spots, although if you take out the names of the principal characters it plays more like a regular crime / gangster film than a detective / deductive film (it all ends with an undergound shootout). But it does tick most of the right boxes along the way. **1/2 out of 4.