La perle des Borgia

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.

Rondo Hatton is my hero. Rondo took the crummy hand that fate dealt him and played it magnificently. He became one of the most endearing and cool anti-heroes of all B-moviedom. Hatton played The Creeper in three movies: The Pearl of Death, The House of Horrors, and The Brute Man (a prequel to House of Horrors). To experience Rondo Hatton as The Creeper is to experience pure magic! I watched horror movies as kid and always loved "the monster". A good "monster" gets my vote every damn time. The Creeper fits that bill perfectly and better than most. The Creeper is one of my all time favorite fright flick anti-heroes. GOD BLESS YOU RONDO HATTON!

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."

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!

Expertly directed by R. William Neill, who was responsible for the film noir classic "Black Angel", "The Pearl Of Death" is based on the Arthur Conan Doyle story "The Adventure of the Six Napoleons". This film has it all: mystery, action, comedy, horror, even a half-assed patriotic message tacked on to the end (it was made as WWII was coming to a close). I was impressed by Basil Rathbone's characterization of Holmes: he consistently utters lines that, coming from an inferior actor, would probably sound ridiculous, yet he manages (probably because this was his sixth turn at the character) to impress me with his believability and sheer presence on the screen. Until I saw this film I was always irritated by Nigel Bruce's bumbling Dr. Watson, whose character is miles away from the Watson portrayed in the books, but I now realize that he was the perfect foil for Rathbone's Holmes. The updating of Holmes into the modern era also troubles me, but the film manages to maintain a kind of 'timeless' quality by avoiding too many 'modern' references. Virgil Miller's cinematography is beautiful: I would hate to see it "Colorized" by Turner and his evil band. Miller, who shot another one of my favorite films, "Mr. Moto Takes A Chance" is the perfect compliment for Neill's great direction: together they make every shot interesting, and provide many unforgettable images.