Sherlock Holmes goes over the top

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011)
Starring: Robert Downey Jr, Jude Law, Noomi Rapace, Jared Harris, and Kelly Reilly
Director: Guy Ritchie
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson (Downey and Law)track and fight anarchists and Holmes' nemesis Professor Moriarity (Harris) across Europe in a desperate bid to stop them from triggering war on a global scale.

"Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" picks up where the Downey and Law's first outing as Arthur Conan Doyle's legendary characters left off and carries forward along the trajectory of that first movie--the action is wilder and well over the top, and the scope of what's at stake if Moriarity bests Holmes has likewise been ratcheted up. Basically, if you hated the first movie because you felt it wasn't "Sherlock Holmes", you're going to hate this one.

Me, I hated the first movie, because director Guy Richie didn't seem able to tell a story, which is odd because he seemed pretty good at it with his early films like "Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels". And then there was the moronic way he and the script-writers chose to establish Holmes' prowess as a boxer and thus showed Holmes to be a bit of dolt at the same time--which he possessed in the Doyle stories, as those who paid attention to them rather than old Universal Pictures films or British TV shows would know--and the painful overuse of slow motion action sequences.

While Richie still made an obnoxious overuse of both slow motion and still-frame shots during action sequences, his story-telling was a little less muddled because the story really wasn't all that complicated and he didn't inadvertently paint Holmes as an idiot by having him engage in self-destructive behaviors beyond what we're used to from the Doyle stories and other films.

The acting was serviceable all around, and neither Holmes nor Watson were the exclusive butt of jokes; like the first Downey/Law pairing, one can actually understand why Holmes keeps Watson around... although I did find myself wondering sometimes why Watson puts up with Holmes. The comedy in the film was balanced nicely with action sequences, and it a very entertaining movie over all.

It is, however, an action film and not a mystery movie. There is really no mystery that Holmes is trying to unravel, but he is instead trying to outmaneuver Moriarty and the evil genius' master plan. The exact nature of that plan is hidden for a time, but it's not really relevant what Moriarity is up to when it comes right down to it. All in all, it's a film that is probably more entertaining if you watch it with the attitude you might watch a Jean Claude Van Damme vehicle, or maybe a James Bond movie.

"Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" is a rare sequel that's better than the film it follows. But if you want "classic Holmes", you're better off with almost any of the Holmes' films I've written about here.

Sherlock Sunday: Wontner in 'The Sign of Four'

The Sign of Four: Sherlock Holmes' Greatest Case (1932)
Starring: Arthur Wontner, Ian Hunter, Isla Bevan, and Graham Soutten
Director: Graham Cutts
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

After Mary Morstan (Bevan) receives a mysterious string of pearls and a mysterious letter requesting a meeting, and is then menaced by a mysterious thug (Soutten), she retains the services of private investigators Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson (Wontner and Hunter) for protection and to get some answers. What is brought to light is a tale of greed, decades-old treachery and murder, and a madman seeking revenge.


"The Sign of Four" is one of the most often adapted Holmes tales, with this 1932 film being the third version and the first talkie. It's a fast-moving and at times very chilling mystery film, with a cinematic style that often anticipates techniques that wouldn't come into wide use until the rise of film noir in the late 1940s and the 1950s. These stylstic flourishes help to offset some of the film's acting styles, which are still heavily influenced by what was then the fast-fading silent movies period, giving the film a more modern feel that many of the early talkies lack.

Another strong point of the film is the portrayal of Sherlock Holmes. Not only does Arthur Wotner's Holmes seem as though he was brought to life straight from the pen-and-ink illustrations in "The Strand Magazine," but Holmes here seems more at ease with himself and those around him than the one we most often find in the films. He comes across as a unmatched genius, but he also has a good sense of humor and a compassionate nature and friendly demeanor that makes it easy to understand why Watson admires him. Another aspect I like about this adaptation is the Holmes is shown to be as excellent at physical confrontations as he is with the matching of wits. During the film's climax, Holmes kicks much butt, just like the character that Doyle described in his fiction.

Similarly, Watson is portrayed as an intelligent and useful assistant to Holmes, so there is no difficulty in understanding why the Great Detective keeps him around and relies on him for important tasks. This cannot be said of Watson in several other Holmes adaptatations.

While I generally liked how Watson was handled in the film, one aspect of Ian Hunter's portrayal of Watson I didn't care for was the way he came across like a lecherous pervert whenever he was around Mary Morstan. He is ogling her, pawing her... obviously barely able to keep himself from jumping her right then and there. While I understand that the intent was to portray "love at first sight" between Watson and Mary--who becomes his wife in the Doyle tales--the combination of clunky writing and silent movie-type acting makes one wonder why Mary wasn't beating this disgusting lech (who is also at least twice her age) with his cane and then running screaming from the room.

While the film keeps most of the generalities of the original Doyle tale, there are a number of changes that lend the film to be internally inconsistent and even nonsensical at times. The villain is so over the top and reprehensible that one wonders why his henchmen stick around, or even helped him in the first place; while the fact that the entire stolen treasure seems to be intact when Mary is sent the pearls instead of partially spent as in the original story; and a bizarre bit of comedy involving the neigh-obligatory "Holmes-in-disguise" scene. Some viewers might also be annoyed by the fact the story has been transported from the 1800s to the modern-day period of the 1930s, but it really makes no difference to the overall thrust of the tale.

On balance, though, it's a strong adaptation that is made even stronger by Wontner's excellent portrayal of Holmes. It's well worth checking out.

Sherlock Sunday: Holmes Faces Death

Sherlock Holmes Faces Death (1943)
Starring: Basil Rathbone, Nigel Bruce, Arthur Margetson, Hillary Brooke, and Dennis Hoey
Director: Roy William Neill
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

Sherlock Holmes (Rathbone) is summoned to the country by his friend Dr. Watson (Bruce) to solve discover the secrets behind a series of murders at a convalesce home for injured military officers.




The fourth installment of Universal Pictures' "modern day" adventures of Sherlock Holmes is a loose adaptation of Doyle's story "The Musgrave Ritual." It's an effective update of the tale, and it's perhaps the most thrilling of the Universal Holmes I've seem so far. It's certainly the darkest, as it continues to deal with the contemporary (for when the film was made) issues of World War 2. This time, it deals with homefront issues, such as caring for soldiers who return from battle not just with physical injuries but mental damage as well. It's one aspect of the film that gives it staying-power and that makes it just as relevant today as six decades ago.

The film is especially effective in the way it creates the ending. It gives viewers a real sense that Holmes has outsmarted himself for once and that the clever trap he lays to get the otherwise untouchable killer to reveal himself turns into a death trap for Holmes himself. It's a very well-done twist to the story, and twice-welcomed due to the fact that Holmes' bait and trap are so cliched that I feared for what was going to come next when it showed up in the film.

Also worth noting is that the idiotic hairstyle that Holmes sported in the first few movies in this series is gone. The treatment of Watson and other characters is also notably more respectful by Holmes in this film than in several other entries in the picture. Yes, he puts Lestrade down when he's being a bonehead, but he shows more respect for Watson than is average for the series and he doesn't seem like he's constantly trying to prove how superior he is to everyone around him.

Sherlock Sunday: Holmes vs. Nazi Spies in America

Sherlock Holmes in Washington (1943)
Starring: Basil Rathbone, Nigel Bruce, Marjorie Lord, Henry Daniell and George Zucco
Director: Roy William Neill
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

When a British secret agent vanishes while on a mission to Washington, D.C., the British government sends Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson (Rathbone and Bruce) to the United States to uncover what happened to him and to learn if valuable secrets have fallen into the hands of the Nazis.


"Sherlock Holmes in Washington" is the final and best of the Universal "Holmes vs. the Nazis" trilogy of films. It features a well-crafted and suspenseful plot that takes full advantage both of Holmes' legendary deductive powers as well as the modern (early 1940s) setting, with the mystery revolving around missing documents that unbeknownst to heroes and villains alike have been duplicated on microfilm and hidden inside a matchbook that is then passed from character to character and almost lost for good on more than one occassion. The fact that the audience knows exactly where the documents everyone is looking for adds greatly to the suspense (and fun) of the film as it unfolds.

In addition to its expertly constructed plot, the film also features well-written dialogue that is delivered by a cast that are all at the top of their game. Rathbone's Holmes is the best I've ever seen itm Bruce's Watson is comedic but not annoyingly dimwitted, and Daniell and Zucco are excellent as the Nazi secret agents. From the film's opening scenes to the closing anti-fascism remarks from Holmes, this is a film that provides top-notch and classy entertainment. It's a move that fans of Sherlock Holmes and classic crime dramas will enjoy equally. (Heck, even if you're some sort of misguided moron who admires Nazis, you'll enjoy this flick. The ones in this story are smarter than the average bunch, be they fictional or real.)

Sherlock Sunday: Moriarty teams with up with the Nazis!

Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon (1943)
Starring: Basil Rathbone, Nigel Bruce, Lionel Atwill, William Post Jr, Kaaren Verne and Dennis Hoey
Director: Roy William Neill
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

Sherlock Holmes (Rathbone) is charged with rescuing a Swiss scientist (Post) and his revolutionary new bomb-sighting system from the Nazis and bringing him safely to England. However, when the scientist turns out to have too high an opinion of himself and his intelligence, and he falls into the hands of British Nazi agents, Holmes finds himself in race against his old nemesis Professor Moriarty (Atwill) to unlock a coded message that reveals where the prototype of the bomb-sight is hidden.



"Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon" is the second of Universal's "Holmes vs. the Nazis" flick, and it is not only a fun Holmes adventure but a passable espionage thriller. The opening sequence where Holmes outsmarts the Gestapo agents who have crossed into Switzerland to kidnap genius inventor Franz Tobel is a great bit of filmmaker--and the only part of the film that stuck with me from the first time I saw this film at some point in the distant past. (I have no memory of watching this film before, but that opening bit, the revelation of Holmes, and the get-away was all very familiar to me.)

Like many movies of this type, the villains initially benefit from the fact that Holmes' charge may be a genius when it comes to inventing military hardware, but he's otherwise an idiot who ends up in Professor Moriarty's clutches because he had sneak out for a clandestine booty call and because of irrational demands placed on the British security forces regarding the production of his bomb sights. This is what leads to the race to decrypt the code. Apparently, Dr. Tobel is SUCH a genius that he knew the clandestine booty call was a bad idea, so he wrote a code he thought only Holmes would be able to help build his bomb sight should he come to a bad end. Too bad for Tobel that a man almost as part as Holmes is the one who grabbed him.



Speaking of Moriarity, Lionel Atwill gives an excellent performance as Holmes' evil opposite. The script writers also do a nice job of demonstrating his sinister genius by having him and Holmes discover the key to unlocking a particular complicated part of the code only by accident. (I suppose this means that neither are as smart as Tobel gave them credit for... but at least neither Holmes nor Moriarty would sneak out for booty calls while Nazi agents are prowling the streets looking for them.)

In some ways, actually, the film makes Moriarty out to be a bit smarter than Holmes in some ways, but ultimately too crazy to be as effective an evil genius as he might be. Twice during this picture, Holmes places himself completely at Moriarty's mercy, presumably assuming that the evil professor won't just kill him. A pretty stupid thing to do, and one that almost backfires at one point and leads to a more chilling portrayal of Moriarity than I've ever seen. Still, if he had just killed Holmes instead of being duped into killing him slowly (by Holmes playing off Moriarty's ego and sadism), he would have won the day AND the war for his Nazi paymasters.

Then again, if Moariarity had been as smart as Holmes, he wouldn't have teamed up with Nazi losers to begin with... and there wouldn't have been a movie.

"Sherlock Holmes and the Secret Weapon" is a film that you'll enjoy if you get a kick out of old-time thrillers and pulp-fiction style detective tales. Hardcore Holmes fans will probably mostly enjoy the film for it being a sequel of sorts to Doyle's "The Dancing Men" short story, but only if they aren't too annoyed by Holmes and Watson being transplanted to 1940s London instead of 1880s London. (And all of us will have to ignore the goofy looking hair-do on Holmes. I will have to get around to researching that. It is so stupid looking there HAS to be story behind it.)

Sherlock Sunday:Holmes against the Nazi Voice of Terror

Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror (1942)
Starring: Basil Rathbone, Nigel Bruce, Henry Daniell, Thomas Gomez and Reginald Denny
Director: John Rawlins
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

As Hitler's armies devour mainland Europe, Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson (Rathbone and Bruce) are retained by British Intelligence to stop the activities of Nazi saboteurs being coordinated by the mysterious Voice of Terror in radio broadcasts that hijack the British airwaves once a week. Holmes soon comes to suspect that the broadcasts portent something far more sinister and dangerous than the horrific acts of terrorist... and that the enemy within England itself is more powerful than dreamed of in the worst nightmares.



Loosely based on Conan Doyle's "His Final Bow" (where Holmes came out of retirement to catch a German spy at the beginning of WW1) and the real-life Nazi propaganda broadcasts that overrode BBC signals during the early 1940s, "Sherlock Holmes and the Voice of Terror" is the first of a dozen Holmes movies starring Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce that transports the Great Detective and his loyal sidekick to modern day England. (Modern-day being the 1940s.)

Holmes' methods receive a slight upgrade--the key to unlocking the mystery behind how the Voice of Terror is able to coordinate the broadcasts and the sabotage involves analyzing different types of broadcast with cutting edge audio equipment--he trades in his deerstalking cap and tweed cape for an fedora and overcoat, and the speed of modern travel and communication also impacts the story, but overall the character of Holmes is as it's found in the pages of Doyle.

Although partly a war-time propaganda movie--the kind that I've lamented aren't made anymore, what with American filmmakers preferring to glorify those who would take away their freedom rather than those who defend it--with the patriotic speeches and dastardly Nazi villains that encompasses, the film sets the tone for most of the Universal efforts that will follow. Holmes is a renegade genius, Watson is a doddering moron that seems like he is going senile (even if he isn't quite as dimwitted here as he seems in later pictures), and the villains are of a stripe that would make even the worst of the worst that inhabited the pages of pulp fiction magazines in the 1930s give them a wide berth. But the stories are exciting and fun, so the bad treatment of Watson can be overlooked... as well as the absolutely rediculous hair style that Holmes sports in these early Universal films. (Transporting Holmes to modern-day was the idea of Basil Rathbone who felt the Victorian era was too old fashioned, so I wonder if he was also the genius behind that awful hair.)

While Watson as a ninny didn't originate with the Rathbone/Bruce pictures--there were hints of it as far back as the Arthur Wontner pictures--but it was these pictures that solidified the approach as "standard." The same is true of Holmes as nearly 100% hands-off as far as physical altercations go; when a brawl breaks out between Nazi agents and Limehouse ruffians hired by Holmes as muscle, you almost get the sense that Holmes is afraid to get in the middle of the fight. The Rathbone Holmes seems like he would never throw a punch but would instead leave it to others even in the most dire of situations, so it is with these films that the idea that a "action-oriented" Holmes isn't truthful to Doyle began.

The strong presence of these somewhat legacies aside in this film doesn't really harm the entertainment value, however. The story is too fast paced for anything but Holmes bad hair to distract from the fun, and excellent performances by the stars and supporting cast only made it that much better.


Basil Rathbone is excellent as always as Sherlock Holmes (even if I will always prefer Peter Cushing's portrayal) and Nigel Bruce is solid as the comic relief, perhaps even moreso than in future sequels as less of the humor is at the expense of his character than will become the norm. Other standout performances are delivered by Henry Daniell (who will return to the series again and again, as a different villainous character almost every time) and Reginald Denny as power-brokers in British Intelligence, either of which could be a double-agent and the Voice of Terror himself. Finally, Evelyn Ankers has a small but important part as a Limehouse bar girl who helps Holmes track the Voice of Terror's main operative for deeply personal reasons.

Universal started the film with a title card that described the character of Sherlock Holmes as timeless, a character that works equally well in his "native world" of late 19th century London or the "modern day" of the 1940s. This film, and the sequels that followed--several of which saw Holmes cross wits with Nazis and their agents--show this to be true. Heck, they even make a person wonder what Holmes might do with the Internet and modern science if he were to be transported to the PRESENT modern day.

Sherlock Sunday:The Case of the Whitechapel Vampire

The Case of the Whitechapel Vampire (2002)
Starring: Matt Frewer, Kenneth Welsh, Shawn Lawrence, Neville Edwards, Isabel Dos Santos, Cary Lawrence and Tom Rack
Director: Rodney Gibbons
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

When members of a religious order based in London's Whitechapel District start dying at the hands of what appears to be a vampire, Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson (Frewer and Welsh) are hired to find the culprit, be it a living psychopath, one of the walking dead, or a vengeful Central American demon-god.



After my luke-warm review of "A Royal Scandal," more than one reader told me that I needed to watch this Matt Frewer-starring Holmes, saying that it was a better movie on every level. And they were right.

Featuring an original story co-scripted by the director, this film is faster paced than "A Royal Scandal", more atmospheric, and, more importantly, it gives both Matt Frewer and Kenneth Welsh much more to work with as actors because it makes far better use of both Holmes and Watson as characters.

In my review of "The Royal Scandal", I put most of the blame for a weak pretrial of Holmes on Matt Frewer when I should have put it on the script, because given more and better material, Frewer does a passable job. Primarily, Frewer gets to portray Holmes looking down his nose at superstitions such as beliefs in spiritualism, vampires, and even God himself. This gives him more of a chance to display different facets of Holmes' character and even to play off Welsh's Watson a bit more than in the previous outing. Frewer's Holmes still isn't as equal to that brought to us by Basil Rathbone or Peter Cushing, but when given good material, he does a better job than either Robert Stephenson or Christopher Plummer did during their outings.

Kenneth Welsh is also redeemed as Watson in this picture. Like Frewer, once he had more to work with, he brought a life to the role that was lacking in "The Royal Scandal". Even better, Watson is written like just the sort of intelligent and capable assistant/friend that someone like Holmes would want to have at his back. In one of my favorite moments in the film, the final scene in fact, Watson even gets the last laugh as far as an on-going discussion about the existence of God and other supernatural beings are concerned, with Holmes being absolute steadfast in his denial of any such poppycock and Watson reserving judgement.

The supporting cast is also more interesting than that featured in "A Royal Scandal" and the "vampire murders" and the person committing them being gruesome and strange enough that the viewer is far less certain than Holmes (and even Watson) that they may indeed be the work of a demon or an undead monster. So well done is the film that you may be wondering right up to the very end where Holmes finds himself locked in a struggle for his very life with the killer.

Whereas I felt "The Royal Scandal" was a film Holmes fans could skip, I recommend this one more strongly. It's more faithful to Doyle and his vision that even some that purport to be faithful adaptations (especially when it comes to Watson's stance on the supernatural. Doyle was a True Believer when it came to spiritualism, so it's fitting that the defacto narrator of Holmes' adventures should at least have an open mind on the subject).

Sherlock Sunday: Cushing's Final Bow

The Masks of Death (aka "Sherlock Holmes and the Masks of Death") (1984)
Starring: Peter Cushing, John Mills, Anne Baxter, Anton Diffring and Ray Milland
Director: Roy Ward Baker
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

An elderly Holmes (Cushing) and Dr. Watson (Mills) come out of retirement in the years just before the start of WWI to investigate two baffling mysteries that turn out to be related. Old friends also return, and Holmes may even get to have a rematch with The Woman as he tries to solve the mysterious deaths of five unconnected men in London and the disappearance of a German prince from a country estate.


Peter Cushing once again gives an excellent performance as Sherlock Holmes in what I like to pretend is his final role. He was dying even while making this movie, but he did not appear so frail so as to it being obvious, as he did in the few other film appearances he had after this one.

Cushing's Holmes is often gruff and cranky, but he remains charming and likable. John Mills also gives a good performance as his loyal assistant Watson, who is treated far better by both the actor and the script writers than he is in most adaptations; it is very clear in this film that Watson is only a dunce when compared to Sherlock Holmes.

This made-for-TV movie is an excellent Holmes adventure that captures the feel of Conan Doyle's stories like few attempts to bring Holmes to the screen have. It's also a reunion/farewell performance of sorts for actors and crew that were regulars on Hammer and Amicus productions, as it features several actors who were were regulars in those films and is directed by Roy Ward Baker.

"The Masks of Death" is, sadly, not available on DVD and long out of print on VHS. I hope that the Robert Downey Jr Holmes movies will cause whoever owns the rights to this one to release it on DVD.

Sherlock Sunday: Terror By Night

Terror By Night (1946)
Starring: Basil Rathbone, Nigel Bruce, Alan Mowbray and Dennis Hoey
Director: Roy William Neill
Rating: Eight of Ten Stars

When the diamond he was hired to protect is stolen and the son of its son is murdered right under the nose of Sherlock Holmes (Rathbone) and Inspector Lestrade (Hoey), as they travel by night train from London to Edinburgh. The great detective must solve a locked-room mystery and recover the diamond before the train reaches its destination to save both his reputation and that of Lestrade. To complicate matters even further, the nefarious Colonel Moran is on the train as well, possibly seeking revenge for Holmes causing the death of his associate, Professor Moriarty.


"Terror By Night" is a nice Holmes adventure that puts all the characters in a sealed environment with the killer and one that still manages to keep the mystery going strong up to the very end, even if there really is only one likely suspect from about halfway through the film (due to the way these things usually work out). However, it you're the kind of viewer like me who likes to play along in solving the case, the film is still entertaining once you've figured out the killer, there is still the question as to how he is going to get away with it.

Although briskly paced and well-acted, the film isn't perfect. I found myself wondering how the various villains on board the train were moving about unseen(something the film never did fully answer) and I further was unclear on why the second murder was committed, as it put Holmes on a direct path to solving the mystery. (Unless that was part of the master plan all along? Let Holmes get a victory that would facilitate his ultimate defeat? I'll have to watch the film again to see if maybe I missed something there.)

Nigel Bruce's Watson continues to be portrayed as just shy of a total idiot, although he has fewer opportunities to behave like a moron here, as he spends most of the film hanging out with an Army buddy who happens to be traveling on the train. Bruce is still the primary comic relief, but fewer jokes are at his character's expense than usual. Similarly, Holmes has fewer opportunities to mistreat Watson. One can actually believe they're friends in this picture.

"Terror By Night" is a fun, fast-paced Holmes adventure that shows why the Basil Rathbone films are celebrated by fans of classic mystery films and Holmes alike. It has nothing to do with the original Doyle tales, but it is a nice use of his characters.

Sherlock Sunday:A horse brings murder to Baskerville Hall

Murder at the Baskervilles (aka "Silver Blaze") (1937)
Starring: Arthur Wontner, Ian Fleming, Lyn Harding, John Turnbull Lawrence Grossmith and Arthur Goullett
Director: Thomas Bentley
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson (Wontner and Fleming) are spending some quiet time in the country at the home of their old friend Sir Henry Baskerville (Grossmith) when an attempt to fix a race involving Sir Henry's prize horse Silver Blaze leads to a double murder.


Although this was Arthur Wontner's final outing as Sherlock Holmes--after a string of five films that caused critics of the day to describe him as the perfect screen Sherlock Holmes--I am choosing to make it the first of his films that I include in the Sherlock Sunday line-up, because of my love of continuity. Story-wise, it seems like it is best placed before the other Wontner Holmes films currently easily available, because it has him still actively employed as a detective and it describes his first direct clash with Professor Moriarty.

I can see Wontner's Holmes appeals to both fans and critics alike. He, moreso than any other actor in the role I've considered in a critical mindset, resembles the illustrations from the original printings in "Strand Magazine" and his Holmes is lively without being too aggressive and often sardonic without being excessively cruel to those he puts down. Best of all, from my perspective, although he is not shy about showing Watson how much smarter he is, he still treats him with the consideration due a friend and one never wonders why Watson bothers spending time with him. Wontner presents a charming Holmes that is somewhat low key when compared to the actors who followed him, but still entertaining. (And watching this Wontner film again makes me think that there must be another reason for why I didn't find Matt Frewer's Sherlock Holmes particularly engaging as the two portrayals are very similar.)

As for Watson, Ian Fleming provides a decent if unremarkable portrayal of Holmes' friend and biography. Both from the way the role is written and the way Fleming portrays Watson, it easy to understand why Holmes associates with him, which is a flaw in many on-screen interperations of the character. Watson even gets a moment in the sun when he is captured by Moriarty's men and remains brave in the face of certain death.

Speaking of Moriarty, who, like Sir Henry Baskerville has been added to the mix by the writers of this adaptation, I very much like the approach taken to him in his film. He and his main henchman, Colonel Moran, are set up like dark reflections of Holmes and Watson. Moriarty is to the underworld what Holmes is to the law-abiding citizen, a genius to whom they can appeal for help when all other avenues have been exhausted. It adds a great deal to the flavor of Moriarty and it makes it even clearer why the two men admired and hated each other so much and why it was so hard for one to defeat the other. (At least in concept. For a criminal mastermind, Moriarty is somewhat hamfisted and clumsy in this particular caper, although that can be excused by his own admission that fixing horse races is not his usual area of activity.)

All-in-all, this is a pleasant Holmes film. It's a little on the bland side, but I think fans of Holmes and 1930s mystery pictures will enjoy it. It's a shame that there does not appear to be a decent copy available on the DVD market. (I've come across three different versions, all equally faded and ragged... perhaps even taken from the same print?)





(I mentioned Matt Frewer's portrayal of Sherlock Holmes above. I invite you to check out my review of "A Royal Scandal" by clicking here and perhaps even leave a comment about why I might be wrong about Frewer as Sherlock Holmes.)

Sherlock Sunday: Matt Frewer vs. THE Woman

A Royal Scandal (2001)
Starring: Matt Frewer, Kenneth Welsh, Liliana Komorowska, R.H. Thomson and Robin Wilcock
Director: Rodney Gibbons
Rating: Five of Ten Stars

Sherlock Holmes (Frewer) is retained to recover compromising photos of one of Europe's crown princes (Wilcock). The case is complicated by the fact that the photos are in the possession of Holmes' old love/adversary Irene Adler (Komorowska) and that the British government and Holmes' brother Mycroft (Thomson) want to get their hands on the photos as well.


"A Royal Scandal" is a so-so Holmes tale that merges "The Bruce-Pardington Papers" with a loose adaptation of "A Scandal in Bohemia." It's a made-for-TV movie that wastes no time in getting started and keeps the pace nice and brisk as it unfolds and makes sure that the viewer is never bored--assuming the viewer is in the mood for a Holmesian-style mystery. The way Holmes deals with betrayal and dishonesty by those he cares about (and whom he thought he could rely on) is an interesting aspect of the story. That, along with the Victorian espionage intrigues--echoes of last week's Sherlock Sunday entry, "The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes"--is one of the more entertaining aspects of the film, but it isn't enough to make up for the weaknesses.

The film's problems lie primarily with the casting, and, to a lesser degree, with the scripting.

As fun as Matt Frewer usually is to watch in most roles he's played, he makes a weak Sherlock Holmes. He doesn't have the arrogant intensity of Basil Rathbone or Peter Cushing's Holmes, he doesn't have the boyish exuberance of Ronald Howard'd Holmes, he doesn't have the emotional intensity of Robert Downey Jr or Christopher Plummer's interpretations, nor even the limpwristed feyness of the one presented by Robert Stephens. He doesn't bring any larger-than-life qualities to the character, something which seems to be a necessity for a successful screen-portrayal of Sherlock Holmes. A giant such as Holmes need to have something to seperate him from the masses of humanity, and Holmes as portrayed by Frewer has nothing.

The script is also something of an issue. Holmes is one step behind his adversaries for the entire story. Although many cinematic tales of Holmes deal with him being bested--especially when Irene Adler is involved--few have him so completely in the dark as he is during this tale. Even after the case has been resolved, it's clear that although Holmes figured out the puzzle and mostly identified all the players correctly, he at no time had the initiative and he was successfully manipulated from beginning to end. All in all, a disappointing adventure both for Holmes and for the viewers.

The rest of cast is as bland as Frewer. Kenneth Welsh's Watson has very little screen time, but what he has is forgettable. Not only does Watson have very little to do in the story, but Welsh is completely unremarkable in the role. Liliana Komorowska makes an attractive Irene Adler and brings enough sexy charisma to the role to make it believable that Holmes might fall in lust with her, but the part itself feels underwritten and empty--and her tendency to carry around an unloaded gun is a very silly habit for a character who deals with lethal criminals and spies on a daily basis.

"A Royal Scandal" is a forgettable entry in the Holmes. The Five I am giving it is about as low a Five as possible without making it a Four. I'm being generous with the film because it did keep me entertained, but only just, and because it's all-around technically competent. But it's a film you can safely skip.

Sherlock Sunday: 'The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes'is the most overrated Holmes film?

The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes (1970)
Starring: Robert Stephens, Colin Blakely, Geneviève Page and Christopher Lee
Director: Billy Wilder
Rating: Five of Ten Stars

Holmes and Watson (Stephens and Blakely) endeavor to learn the identity of a woman suffering from amnesia (Page) after she is dropped off at their apartments at 221B Baker Street. They soon find themselves drawn into a mystery involving a missing Belgian engineer, Holmes' politically powerful brother Mycroft (Lee) and the Loch Ness Monster.


"The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes" features an ill-implemented attempt at presenting a more vulnerable and human Holmes. During the film's first half hour, Holmes expresses discomfort at the way Watson's writings have turned him into a star and laments that he feels obligated to run around in a deer stalker hat and tweed cloak because that is how artists protrayed him in Strand magazine. Comments made by Watson in this early part of the film also seems to imply that he as exaggerated some of Holmes' exploits and characteristics.

However, as the film unfolds, this approach is dropped and it slips into a story-telling mold that was established with the Basil Rathbone-starring series from Universal Pictures during the 1940s, with Holmes abusing Watson at almost every turn yet still insisting that he's his friend. It's not the clever and unique approach that some reviewers paint it as.

Perhaps this is because they don't get past that first half hour. It was a description of that half hour from a friend whose taste I trust that made me move this film up in my review stack, because her description of Holmes starting a rumor that he and Watson were a committed gay couple sounded intriguing.

Sadly, like the idea of presenting a more human Holmes, the gay rumor angle ends up going nowhere in the picture as a whole. It's little more than an extended bit of sketch comedy within the picture, and as a story element perhaps one of the most aggregious examples of Holmes behaving like a jerk toward Watson for no reason whatsoever other than to let the viewer develope an intense dislike for Holmes and cause one to wonder why on earth Watson continues to consider him a friend.

This would have been a stronger film if that first half hour had been strongly edited, with the entire business involving a Russian ballerina and Holmes pretending that he and Watson were gay lovers had been dropped. It's material that has nothing to do with the rest of the story and it adds nothing positive to the overall portrayal of Holmes or Watson.

This would also have been a stronger film if a more suitable actor had been cast to play Holmes. I never thought I would see a more effeminate version of the character than the one portrayed by Christopher Plummer in "Murder by Degree", but Robert Stephens has proven me wrong. Plummer's Holmes comes across like more macho-than-macho when viewed in light of what Stephens did.

The rest of the cast, however, does a good job--and Stephens isn't bad once one gets used to the simpering, limp-wristeed interpretation of Holmes--although there does seem to be a tendency to overact. Both Page (and the mystery woman) and Blakely ham it up just a bit too much in some scenes. It's expected from Blakely, as his Watson is pure comic relief, but Page should have dialed back on the melodramatic stylings once or twice.

If you enjoy the general tone of the Basil Rathbone Holmes, I think you'll like this one, even if you'll often find yourself wondering how much better the film would have been if Holmes had been better cast. You'll like it even more if you enjoyed the humorous approach found in the Ronald Howard-starring television series. What you won't find, however, is the alleged genius of writer/director Billy Wilder. Overall, this is an average presentation of the Doyle's classic characters with some glimmers of what could have been a great film shining through here and there. If only Wilder had been a little more aggressive with his reinterperation instead of falling back onto familiar and safe territory that had been thoroughly explored during the 1940s and 1950s.





Trivia: Christopher Lee is, so far, the only actor to portray both Sherlock Holmes (in "The Deadly Necklace") and Mycroft Holmes (in "The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes").

Sherlock Sunday: The Woman in Green

The Woman in Green (1945)
Starring: Basil Rathbone, Nigel Bruce, Hillary Brooke, Henry Daniell and Matthew Boulton
Director: Roy William Neill
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

Inspector Gregson (Boulton) turns to Sherlock Holmes (Rathbone) for help in solving a series of grisly mutilation murders. Holmes soon discovers the murders are only part of a much larger criminal enterprise... and that his old foe Professor Moriarty (Daniell) may have returned to London.


"The Woman in Green" is not one of the best of the Universal Pictures' Holmes movies, but even so it's obvious why so many fans believe the Basil Rathbone Holmes is THE Holmes. Pains were taken to make Rathbone and the set of 221B Baker Street like living manifestations of the famous Sidney Paget illos from Strand Magazine and those efforts go along way to making this film fun to watch. Rathbone's Holmes is also very no-nonsense and task focused, always straight to the point; with the exception of his occasional ribbing of Watson, there is none of the humor present in so many other portrayals of Holmes.

But speaking of Watson, he is the weak point in this film, as he is in just about every one of the Holmes films from Universal. Nigel Bruce does a fine job as being comic relief as the bumbling, dimwitted Watson, but one continues to wonder why Holmes would keep him around, because he causes more problems than he solves. Is it just so Watson can pick up the tab for dinner now and then? Perhaps Watson is going senile, and Holmes keeps him around out of love and respect for the way he used to be? As excellent and accurate as the portrayal of Holmes in these films is when compared to the Doyle stories, Watson is completely off target.

The plot of the film is original, although there's an assassination attempt on Holmes that's taken from "The Empty House," and there's some dialogue that I think was lifted from "The Final Solution." Like the majority of the other Universal Holmes films, the characters were transported to modern times (which means the 1940s), but this doesn't seem to harm them in any way. If anything, it enhances the characterization of Holmes, because it forced the costumers to ditch the ludicrously out-of-place tweed coat and deerstalker hat that so many filmmakers insist on making the character wear even while in the city.






"The Woman in Green" is one of several Holmes movies that slipped into public domain when the copyright wasn't properly renewed during the 1970s. It's available in a number of value packs (taken from copies of varying quality), but if you want to have the best image quality possible, you want to get "The Sherlock Holmes Collection, Vol. 3," which includes an excellent restoration. The other collection linked to is recommended due to its low price and the fact that you get three Rathbone films and three films starring Arthur Wontner as Holmes.

Sherlock Sunday: Ronald Howard in 'Sherlock Holmes'

Sherlock Holmes (39 half-hour episodes, produced 1954-1955)
Starring: Ronald Howard, Howard Marion Crawford, Archie Duncan and Kenneth Richards
Directors: Steve Previn (25 episodes), Sheldon Reynolds (9 episodes) and Jack Gage (4episodes)
Rating: Six of Ten Stars

From 1954 through 1955, Ronald Howard starred as Sherlock Holmes, with Howard Marion-Crawford as Dr. Watson, in a 39-episode series that was produced in France with a British cast. The half-hour episode were mostly original stories, with some drawing heavily on some of Doyle's original tales (like "The Case of the Red Headed League," and "The French Interpreter," which was almost a straight adaptation of "The Greek Interpreter").

The series is more lighthearted than most Holmes adaptations that don't bill themselves as comedy, with Watson, Holmes and Lestrade taking turns at being the focus of humor, the butt of jokes, and even solving the mysteries at hand.

Ronald Howard's Holmes is a flighty, playful man possessed with an almost juvenile sense of humor. While he is every bit the genius one finds in the Conan Doyle tales, he comes across more like an overgrown child than a man who grows erratic when bored. But he is also probably far more fun to be around than Holmes would have been as he was written by Watson (and portrayed in most other adaptions). In fact, the boyish nature of Holmes as we find him here makes the cluttered rooms at 221B Baker Street seem almost like a clubhouse where he and Watson hang out after school. It's a sense that is enhanced by the good humor and comedy running through nearly every episode.


The comedic touches in the episodes is a nice addition to the Holmes tales, but an even nicer touch is the fact that Watson is repeatedly shown to be smart and capable. On more than on occasion, he even manages to out-do Holmes, primarily because Watson is more down-to-earth and less prone to flights of fancy. Another refreshing aspect to Watson's character is that he more than once stands up to Holmes rather fiercely, refusing to be the brunt of his jokes and on more than one occasion getting Holmes to apologize. In fact, the relationship between Holmes and Watson seems more real in this series than in several other versions, despite the buffoonery and antics.

Another interesting aspect of the series is the way Archie Duncan appears as several different characters throughout. His main role is as Inspector Lestrade, but he also appears as Lestrade's cousin and even one of the villains as the series unfolds.

Like all television series, this one is a mixed bag. Of the 39 episodes produced, a handful are excellent (like "The Case of the Jolly Hangman" where Holmes helps a widow by proving her husband didn't commit suicide, "The Case of the Perfect Husband" where Holmes must save an innocent woman from her psychopathic husband while attempting to prove that he has murdered half a dozen women previously) or "The Case of the Belligerent Ghost" where Watson is repeated assaulted by a dead man), a few are absolutely awful (like "The Case of the Texas Cowgirl" which has a nonsensical plot and a lame mystery, while "The Case of the Thistle Killer" was so weak that Holmes should hang his head in shame for taking so long to solve it), but most are decent little mystery tales. Some have darker tones than others--"The Case of the Perfect Husband" and "The Mother Hubbard Case" are chillers that deal with deadly serial killers, while "The Christmas Pudding" sees Holmes under real threat of death for perhaps the only time in the whole series--but the series can be a great introduction to Sherlock Holmes if you have young kids who are getting into mysteries.

There are a couple of different DVD packages that contain the entire series. I viewed the one issued by Mill Creek. The quality of the source tapes varies from episode to episode, but the sound is generally clear and the picture is only occasionally washed out. It's not perfect, but the three-disk set is very reasonably priced.

Sherlock Sunday:Sherlock Holmes meets Jack the Ripper

Murder By Degree (1979)
Starring: Christopher Plummer, James Mason and David Hemmings
Director: Bob Clark
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

When a citizens committee hires Sherlock Holmes (Plummer) to apprehend Jack the Ripper, he and Watson (Mason) find themselves in the middle of deadly series of plots and conspiracies to either overthrow or protect the British monarchy.


"Murder By Degree" is a film that should appeal equally to lovers of some of the darker Basil Rathbone Holmes movies, the Ronald Howard-starring television series, and even the Holmes stories themselves. It might even appeal to those who enjoyed the most recent big screen Sherlock Holmes adventure directed by Guy Ritchie. It occupies a point somewhere between the original Doyle stories, the black-and-white Holmes adventures and the Ritchie film, bringing both humor and horror to the table while reminding us that Holmes was just as much a man of action as he was a man of intellect. Like the Ritchie film, Holmes shows here that he can hold his own in a fight if called upon to do so, but unlike the Ritchie film, he doesn't engage in idioctic activities such as entering boxing contests just because.

Christopher Plummer makes a good Holmes, playing the part with an equal mixture of charm and a curious sense of aloofness. The Holmes here is a character who is always slightly apart from those around him, always seeing both sides of an issue and usually expressing a near-equal appreciation for both--at least when there are two sides to an issue. Holmes is in no way a moral relativist and he refuses to accept social norms and attitudes when they are unfair or outright evil. This is also a film where Holmes is confronted with evil and twisted morality so severe that his shell crumbles and we witness him moved to tears. This film presents perhaps the most human version of Sherlock Holmes I've encountered while still maintaining his almost suprahuman powers of deduction and observation.

James Mason likewise makes a decent Watson, even if I feel like he is written as being a little too dense at times. In general, Watson here is the perfect image of a late 19th century British gentleman with all the strengths and weaknesses that infers.

The mystery of the film itself is engaging and the film remains focused on it. Unlike the recent Ritchie movie where all sorts of extraneous nonsense is crammed into the film, this movie tells a Holmes mystery as it should be told. It also delivers some very impressive twists, as Holmes and Watson are drawn so deep into the conspiracies surrounding the Ripper murders that they become targets themselves.

While it drags slightly in a few places, this is a fun and interesting take on Sherlock Holmes that has a little something for every Holmes fan.

Sherlock Sunday: The Deadly Necklace

Sherlock Holmes and the Deadly Necklace (1962)
Starring: Christopher Lee, Thorley Walters and Hans Söhnker
Director: Terence Fisher
Rating: Two of Ten Stars

Sherlock Holmes (Lee) and his arch-nemisis Professor Moriarity (Söhnker) matching wits over an Egyptian necklace owned by Cleopatra, as it is stolen, recovered, and restolen.



This 1962 German film, with its two British stars and a British director, has surprisingly little to recommend it. The script is like a reject from the Universal Pictures series starring Basil Rathbone (with everything I don't like about the weaker efforts among those amplified ten-fold here, most notably Watson being portrayed as a bumbling, retarded simpleton), with an unbearably bad score.

It's amazing that a film with so much potential--Christopher Lee as Holmes and Terence Fisher directing... should be a sure winner!--could go so wrong. While Christopher Lee is absolutely right in his opinion that he and Thorley Walters more closely resemble the literary Holmes and Watson than any other on-screen pair, and there's no question that Lee gives a good performance as Holmes, there is very little else that works in this movie.

There are a couple of interesting moments between Holmes and Moriarity (who is played by the appropriately sinister German actor Hans Söhnker), but the downside is that they feel like they belong more in a hard-boiled, pulp fiction detective novel than a Holmes adventure.

Sherlock Sunday: Without A Clue

From now until I run out of Sherlock Holmes movies and TV series (or until I drop dead, which is more likely to happen first), I will be posting a review of a Sherlock Holmes movie every other Sunday. I'm kicking off the series with a favorite of mine, a Holmes spoof actually.

Without A Clue (1988)
Starring: Ben Kingsley, Michael Caine, and Lysette Anthony
Director: Thom Eberhardt
Rating: Seven of Ten Stars

In "Without A Clue," Dr. Watson (Kingsley) is the real master-detective, and Sherlock Holmes (Caine) is just an actor that Watson hired to put a more markatable face on the consulting detective business. But Watson finds himself trapped by his PR effort when he tries to get rid of Holmes and start taking the accolades for the mystery solving himself: When Scotland Yard comes to Watson with a case that may well ruin the British Empire if it isn't solved, they will only accept the services of Sherlock Holmes. Watson reluctantly brings the actor back onboard, but soon Watson falls victim to foul play, and the bumbling, lecherous, drunkard actor is left struggling to find just one clue that will help him save the day.


"Without A Clue" is one of the better "reinventions" of the Sherlock Holmes mythos that has been made. It is funny, charming, and respectful of the whole idea of Sherlock Holmes' pretty outrageous deductions while still managing to say "it was all made up, here's the real story." The film is a bit slow in the middle, but the third act really fires on all cylinders when it falls to "Holmes", Wiggims, and Mrs. Hudson to save the day.

A final benefit to this version is that anyone who was annoyed by the Universal Pictures Holmes films in the 1930s and 1940s--where Nigel Bruce played a Watson who was just this side of retarded--will really get a kick out of the fact that "Holmes" is the nitwit

I recommend this film highly if you enjoy Sherlock Holmes and British comedy.

Sherlock Holmes as action hero

Sherlock Holmes (2009)
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Rachel McAdams, Mark Stone, Eddie Marsan, William Houston and Kelly Reilly
Director: Guy Ritchie
Rating: Five of Ten Stars

Sherlock Holmes (Downey) and his sometimes-reluctant colleague Dr. Watson (Law) most solve the mystery of a Satanist (Stone) who has seemingly returned from the dead to continue a killing spree. Meanwhile, Holmes old adversary and lover Irene Adler (McAdams) has reappeared on the scene with a mysterious agenda of her own.


The most famous of all consulting detectives gets the big budget, CGI-generated "stunts" action movie treatment in a film with actors who give far better performances than this flabby movie probably deserved.

Some reviewers have been upset by the "action movie" feel this film has, even commenting that Holmes shouldn't be an action hero. I don't quite agree with that sentiment, as Holmes always seemed like a man of action and quite willing to resort to violence when necessary. What annoys me is the pointlessness of much of the action and some of the stupidity of it.

I don't know whether it's the gigantic budget he had to work with here, or whether he's devolved as a director over the past ten years, but Guy Ritchie seemed to have a far better sense for how to make an exciting movie when he did "Snatch" and "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" in the late 1990s.

The flow of the movie, and therefore the attention to the viewer, is repeatedly disrupted by pointless side treks and plot detours, such as a long sequence with Holmes in a boxing match (a very stupid thing for a genius like Holmes to engage in, even if he is a thrill-seeker), or one where he is tricked by Irene Adler and ends up handcuffed and naked in bed (an scene mostly there for a single feeble gag). These irrelevancies might not be so bad if they added some definition to the characters, but the traits shown in these scenes are already introduced and reinforced in other far more relevant and important scenes, making the filler material like the above-mentioned sequences that much more annoying and boring. The end result is that the film has a flabby, drawn-out feeling to it.

Then there's the asinine slow-motion and absolutely annoying jerky/blurry camera work during the action scenes. It's not artistic, it doesn't enhance the suspense... it's just irritating and stupid.

The script is also not all it could have been. I've already mentioned pointless scenes, but a far bigger problem is the case that Holmes is working on. It's so much that he is squaring off against what seems to be a supernatural menace (even if that is more in keeping with Doyle's non-Holmes tales than this one) it's that the bad guys are of the "trying to take over the world" variety. What's next for Holmes at this point? Battling Professor Moriarty after he teams up with Ming the Merciless to conquer the Universe? A smaller, perhaps even more petty, motivation for the villains would have been far more suitable.

It's too bad this film wasn't helmed by a more competent director and based on a more solid script, because the approach taken by both the script and the actors to the characters of Holmes and Watson feels very much in keeping with the stories from which they originally sprang. While the nature of the adventure is pretty far removed from anything Doyle included in the Holmes stories, but Downey and Law portray a Holmes and a Watson that I think Doyle probably would have appreciated. They are far better than the celebrated team of Basil Rathbone & Nigel Bruce, slightly better than Jeremy Brett & Edward Hardwicke, and standing nearly equal with my favorite on-screen Holmes & Watson team of Peter Cushing & Andre Morrell.


All in all, file this Holmes version with the Hammer "The Hound of the Baskervilles" starring Cushing and Morrell. It gets the characters right, it's very entertaining, but the storyline is a bit far from Conan Doyle. Not as far as some of the Basil Rathbone films, but pretty far nonetheless.