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.
14 Reviews
Not bad for an early Holmes entry
jhboswell1 July 2005
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!
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!
Interesting, if unusual, Holmes film
davidholmesfr28 January 2003
Adapted from a stage play, rather than from one of Conan Doyle's books, this is a slightly odd portrayal of the great detective. Holmes finds himself about to be married to a society girl, a daughter of a wealthy banker. But marriage has to wait when the arch criminal Moriarty escapes the hangman's noose to unleash Chicago-style violence on the pubs of London. An "Americanised" story that will be unfamiliar to Holmes devotees (and, indeed, to students of London criminology) is, nevertheless, redeemed by some tight direction and excellent performances by Clive Brook as Holmes and Ernest Torrance, a villainous Moriarty. There's quite a memorable opening of Moriarty, in silhouette, being taken to and from the court for sentencing.
An interesting example of an early effort by the industry to put Holmes on the cinema map. And there can't be many films in which Holmes appears in drag!
An interesting example of an early effort by the industry to put Holmes on the cinema map. And there can't be many films in which Holmes appears in drag!
Deadly vengeance
TheLittleSongbird1 May 2018
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 'Sherlock Holmes', especially one with such a great idea. Anything with one of literature's most iconic arch-enemies Moriaty is always worth the watch.
'Sherlock Holmes' is very problematic and 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 very worst, although one of the lesser ones overall, being better than any of the Matt Frewer films (particularly 'The Sign of Four') and much better than the abominable Peter Cook 'The Hound of the Baskervilles'.
Ernest Torrence is the best thing about 'Sherlock Holmes', being an effectively sinister Moriaty. Clive Brook is also pretty good and enigmatic as Holmes.
There is a suitably spooky and creepy atmosphere in the film, and some scenes come off effectively. Especially the trial and the escape. There are some nice starkly beautifully and eerie shots and the direction has some inspired visual and atmosphere touches.
However, the rest of the cast are not great, though Alan Mowbray is okay if not electric. Not just Miriam Jordan's dull Alice and Howard Leeds' grating Billy (who has too much screen time), but Reginald Owen is even stiffer as Watson than he was when he portrayed Holmes in 'A Study in Scarlet', Watson is very underused here which robs us of one of the most legendary partnerships to fully make impression and Owen does very little with what he has.
Other than the visual and atmosphere touches, the direction struggles in some of the direction of the actors and giving the mystery consistent momentum. The script is talky and rambling, with some over-played and extraneous comedy that was merely padding. The pace tends to be on the dull side and the tension and suspense too often is lacking in the story, the mystery not fully coming to life and occasionally could have been clearer. Only Moriaty and Holmes are interesting of the characters.
To conclude, alright but a long way from exceptional. 5/10 Bethany Cox
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 'Sherlock Holmes', especially one with such a great idea. Anything with one of literature's most iconic arch-enemies Moriaty is always worth the watch.
'Sherlock Holmes' is very problematic and 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 very worst, although one of the lesser ones overall, being better than any of the Matt Frewer films (particularly 'The Sign of Four') and much better than the abominable Peter Cook 'The Hound of the Baskervilles'.
Ernest Torrence is the best thing about 'Sherlock Holmes', being an effectively sinister Moriaty. Clive Brook is also pretty good and enigmatic as Holmes.
There is a suitably spooky and creepy atmosphere in the film, and some scenes come off effectively. Especially the trial and the escape. There are some nice starkly beautifully and eerie shots and the direction has some inspired visual and atmosphere touches.
However, the rest of the cast are not great, though Alan Mowbray is okay if not electric. Not just Miriam Jordan's dull Alice and Howard Leeds' grating Billy (who has too much screen time), but Reginald Owen is even stiffer as Watson than he was when he portrayed Holmes in 'A Study in Scarlet', Watson is very underused here which robs us of one of the most legendary partnerships to fully make impression and Owen does very little with what he has.
Other than the visual and atmosphere touches, the direction struggles in some of the direction of the actors and giving the mystery consistent momentum. The script is talky and rambling, with some over-played and extraneous comedy that was merely padding. The pace tends to be on the dull side and the tension and suspense too often is lacking in the story, the mystery not fully coming to life and occasionally could have been clearer. Only Moriaty and Holmes are interesting of the characters.
To conclude, alright but a long way from exceptional. 5/10 Bethany Cox
Unwilling Harness Again
bkoganbing25 March 2013
Clive Brook gets his second chance to essay the role of Baker Street's famous sleuth in a film simply entitled Sherlock Holmes. And Reginald Owen who had been Holmes in another film is very briefly seen as Doctor John Watson.
That's because Watson is getting married and as such is now leaving the companionship of Holmes for one who can offer him something Holmes cannot. That's all right because Holmes himself is now keeping company with the lovely Miriam Jordan, daughter of Ivan Simpson one of London's most prominent bankers. Holmes in turn is breaking in a new assistant, the juvenile Howard Leeds.
But before everyone's happily ever after ending is assured the great arch rival of Holmes, Professor Moriarty has escaped from prison and he vows vengeance on three people, Holmes, Alan Mowbray the Scotland Yard inspector who was teamed rather unwillingly with Holmes to bring Moriarty down, and the judge who sentenced him to death. It's the judge who goes first and Brook and Mowbray are in unwilling harness again.
I've never seen a haughtier version of Holmes than Clive Brook in this film. But Brook really typified upper English class haughtiness and seemed always that way on screen. However Moriarty is played by the Scottish actor Ernest Torrence and he's a pretty even match for Brook in terms of intelligence and cunning the way Moriarty has come down to us.
Torrence has brought in professional criminals from other countries including the USA where Chicago hit-man Stanley Fields is trying to set up a protection racket. Fields has a most interesting scene with pub owner Herbert Mundin giving him an offer he can't refuse, but does.
Brook isn't quite up to either Arthur Wontner or Basil Rathbone as Holmes, but the film is all right. I fear Holmes purists will hold out for Jeremy Brett though.
That's because Watson is getting married and as such is now leaving the companionship of Holmes for one who can offer him something Holmes cannot. That's all right because Holmes himself is now keeping company with the lovely Miriam Jordan, daughter of Ivan Simpson one of London's most prominent bankers. Holmes in turn is breaking in a new assistant, the juvenile Howard Leeds.
But before everyone's happily ever after ending is assured the great arch rival of Holmes, Professor Moriarty has escaped from prison and he vows vengeance on three people, Holmes, Alan Mowbray the Scotland Yard inspector who was teamed rather unwillingly with Holmes to bring Moriarty down, and the judge who sentenced him to death. It's the judge who goes first and Brook and Mowbray are in unwilling harness again.
I've never seen a haughtier version of Holmes than Clive Brook in this film. But Brook really typified upper English class haughtiness and seemed always that way on screen. However Moriarty is played by the Scottish actor Ernest Torrence and he's a pretty even match for Brook in terms of intelligence and cunning the way Moriarty has come down to us.
Torrence has brought in professional criminals from other countries including the USA where Chicago hit-man Stanley Fields is trying to set up a protection racket. Fields has a most interesting scene with pub owner Herbert Mundin giving him an offer he can't refuse, but does.
Brook isn't quite up to either Arthur Wontner or Basil Rathbone as Holmes, but the film is all right. I fear Holmes purists will hold out for Jeremy Brett though.
Alright but not worth much outside of historical significance
MissSimonetta24 April 2014
Those looking for Conan Doyle in this flick will be disappointed, but in the end, this pre-code Sherlock Holmes is a pleasant enough time waster for a dull afternoon.
It has some interesting cinematography and competent performances from Clive Brook and Ernest Torrence as Holmes and Moriarty (truth be told, I only watched this film because Torrence is one of my favorite character actors), but otherwise, there's nothing too special at work here. Miriam Jordon is grating as Holmes' society bride-to-be, Alice, and for some reason, Holmes is given a mildly irritating kid sidekick/apprentice named Billy.
Unless you're interested in all of Holmes' cinematic incarnations, I would urge you to skip this one.
It has some interesting cinematography and competent performances from Clive Brook and Ernest Torrence as Holmes and Moriarty (truth be told, I only watched this film because Torrence is one of my favorite character actors), but otherwise, there's nothing too special at work here. Miriam Jordon is grating as Holmes' society bride-to-be, Alice, and for some reason, Holmes is given a mildly irritating kid sidekick/apprentice named Billy.
Unless you're interested in all of Holmes' cinematic incarnations, I would urge you to skip this one.
If It Didn't Claim to Be Sherlock Holmes, I'd Like It a Lot
boblipton2 February 2018
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.
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.
Sherlock getting married?
Hughmanity27 October 2023
The premise of this movie runs contrary to everything portrayed about Sherlock Holmes in the 90 years since its production. The movie begins with Sherlock Holmes planning to retire and get married, what? Sherlock would never.
Luckily Professor Moriarty escapes from prison and the retirement/wedding nonsense must be put on hold of course, in order to re-capture the villainous Moriarty. From there it proceeds apace with Holmes deducting his way along and barely putting up with actual law enforcement attempts to participate.
They also insert a kid, Billy, into the proceedings basically as yet another person to worship Holmes and I'm not really sure why else.
I found the original Arthur Wontner films to be more compelling than this first attempt after the Wontner era and before we get to Basil Rathbone. I gave this one a 6 on effort but so much better has been done with Sherlock since.
Luckily Professor Moriarty escapes from prison and the retirement/wedding nonsense must be put on hold of course, in order to re-capture the villainous Moriarty. From there it proceeds apace with Holmes deducting his way along and barely putting up with actual law enforcement attempts to participate.
They also insert a kid, Billy, into the proceedings basically as yet another person to worship Holmes and I'm not really sure why else.
I found the original Arthur Wontner films to be more compelling than this first attempt after the Wontner era and before we get to Basil Rathbone. I gave this one a 6 on effort but so much better has been done with Sherlock since.
Has a clue
hte-trasme26 April 2010
This film, one of many to be generically titled "Sherlock Holmes," now seems to receive notice most frequently for being the earliest talkie film featuring the detective as the protagonist which is today available for viewing. This was a couple of years into the talking era, though, and there's not really any of the static awkwardness that marred many of the earliest sound movies.
Instead, it's a very dark and atmospheric piece of film-making that certainly deserves recognition for this fact. William K. Howard hangs some really spooky or creepy scenes on this pastiche story of the feud between Holmes and Professor Moriarty, including haunting silhouettes headed to the gallows, tense moments waiting in darkened houses, and a great sequence in which we meet a series of gangsters at a fairground by seeing them all score perfectly at the shooting game.
I like Clive Brook as Sherlock Holmes (giving an encore performance in the role; his first was, confusingly, in "The Return of Sherlock Holmes"). He doesn't inject very much emotional subtlety into the role of the detective, but he's a forceful, intense, charismatic presence in the role who demands attention. Judging from the one surviving audio recording of William Gillette, the most influential Holmes of the era, in the role, Brook seems to have absorbed some of his vocal inflections - to no ill effect.
Fun to watch as the lead actor may be, Holmes is in other ways not recognizable as the iconic character we all know. Perhaps it is shame Brook was not the most introspective of Holmeses, as when we meet him at the start of the film he is engaged and seen in flirtatious exchanges with his fiancée. Strangely as this strikes us, it does generate some valid personal struggle, as Holmes must wrestle with the consequences of his promise to give up his life of chasing Moriarty as he gets married. It all leads to a scene between the future Mrs Holmes and Billy the Baker Street Irregular that is actually rather touching.
Holmes is updated to the then-present day, as he was in most films in the first half of the twentieth century, so we get the amusing incongruity of the sleuth using 1930s-era slang, even if it isn't disparagingly. He also seems to be a cutting edge inventor who demonstrates his car-related discoveries with little model cars that work exactly like the big ones.
In fact, I think it's almost best to think of this as a straight-up tense crime film, with a protagonist who happens to be called Sherlock Holmes. The plot too lends itself better to being a good crime movie rather than a detective picture, with no hint of a whodunnit but a nice twist near the end to increase the stakes of the chase.
Reginald Owen gets little to do and does it pretty stiffly as Watson; it remains a mystery to me why he was cast as Holmes in another film the next year, unless the filmmakers wanted to cash in on nae association. Ernest Torrence, though he doesn't really look the part, turns out to be an excellently believable and threatening Professor Moriarty (even if one of his better scenes is marred by some very terrible back projection).
The strength of this movie isn't its evocation of the Holmes ethos, though Clive Brook brings his magnetism to the altered Holmes. Instead it's a well-shot, tense, and sometimes macabre crime drama with a human element and a Sherlock Holmes flavor. When all is said and done, this works pretty nicely.
Instead, it's a very dark and atmospheric piece of film-making that certainly deserves recognition for this fact. William K. Howard hangs some really spooky or creepy scenes on this pastiche story of the feud between Holmes and Professor Moriarty, including haunting silhouettes headed to the gallows, tense moments waiting in darkened houses, and a great sequence in which we meet a series of gangsters at a fairground by seeing them all score perfectly at the shooting game.
I like Clive Brook as Sherlock Holmes (giving an encore performance in the role; his first was, confusingly, in "The Return of Sherlock Holmes"). He doesn't inject very much emotional subtlety into the role of the detective, but he's a forceful, intense, charismatic presence in the role who demands attention. Judging from the one surviving audio recording of William Gillette, the most influential Holmes of the era, in the role, Brook seems to have absorbed some of his vocal inflections - to no ill effect.
Fun to watch as the lead actor may be, Holmes is in other ways not recognizable as the iconic character we all know. Perhaps it is shame Brook was not the most introspective of Holmeses, as when we meet him at the start of the film he is engaged and seen in flirtatious exchanges with his fiancée. Strangely as this strikes us, it does generate some valid personal struggle, as Holmes must wrestle with the consequences of his promise to give up his life of chasing Moriarty as he gets married. It all leads to a scene between the future Mrs Holmes and Billy the Baker Street Irregular that is actually rather touching.
Holmes is updated to the then-present day, as he was in most films in the first half of the twentieth century, so we get the amusing incongruity of the sleuth using 1930s-era slang, even if it isn't disparagingly. He also seems to be a cutting edge inventor who demonstrates his car-related discoveries with little model cars that work exactly like the big ones.
In fact, I think it's almost best to think of this as a straight-up tense crime film, with a protagonist who happens to be called Sherlock Holmes. The plot too lends itself better to being a good crime movie rather than a detective picture, with no hint of a whodunnit but a nice twist near the end to increase the stakes of the chase.
Reginald Owen gets little to do and does it pretty stiffly as Watson; it remains a mystery to me why he was cast as Holmes in another film the next year, unless the filmmakers wanted to cash in on nae association. Ernest Torrence, though he doesn't really look the part, turns out to be an excellently believable and threatening Professor Moriarty (even if one of his better scenes is marred by some very terrible back projection).
The strength of this movie isn't its evocation of the Holmes ethos, though Clive Brook brings his magnetism to the altered Holmes. Instead it's a well-shot, tense, and sometimes macabre crime drama with a human element and a Sherlock Holmes flavor. When all is said and done, this works pretty nicely.
Sherlock Holmes review
JoeytheBrit18 April 2020
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.
Elementary but enjoyable and well-cast take on Sherlock Holmes
gridoon20246 September 2023
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.
A Case of Mistaken Identity
JohnHowardReid9 May 2009
The earliest talkie Sherlock Holmes at present available, "Conan Doyle's Master Detective Sherlock Holmes" (to give the movie its full title) will probably outrage Conan Doyle purists. (Although actually credited to William Gillette's stage adaptation, the script bears but two or three faint resemblances to that either). The film is really an original creation, using Doyle characters. It stars an unusually adventurous Clive Brook (in his third impersonation of the sleuth), supported by Ernest Torrence as an engrossingly charismatic, menacing Moriarty. So far, so good. But now we are introduced to the lovely Miriam Jordan (in her second of only seven films) who plays Holmes' fiancée! She has quite a sizable role too, especially compared to Dr Watson (Reginald Owen) who figures in only two scenes, his line-feeding duties being undertaken here by Howard Leeds (his first of only three movies) as Little Billy. There is no Lestrade, alas, but Alan Mowbray creditably fills in the Scotland Yard gap as Gore-King. Although the movie also accommodates no less than three extraneous comic scenes with Cockney publican, Herbert Mundin (whose role has obviously been built up by playwright Bayard Veiller, credited with additional dialogue), and thus occasionally seems too talky (even at 68 minutes), it does have some splendid Moriarty atmosphere (the trial) and action (the escape), most ably contrived by director William K. Howard.
Sherlock Holmes in a new light!
binapiraeus25 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
The film begins with Professor Moriarty, arch-criminal and personal arch-enemy of Sherlock Holmes, being sentenced to death for the many murders he committed - but he swears that before HE'll hang, the three people who helped arrest and convict him will die as well; including Sherlock Holmes, of course...
In the meantime, we get to know an entirely 'different' Sherlock Holmes than the pedantic, snobby loner we knew from Conan Doyle's novels and would later find again in Basil Rathbone: Clive Brook (who played the role for the second time; his first appearance as Holmes was in a 1925 silent) is a cheerful, amiable chap - and what's more, he's in love, and he's about to give up sleuthing in order to marry and retire to the country!! But - Moriarty upsets his plans by breaking out of jail, and immediately beginning to take his revenge: he hangs the judge who convicted him in his own house; so, in alphabetical order, as Holmes deduces, the next one will be Colonel Gore-King, with whom Holmes isn't exactly on friendly terms... Moriarty plans to use that grudge for his own plans - while, criminal mastermind as he is, he's working at the same time with the help of Chicago gangsters on the 'reign' over all pubs, American style (protection or 'pineapples' = bombs, for Englishmen) - and on a big-scale robbery at the big bank that belongs to Holmes' future father-in-law... BUT - Holmes has got an equally brilliant mind, and develops his own plans...
As we said, we see Sherlock Holmes in an ENTIRELY new light here - and the two most memorable scenes are the one where he disguises in drag, as his father-in-law's 'Aunt Matilda' (!); and the final scene, where we see the great sleuth for once KISS his girl (!!). But, of course, there's enough left of the Holmes we all know - for example, he can't avoid even here using that well-known term of his, 'Elementary!', all the time...
For 'strict' Sherlock Holmes fanatics, this movie may be 'against the rules' set by Conan Doyle - but for all others, I believe, it's a wonderfully entertaining, excellently played and directed, enormously suspenseful and VERY clever classic detective movie; and with a good dose of British humor, too!
In the meantime, we get to know an entirely 'different' Sherlock Holmes than the pedantic, snobby loner we knew from Conan Doyle's novels and would later find again in Basil Rathbone: Clive Brook (who played the role for the second time; his first appearance as Holmes was in a 1925 silent) is a cheerful, amiable chap - and what's more, he's in love, and he's about to give up sleuthing in order to marry and retire to the country!! But - Moriarty upsets his plans by breaking out of jail, and immediately beginning to take his revenge: he hangs the judge who convicted him in his own house; so, in alphabetical order, as Holmes deduces, the next one will be Colonel Gore-King, with whom Holmes isn't exactly on friendly terms... Moriarty plans to use that grudge for his own plans - while, criminal mastermind as he is, he's working at the same time with the help of Chicago gangsters on the 'reign' over all pubs, American style (protection or 'pineapples' = bombs, for Englishmen) - and on a big-scale robbery at the big bank that belongs to Holmes' future father-in-law... BUT - Holmes has got an equally brilliant mind, and develops his own plans...
As we said, we see Sherlock Holmes in an ENTIRELY new light here - and the two most memorable scenes are the one where he disguises in drag, as his father-in-law's 'Aunt Matilda' (!); and the final scene, where we see the great sleuth for once KISS his girl (!!). But, of course, there's enough left of the Holmes we all know - for example, he can't avoid even here using that well-known term of his, 'Elementary!', all the time...
For 'strict' Sherlock Holmes fanatics, this movie may be 'against the rules' set by Conan Doyle - but for all others, I believe, it's a wonderfully entertaining, excellently played and directed, enormously suspenseful and VERY clever classic detective movie; and with a good dose of British humor, too!
If you like the movies with Basil Rathbone, you'll like this one also.
rlymzv6 January 2020
If you like the movies with Basil Rathbone, you'll like this one also.
The problem is, obtaining a good copy. This public domain movie came on satellite TV and I was able to transfer it to my Mac and author a DVD. The quality is 7-8.
This 1932 Sherlock Holmes is the first Motion Picture done with sound. The acting is excellent. Ernest Torrence plays a very evil Moriarty, and Clive Brook is a convincing Sherlock Holmes. I love the versions of Sherlock Holmes were he is true to the original books. he is arrogant, a bit cocky, likes to be dramatic, and derives a special pleasure from demonstrating his superior intellect. This is a very refreshing "good guy" roll compared to modern heroes that are supposed to be humble and modest all the time.
When I first started watching this movie I would have considered it only "fair". But then, Sherlock Holmes starts to prove that he's one step ahead of the criminals.
A somewhat unique aspect of this particular Sherlock Holmes is the romantic interest in the beautiful Alice Faulkner, (Miriam Jordan) a British stage and film actress. She enjoyed a brief career in Hollywood as a leading lady during the early 1930s. In most other Sherlock Holmes movies he has little interest or time for women.
Is this the best Sherlock Holmes ever? No. But if you like Sherlock Holmes this is certainly a movie you want to have in your your DVD / Blu-ray collection.
This 1932 Sherlock Holmes is the first Motion Picture done with sound. The acting is excellent. Ernest Torrence plays a very evil Moriarty, and Clive Brook is a convincing Sherlock Holmes. I love the versions of Sherlock Holmes were he is true to the original books. he is arrogant, a bit cocky, likes to be dramatic, and derives a special pleasure from demonstrating his superior intellect. This is a very refreshing "good guy" roll compared to modern heroes that are supposed to be humble and modest all the time.
When I first started watching this movie I would have considered it only "fair". But then, Sherlock Holmes starts to prove that he's one step ahead of the criminals.
A somewhat unique aspect of this particular Sherlock Holmes is the romantic interest in the beautiful Alice Faulkner, (Miriam Jordan) a British stage and film actress. She enjoyed a brief career in Hollywood as a leading lady during the early 1930s. In most other Sherlock Holmes movies he has little interest or time for women.
Is this the best Sherlock Holmes ever? No. But if you like Sherlock Holmes this is certainly a movie you want to have in your your DVD / Blu-ray collection.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
