"THE SPECKLED BAND"
(British & Dominions Film Corporation / UK / 1931)
Apparently the 3rd time this was filmed (after Georges Treville & Eille Norwood), this was the very 1st film with Raymond Massey! A real oddity, this was actually based on a 1910 stage play, and as a result, had several changes including several extra characters added, like Dr. Rylot's butler, his co-spirator house-keeper, and his Indian servant with the flute.
The strangest addition is Watson having had a computerized filing system installed in their HUGE Baker Street flat, with a trio of secretaries busy typing up details of crime cases for his files. Holmes himself has had a voice-recording machine added to this, and tells Watson "Every mistake you may have said has been recorded and will be held against you."
In this version of the classic story, Watson was a friend of Rylot's late wife, and a friend of his daughters, and gives testimony when the first of them is found dead. Holmes is intrigued by the case, but has to wait a full year until history gets around to repeating itself.
When he goes to the Stoke Moran mansion to investigate, he takes a job as one of the construction men needlessly ripping Helen's room apart. This is rather like how Basil Rathbone's Holmes was in disguise as a peddler in his version of "THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES", another case of his being in disguise that was NOT in the original story being adapted.
Holmes & Watson investigate Rylot's room before Helen's (a reverse of the short story), and when the intended crime is in progress, Holmes has Helen STAY in the room, on the bed, knowing that Rylot will only act if he SEES her there, via a hand-held mirror. This is the only version of the story I've seen where they SHOW Rylot and the snake BEFORE he inserts it into her bedroom.
Perhaps the most touching scene is the finale, where, after Watson invites Holmes to the wedding reception, Holmes aays, "Not in my line." "It comes to all of us!" After Watson leaves, Holmes says to himself... "Not all of us, Watson."
Someone online suggested this film looked and felt VERY much like the 1931 "FRANKENSTEIN" in style, and I agree. It's very slow, stodgy, primitive-seeming, and most of the acting is on a stage or silent film level. Except for Massey, who's relaxed, natural, energetic. Like Boris Karloff in Howard Hawks' "SCARFACE", he's by a wide margin the BEST actor in the film! And his career was only just getting started.
The sets are magnificent, and the main hall in Stoke Moran actually reminds me of the one in the 1958 "DRACULA"!
Now, the real tragedy here... is that over the years, this film has been CUT TO PIECES, at least 22 MINUTES is missing from it (including, it seems, MOST of the red-herring sub-plot about the gypsies), and the only available prints, the picture keep wobbling, jumping at almost constant cuts, and with terrible sound. OH, man, this makes the 1922 John Barrymore film look pristene by comparison. Most reviewers online express a strong wish that someone, somewhere might have a complete print of this, that would make it WORTH it for someone to perform a proper restoration on it. I know I'm one of them!
Knowing in advance of the terrible condition of the film, I went after a cheap (used) copy, seeing no sense in spending twice as much for "brand new". My copy arrived today, loose in the case, scratched all over the place... but, fortunately, it plays fine.
Now by comparison... whoever did this DVD, there's NO company listed anywhere. I suspect it was the "TCM Shop", since they were selling "manufactured on demand" NEW copies (but they said it was "not currently available" when I tried to order one direct from them). The packaging DAMN NEAR makes up for the wretched quality of the film print, as it's one of the NICEST-looking DVD boxes I've ever seen! This made me really glad I avoided getting it on a cheap "twofer" with the 1962 Chris Lee film, which apparently, was in nearly-as-bad shape on that disc. Especially since, only 2 MONTHS ago, that film has FINALLY been issued in WIDESCREEN. (Something to look forward to!)
Apparently the 3rd time this was filmed (after Georges Treville & Eille Norwood), this was the very 1st film with Raymond Massey! A real oddity, this was actually based on a 1910 stage play, and as a result, had several changes including several extra characters added, like Dr. Rylot's butler, his co-spirator house-keeper, and his Indian servant with the flute.
The strangest addition is Watson having had a computerized filing system installed in their HUGE Baker Street flat, with a trio of secretaries busy typing up details of crime cases for his files. Holmes himself has had a voice-recording machine added to this, and tells Watson "Every mistake you may have said has been recorded and will be held against you."
In this version of the classic story, Watson was a friend of Rylot's late wife, and a friend of his daughters, and gives testimony when the first of them is found dead. Holmes is intrigued by the case, but has to wait a full year until history gets around to repeating itself.
When he goes to the Stoke Moran mansion to investigate, he takes a job as one of the construction men needlessly ripping Helen's room apart. This is rather like how Basil Rathbone's Holmes was in disguise as a peddler in his version of "THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES", another case of his being in disguise that was NOT in the original story being adapted.
Holmes & Watson investigate Rylot's room before Helen's (a reverse of the short story), and when the intended crime is in progress, Holmes has Helen STAY in the room, on the bed, knowing that Rylot will only act if he SEES her there, via a hand-held mirror. This is the only version of the story I've seen where they SHOW Rylot and the snake BEFORE he inserts it into her bedroom.
Perhaps the most touching scene is the finale, where, after Watson invites Holmes to the wedding reception, Holmes aays, "Not in my line." "It comes to all of us!" After Watson leaves, Holmes says to himself... "Not all of us, Watson."
Someone online suggested this film looked and felt VERY much like the 1931 "FRANKENSTEIN" in style, and I agree. It's very slow, stodgy, primitive-seeming, and most of the acting is on a stage or silent film level. Except for Massey, who's relaxed, natural, energetic. Like Boris Karloff in Howard Hawks' "SCARFACE", he's by a wide margin the BEST actor in the film! And his career was only just getting started.
The sets are magnificent, and the main hall in Stoke Moran actually reminds me of the one in the 1958 "DRACULA"!
Now, the real tragedy here... is that over the years, this film has been CUT TO PIECES, at least 22 MINUTES is missing from it (including, it seems, MOST of the red-herring sub-plot about the gypsies), and the only available prints, the picture keep wobbling, jumping at almost constant cuts, and with terrible sound. OH, man, this makes the 1922 John Barrymore film look pristene by comparison. Most reviewers online express a strong wish that someone, somewhere might have a complete print of this, that would make it WORTH it for someone to perform a proper restoration on it. I know I'm one of them!
Knowing in advance of the terrible condition of the film, I went after a cheap (used) copy, seeing no sense in spending twice as much for "brand new". My copy arrived today, loose in the case, scratched all over the place... but, fortunately, it plays fine.
Now by comparison... whoever did this DVD, there's NO company listed anywhere. I suspect it was the "TCM Shop", since they were selling "manufactured on demand" NEW copies (but they said it was "not currently available" when I tried to order one direct from them). The packaging DAMN NEAR makes up for the wretched quality of the film print, as it's one of the NICEST-looking DVD boxes I've ever seen! This made me really glad I avoided getting it on a cheap "twofer" with the 1962 Chris Lee film, which apparently, was in nearly-as-bad shape on that disc. Especially since, only 2 MONTHS ago, that film has FINALLY been issued in WIDESCREEN. (Something to look forward to!)