TRIUMPH OF SHERLOCK HOLMES stars British thespian Arthur Wontner, today a forgotten interpreter of Holmes who would soon be overshadowed by the glossy American productions starring the illustrious Basil Rathbone, for some people the greatest Holmes ever. Wontner is actually a terrific Holmes, and looks remarkably like the first illustrations of Holmes. Wontner also prepared the dialog for the movie, and sticks relatively close to the source material, in this case THE VALLEY OF FEAR. Ian Fleming's Dr. Watson is a lot closer to the Watson of the stories, a retired Army officer and dapper fellow with an eye for the ladies. Wontner and Fleming have a palpable chemistry and affectionate interplay that reminds me more of the Holmes and Watson of the original stories than most other cinematic Holmes and Watsons. If you don't know the plot of VALLEY, and I admittedly had forgotten, you will be kept guessing right up to the very end the identity of the killer. A word on Lyn Harding as Holmes' archfoe Moriarty: He is as good a Moriarty as I have ever seen on screen. What keeps me from giving this film an extra point is its primitiveness. By 1935, most films looked and sounded a lot better than this. Also, this is a "modern" Holmes adaptation; that is to say, Holmes has been moved forward in time to the present day, in this case 1935, which may save on costumes and sets, but slightly impairs the atmosphere. See it for its historical value, and also to see someone other than Rathbone tearing it up as the world's greatest detective.
34 Reviews
One of the Better of the Old Films
Hitchcoc10 October 2006
"The Valley of Fear" is an interesting part of the Sherlock Holmes canon. Most with casual interest in the great detective don't know much about this story. It concerns a brotherhood of evil that runs a town and its people. The implication is that they are drunk with power and may go beyond their current climes. In the movie, Professor Moriarity is furious that Holmes has gotten in his way on numerous occasions, "inconveniencing" him. He is the evil equal of Holmes and usually gets what he wants. This film has a nice mix of a flashback, which takes place in America. There is revenge and spying and romance. There is secrecy and surprise. For a fairly low budget film, this captures the spirit of the original pretty well. Holmes is really at the center of things for only a few moments. This is acceptable because much of his talent for solving crimes takes place between his ears. I would urge someone who enjoys some of the less often dramatized Holmes stories to enjoy this one. It's quite good.
Worth watching, but barely watchable
keith-moyes15 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
In the Seventies and Eighties, in particular, I was a real movie buff. In addition to watching many of the current movies, I was frantically catching up on movie history: haunting the National Film Theatre and seeing as many old films as possible on TV. I was soon struck by how few pre-War British films were available (not much more than the main Hitchcocks and a half-a-dozen Alexander Korda pictures). I had very little sense of what routine British programmers were like in the Thirties and this has always seemed like a massive gap in my knowledge.
For this reason alone I was very intrigued to see that three of the Arthur Wontner Sherlock Holmes movies were now available on DVD.
Triumph of Sherlock Holmes is a decent adaptation of the Valley of Fear, bulked out to feature film length by the addition of Moriarty. Wontner's Sherlock Holmes is not as memorable as Basil Rathbone's, but is probably as close to Conan Doyle's character as any. Because this movie is based on a Conan Doyle book, there is more actual deduction in it than in most of the later Universal movies.
The structure of the film is somewhat awkward (as was the book) with a 25 minute flashback in the middle, during which the actual story grinds to a halt. I cannot help feeling a good screenwriter could have handled this better. The production design is fairly basic, but not obtrusively so. The direction is strictly point-the-camera-and-shoot. If this is at all typical of British film-making in the Thirties I can appreciate why relatively few films from that era have stood the test of time.
Any criticism of this movie, and the other two movies on the DVD, has to be subject to one major reservation. The prints are so poor that they are hard to watch. Apart from the very soft image, there is extensive damage, grain and dirt. The sound is often so poor that some of the dialogue difficult to understand - especially, I suspect, for those not familiar with the various British accents.
The quality of these movies is so far below what audiences at the time would have experienced, I feel that, in a sense, I still haven't really seen them.
I recently bought a DVD of a supposedly lost British horror film, The Ghoul, which was even worse - only to discover that MGM had released a version in pristine condition discovered in the vaults of the British Film Institute. I cannot help wondering if there are much better versions of these Sherlock Holmes movies (and many other old films) also sitting unseen in storage.
The fly-by-night companies that release these old, out-of-copyright, movies frequently use ragged, degraded prints that give a completely false impression of what these movies were really like. But I don't blame them: at least they are making some obscure movies available for viewing once again. The onus is on the great film libraries to start releasing their back catalogues (preferably with digital restoration) on affordable DVDs.
This surely is part of their remit as organisations.
For this reason alone I was very intrigued to see that three of the Arthur Wontner Sherlock Holmes movies were now available on DVD.
Triumph of Sherlock Holmes is a decent adaptation of the Valley of Fear, bulked out to feature film length by the addition of Moriarty. Wontner's Sherlock Holmes is not as memorable as Basil Rathbone's, but is probably as close to Conan Doyle's character as any. Because this movie is based on a Conan Doyle book, there is more actual deduction in it than in most of the later Universal movies.
The structure of the film is somewhat awkward (as was the book) with a 25 minute flashback in the middle, during which the actual story grinds to a halt. I cannot help feeling a good screenwriter could have handled this better. The production design is fairly basic, but not obtrusively so. The direction is strictly point-the-camera-and-shoot. If this is at all typical of British film-making in the Thirties I can appreciate why relatively few films from that era have stood the test of time.
Any criticism of this movie, and the other two movies on the DVD, has to be subject to one major reservation. The prints are so poor that they are hard to watch. Apart from the very soft image, there is extensive damage, grain and dirt. The sound is often so poor that some of the dialogue difficult to understand - especially, I suspect, for those not familiar with the various British accents.
The quality of these movies is so far below what audiences at the time would have experienced, I feel that, in a sense, I still haven't really seen them.
I recently bought a DVD of a supposedly lost British horror film, The Ghoul, which was even worse - only to discover that MGM had released a version in pristine condition discovered in the vaults of the British Film Institute. I cannot help wondering if there are much better versions of these Sherlock Holmes movies (and many other old films) also sitting unseen in storage.
The fly-by-night companies that release these old, out-of-copyright, movies frequently use ragged, degraded prints that give a completely false impression of what these movies were really like. But I don't blame them: at least they are making some obscure movies available for viewing once again. The onus is on the great film libraries to start releasing their back catalogues (preferably with digital restoration) on affordable DVDs.
This surely is part of their remit as organisations.
Some history behind the story
jland9 May 2004
The movie opened in 1935 and appears to be set in the 1930s. The original Arthur Conan Doyle serial, from which the screenplay was written, was published in 1914-15, and was set in the 1880s.
The movie's flashback to the U.S.A. introduces the Scowlers, a secret society of thugs. The fictional Scowlers appears to be based on the Molly Maguires, an actual secret society of immigrant Irish coal miners in eastern Pennsylvania, USA, in the 1860s and 1870s. They were set up as a secret network of local committees, and they did not brand their members, since they wished to remain anonymous.
Conditions in the mines were abominable, as this was long before child labor laws, a minimum wage, suitable standards on working conditions, or any organized form of labor union. The Mollies fought back with threats, beatings, riots, and murder against abusive mine owners, supervisors, police, and anyone who spoke out against them.
The powerful owner of many coal mines hired the Pinkerton Detective Agency to infiltrate the society, and one of their detectives managed to join the Mollies and stay under cover for nearly five years. When his investigation was finished, trials in were held, twenty convicted society members were hanged, and the Mollie Maguires were history.
So the film's use of a local committee of thugs, and the triumph of the Pinkerton Detective Agency, are quite realistic, based on Pennsylvania history.
The movie's flashback to the U.S.A. introduces the Scowlers, a secret society of thugs. The fictional Scowlers appears to be based on the Molly Maguires, an actual secret society of immigrant Irish coal miners in eastern Pennsylvania, USA, in the 1860s and 1870s. They were set up as a secret network of local committees, and they did not brand their members, since they wished to remain anonymous.
Conditions in the mines were abominable, as this was long before child labor laws, a minimum wage, suitable standards on working conditions, or any organized form of labor union. The Mollies fought back with threats, beatings, riots, and murder against abusive mine owners, supervisors, police, and anyone who spoke out against them.
The powerful owner of many coal mines hired the Pinkerton Detective Agency to infiltrate the society, and one of their detectives managed to join the Mollies and stay under cover for nearly five years. When his investigation was finished, trials in were held, twenty convicted society members were hanged, and the Mollie Maguires were history.
So the film's use of a local committee of thugs, and the triumph of the Pinkerton Detective Agency, are quite realistic, based on Pennsylvania history.
Good and Loud
boblipton26 October 2002
Good camerawork helps this stylishly shot although slightly stagily performed version of Doyle's THE VALLEY OF FEAR. The principals are excellent in their roles, but the supporting actors tend to ham it up a bit. Wontner gives a witty performance as Holmes and Ian Fleming -- no, not that Ian Fleming -- is an intelligent Watson.
The not quite triumphant valley of fear
TheLittleSongbird27 April 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 'The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes', part of the series of film with Arthur Wontner. Would also see anything that has Holmes encountering his arch-nemesis Professor Moriaty.
'The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes', based on one of Conan Doyle's longer and best stories, turned out to be very much worthwhile. 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 worst, being much better than any of the Matt Frewer films (particularly 'The Sign of Four') and the abominable Peter Cook 'The Hound of the Baskervilles'.
It's not perfect. The sound quality is less than great, while some of the pace could have been tighter, the over-reliance on the flashback structure bogs it down a bit, and some of the dialogue unnecessarily rambles a bit. The Holmes retiring aspect is agreed out of character.
However, the period detail is handsome and evocative. The writing generally is thought-provoking, Holmes' deductions and crime solving are a huge part of the fun as well as very true in detail and spirit to Conan Doyle's writing, the mystery and suspense is generally intact and the story is intriguing and not hard to follow.
Arthur Wontner may technically have been too old for Holmes but he did not look too old and his portrayal is on the money, handling the personality and mannerisms of the character spot on without over-doing or under-playing. Ian Fleming is a charming, loyal, intelligent and amusing Watson, with nice chemistry between him and Wontner, really liked his inferior attempts at deduction. The support is solid, with the best coming from Lyn Harding's sinister Moriaty.
In summary, not quite triumphant but very worthwhile. 7/10 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 'The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes', part of the series of film with Arthur Wontner. Would also see anything that has Holmes encountering his arch-nemesis Professor Moriaty.
'The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes', based on one of Conan Doyle's longer and best stories, turned out to be very much worthwhile. 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 worst, being much better than any of the Matt Frewer films (particularly 'The Sign of Four') and the abominable Peter Cook 'The Hound of the Baskervilles'.
It's not perfect. The sound quality is less than great, while some of the pace could have been tighter, the over-reliance on the flashback structure bogs it down a bit, and some of the dialogue unnecessarily rambles a bit. The Holmes retiring aspect is agreed out of character.
However, the period detail is handsome and evocative. The writing generally is thought-provoking, Holmes' deductions and crime solving are a huge part of the fun as well as very true in detail and spirit to Conan Doyle's writing, the mystery and suspense is generally intact and the story is intriguing and not hard to follow.
Arthur Wontner may technically have been too old for Holmes but he did not look too old and his portrayal is on the money, handling the personality and mannerisms of the character spot on without over-doing or under-playing. Ian Fleming is a charming, loyal, intelligent and amusing Watson, with nice chemistry between him and Wontner, really liked his inferior attempts at deduction. The support is solid, with the best coming from Lyn Harding's sinister Moriaty.
In summary, not quite triumphant but very worthwhile. 7/10 Bethany Cox
Not exactly a triumph...
planktonrules23 February 2010
Warning: Spoilers
While IMDb says that this was based on a Conan Doyle story, you'd have a hard time recognizing the original. That's because so many details were changed and the entire Moriarty plot line was ridiculous--having nothing to do with the original stories. For the Sherlock Holmes fans out there, Moriarty died at Whisteria Falls--and the whole angle about Holmes going into retirement is poppycock. What also is VERY problematic for me, and it's less because it violates the Holmes canon, is the way the story is told. About half the film is told in flashback!!! What a sloppy and boring way to tell a story! Overall, because of the many problems, this is among the worst of the Arthur Wontner films of Sherlock Holmes. There are some very, very good ones and some bad ones. This is a bad one--due less to the acting and more for the bizarre and convoluted storytelling.
The Molly Maguires
bkoganbing9 January 2011
For his inspiration in The Valley Of Fear, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle went across the pond to America for and the troubles with the coal miners in Pennsylvania. The Triumph Of Sherlock Holmes is based on that Conan Doyle story and stars the British team of Arthur Wontner and Ian Fleming as Holmes and Watson.
For a more accurate view of the source of Conan Doyle's story, I heartily recommend the Sean Connery/Richard Harris film, The Molly Maguires. They were an offshoot of the Ancient Order Of Hibernians and protected the coalminers trying to unionize in American back then. A Pinkerton agent named James McParland went undercover and got the goods on them and the leaders of the Molly Maguires were hung.
The Mollys are called the Scowlers here and they are a band of thugs who use terror tactics to intimidate decent law abiding citizens. A McParland like character infiltrates and gets the goods on them and unlike the real McParland, flees the country in fear of retaliation.
Holmes gets involved in the case when both his arch enemy Professor Moriarty visits him and congratulates him on an announced retirement and a woman played by Jane Carr asks for his help. In a lengthy flashback the story of her husband the police informant is told. Where Moriarty fits in is for the viewer to see.
Lyn Harding is a scowling and menacing Moriarty, but I like my Moriarty cold and calculating as Henry Daniell was against Basil Rathbone. As for Wontner and Fleming they are certainly the equal of Rathbone and Nigel Bruce.
Character actor Ben Welden plays a surviving Scowler on the hunt for the guy who ratted his friends out. Welden was American, but was appearing in many British films at this time. He could be menacing as he is here, but is far better known as a goofy henchman type, a role he perfected on the old Superman series with George Reeves.
I think Baker Street aficionados would be pleased with this film.
For a more accurate view of the source of Conan Doyle's story, I heartily recommend the Sean Connery/Richard Harris film, The Molly Maguires. They were an offshoot of the Ancient Order Of Hibernians and protected the coalminers trying to unionize in American back then. A Pinkerton agent named James McParland went undercover and got the goods on them and the leaders of the Molly Maguires were hung.
The Mollys are called the Scowlers here and they are a band of thugs who use terror tactics to intimidate decent law abiding citizens. A McParland like character infiltrates and gets the goods on them and unlike the real McParland, flees the country in fear of retaliation.
Holmes gets involved in the case when both his arch enemy Professor Moriarty visits him and congratulates him on an announced retirement and a woman played by Jane Carr asks for his help. In a lengthy flashback the story of her husband the police informant is told. Where Moriarty fits in is for the viewer to see.
Lyn Harding is a scowling and menacing Moriarty, but I like my Moriarty cold and calculating as Henry Daniell was against Basil Rathbone. As for Wontner and Fleming they are certainly the equal of Rathbone and Nigel Bruce.
Character actor Ben Welden plays a surviving Scowler on the hunt for the guy who ratted his friends out. Welden was American, but was appearing in many British films at this time. He could be menacing as he is here, but is far better known as a goofy henchman type, a role he perfected on the old Superman series with George Reeves.
I think Baker Street aficionados would be pleased with this film.
Lesser Effort.
rmax3048231 October 2015
Warning: Spoilers
It's based on "The Valley of Fear," Conan-Doyle's last and least novella. Poor Conan-Doyle. He'd grown to dislike Sherlock Holmes. The character was a cash cow but had become Frankenstein's monster. And there is nothing more disgusting than a cow that is a monster except a mixed metaphor.
Conan-Doyle had a much larger vision -- writing epic adventure stories. He did write some and a few were popular successes -- "The Lost World" -- but they didn't compare with Holmes. As time went by, Conan-Doyle put less effort into the Holmes stories. They lost their savour. In "The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes" with Arthur Wontner, we can see the result. This is a colorless Holmes -- no dope, no quirks, and some of the deductions are literally incredible.
Wontner himself isn't that bad except when compared to Basil Rathbone or Jeremy Brett. Wontner simply isn't a commanding presence. It's too bad because more than any other Holmes he resembles the Sidney Paget illustrations that accompanied the original magazine stories.
I suppose one of the ways that Conan-Doyle was able to satisfy his need to write exotic adventures was to insert flashbacks that took us to lands far away from 221b Baker Street. In "A Study in Scarlet" it was Mormons; here it's what seems to be the Wobblies in the Pennsylvania coal country. The back stories are frankly dull.
The productions are adequate, no more than that. The set dressings don't look cheesy; they only look stagy. The performances fit into the same category. The most memorable figure is McGinty, the head honcho of the Scowrers, a giant of a man with a voice to match.
Conan-Doyle had a much larger vision -- writing epic adventure stories. He did write some and a few were popular successes -- "The Lost World" -- but they didn't compare with Holmes. As time went by, Conan-Doyle put less effort into the Holmes stories. They lost their savour. In "The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes" with Arthur Wontner, we can see the result. This is a colorless Holmes -- no dope, no quirks, and some of the deductions are literally incredible.
Wontner himself isn't that bad except when compared to Basil Rathbone or Jeremy Brett. Wontner simply isn't a commanding presence. It's too bad because more than any other Holmes he resembles the Sidney Paget illustrations that accompanied the original magazine stories.
I suppose one of the ways that Conan-Doyle was able to satisfy his need to write exotic adventures was to insert flashbacks that took us to lands far away from 221b Baker Street. In "A Study in Scarlet" it was Mormons; here it's what seems to be the Wobblies in the Pennsylvania coal country. The back stories are frankly dull.
The productions are adequate, no more than that. The set dressings don't look cheesy; they only look stagy. The performances fit into the same category. The most memorable figure is McGinty, the head honcho of the Scowrers, a giant of a man with a voice to match.
Not All That Triumphant
Rainey-Dawn21 July 2016
I don't have a problem with Arthur Wontner as Sherlock Holmes, Ian Fleming as Dr. Watson or Lyn Harding as Prof. Moriarty - they are quite good. It's the way this story is written that I was not crazy about - it is mainly in flashback form told by Ettie Douglas, the wife of the slain man John Douglas. The film is interesting in it's way but it's not the greatest Wontner/Holmes film I've seen either.
I also agree that it's not like Sherlock Holmes to retire - completely out of character for him - and Holmes is suppose be in retirement in Sussex when this story begins and brings him back out of retirement. Very strange to add this if you ask me.
At any rate, it's not a terrible Holmes film but it's not a grand film - still worth watching if you like Sherlock Holmes.
6/10
I also agree that it's not like Sherlock Holmes to retire - completely out of character for him - and Holmes is suppose be in retirement in Sussex when this story begins and brings him back out of retirement. Very strange to add this if you ask me.
At any rate, it's not a terrible Holmes film but it's not a grand film - still worth watching if you like Sherlock Holmes.
6/10
Mystery. Murder. Sherlock Holmes.
michaelRokeefe9 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
This is the fourth film of five with Arthur Wonter in the title role. A faithful adaptation of Conan Doyle's The Valley of Fear. Holmes(Wonter)and partner Dr. Watson(Ian Fleming)investigate a mysterious murder at the Birlstone Castle. The murder seems tied in with a secret society of coal-miners from America. Holme's arch-enemy Professor Moriarty(Lyn Harding)appears to have conspired with an American gangster(Ben Weldon)to kill a Pinkerton agent trying to break up the covert society. This may not be on par with other Sherlock Holmes movies, but still provides it chills and thrills. Note that Fleming is not the famed James Bond author. Other players include: Charles Mortimer, Roy Emerton, Jane Carr and Michael Shepley.
The Real Sherlock Holmes
MikeF-616 May 2005
An excellent Holmes story that benefits greatly by going directly to the source (mainly Arthur Conan Doyle's "The Valley Of Fear") and not only sticking pretty much to the original plot but also using a lot of the great dialog that Doyle wrote for Holmes. The problem with translating Sherlock Holmes to the screen (or writing new Holmes stories in full-length novel form) is that Doyle's original creation was such a brilliant detective he solved most mysteries almost instantly. Therefore, the short story was the best medium in which to present his adventures. If a story has to be stretched out to novel or feature film length, some other means had to be found to fill out the time and pages. Thus, beginning with Basil Rathbone (or maybe even earlier with William Gillette's original play), Sherlock Holmes became an action hero rather than a thinker. Arthur Wotner's Holmes and the script of "Triumph" retains the original essence of "the best and wisest man I have ever known" and shows us that he can delight and thrill us even more by seeing him as he was intended to be seen.
"Your perception as usual does you credit Mr. Holmes."
classicsoncall8 February 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Arthur Wontner does the honors as Sherlock Holmes in this 1935 film, while the non-Bond Ian Fleming portrays a dapper Dr. John Watson. This was my first experience of their pairing, and they play off each other well, though the running gag of Watson's nudging Holmes to be introduced to every new character wears thin after a while. Somehow, I think Holmes was sharp enough to get around to it eventually.
The story is told in large part via flashback, taking us to America and a secret organization known as the Scowlers, a band of murderers and blackmailers in an area of Pennsylvania. It relies on the recollections of Ettie Douglas (Jane Carr) recounting the story of her husband John, who went undercover as a member of the Freemen Scowlers, infiltrating their number for the local police. In doing so, Douglas earned the wrath of Scowler goon Balding (Ben Welden), who in present time has hired the evil Professor Moriarty to kill Douglas. Moriarty, here portrayed by Lyn Harding, is presented as somewhat of a magician, eerily appearing and disappearing in a compact room to Balding's amazement.
Holmes' unique powers of deduction include a scene where he turns his attention to Watson's shaving routine. So it shouldn't come as a surprise that he leads Watson down a path to decoding a numerical message pointing to a murder at Birlstone Castle. Since the murder already took place, it's up to Holmes to uncover the perpetrator.
A lot of attention is centered on the rate of burning candles and a missing dumbbell (not a human) to solve the crime, and it's uncanny that Holmes knows enough to trawl the moat with an umbrella handle (?) outside a castle window to find a clue. A better one would have been checking the dead body, since the actual victim (Balding) had a different build and was shorter than Douglas. I'm sure Holmes took that into account, it just wasn't mentioned.
Though the story was interesting enough, and is recommended for Holmes fans, I was dismayed by the apparent death of Professor Moriarty. Granted, this film was released in 1935, but I viewed it after seeing 1943's "Sherlock Holmes and The Secret Weapon", and 1945's "The Woman in Green". In all three films, Moriarty meets his apparent demise by falling from a height. I would have appreciated some originality, at least in the latter two.
The story is told in large part via flashback, taking us to America and a secret organization known as the Scowlers, a band of murderers and blackmailers in an area of Pennsylvania. It relies on the recollections of Ettie Douglas (Jane Carr) recounting the story of her husband John, who went undercover as a member of the Freemen Scowlers, infiltrating their number for the local police. In doing so, Douglas earned the wrath of Scowler goon Balding (Ben Welden), who in present time has hired the evil Professor Moriarty to kill Douglas. Moriarty, here portrayed by Lyn Harding, is presented as somewhat of a magician, eerily appearing and disappearing in a compact room to Balding's amazement.
Holmes' unique powers of deduction include a scene where he turns his attention to Watson's shaving routine. So it shouldn't come as a surprise that he leads Watson down a path to decoding a numerical message pointing to a murder at Birlstone Castle. Since the murder already took place, it's up to Holmes to uncover the perpetrator.
A lot of attention is centered on the rate of burning candles and a missing dumbbell (not a human) to solve the crime, and it's uncanny that Holmes knows enough to trawl the moat with an umbrella handle (?) outside a castle window to find a clue. A better one would have been checking the dead body, since the actual victim (Balding) had a different build and was shorter than Douglas. I'm sure Holmes took that into account, it just wasn't mentioned.
Though the story was interesting enough, and is recommended for Holmes fans, I was dismayed by the apparent death of Professor Moriarty. Granted, this film was released in 1935, but I viewed it after seeing 1943's "Sherlock Holmes and The Secret Weapon", and 1945's "The Woman in Green". In all three films, Moriarty meets his apparent demise by falling from a height. I would have appreciated some originality, at least in the latter two.
Sherlock Holmes Made Dull
theognis-8082129 November 2023
Arthur Wontner, the Sherlock Holmes of the 1930s, is less intriguing that Basil Rathbone, who, in the 1940s, played the part with the maniacal intensity that more closely resembles Conan Doyle's conception. And as Dr. Moriarty, Lyn Harding, a portly gentleman of advanced years, is possessed of more physical strength and mobile eyebrows, but less menace, than the more composed and deliberate Henry Daniell or more nasty Lionel Atwill. This story, told too much in flashback, is not one of Doyle's better ones. It is stagy, wordy and expends much time with a gang of criminals at the expense of Holmes's famed powers of induction (incorrectly called "deduction" by Doyle). Ben Welden resembles Barton MacLane, but the best heavy is Roy Emerton.
A tolerable rewrite of THE VALLEY OF FEAR
Gatorman920 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
This is a rewrite of the fourth and last novel of the original Conan Doyle Sherlock Holmes series, entitled THE VALLEY OF FEAR. As with practically all other Holmes-genre cinematic endeavors (except maybe the Basil Rathbone/Nigel Bruce ones), it also borrows bits of plot and dialog from other original Holmes stories, perhaps most notably THE FINAL PROBLEM, THE REIGATE PUZZLE, and the general background of many of the the stories collected within THE CASE BOOK OF SHERLOCK HOLMES (regarding Holmes's retirement).
Arthur Wontner gives one of the better Holmes portrayals, as well as bearing a striking physical resemblance to the depictions of the great sleuth represented in the original Sidney Padget illustrations to the stories' debut publication in THE STRAND MAGAZINE. Ian Fleming's Watson, moreover, may be the most accurate interpretation of Doyle's Watson ever to appear on film - believable both as someone intelligent enough to be a physician and slow and prideful enough to mistakenly think he had solved the crime where Holmes had not. About the only thing he lacks is the original Watson's stocky build. The subtle insinuation found collectively within the original stories to the effect that Watson always had an eye for the ladies is also played up in this offering.
The chemistry between all the characters is fine and includes some excellent examples of Sherlockian sardonic wit which project completely authentically even though they are entirely original to the script of this film (one being noted in the "quotations" portion of this web page).
All-in-all, it is worth seeing for all fans of the Holmes of both literature and the movies.
P.S. -- the secret society in the film is called the "SCOWERERS", NOT the "Scowlers" (just read the the novel).
Arthur Wontner gives one of the better Holmes portrayals, as well as bearing a striking physical resemblance to the depictions of the great sleuth represented in the original Sidney Padget illustrations to the stories' debut publication in THE STRAND MAGAZINE. Ian Fleming's Watson, moreover, may be the most accurate interpretation of Doyle's Watson ever to appear on film - believable both as someone intelligent enough to be a physician and slow and prideful enough to mistakenly think he had solved the crime where Holmes had not. About the only thing he lacks is the original Watson's stocky build. The subtle insinuation found collectively within the original stories to the effect that Watson always had an eye for the ladies is also played up in this offering.
The chemistry between all the characters is fine and includes some excellent examples of Sherlockian sardonic wit which project completely authentically even though they are entirely original to the script of this film (one being noted in the "quotations" portion of this web page).
All-in-all, it is worth seeing for all fans of the Holmes of both literature and the movies.
P.S. -- the secret society in the film is called the "SCOWERERS", NOT the "Scowlers" (just read the the novel).
Coal Secrets
sol-kay6 December 2004
***SPOILERS*** Sherlock Holmes, Arthur Wontner, looking more like Gen. Douglas MacArthur minus his corn cob pipe, Sherlock puffs on his famous Calabash Bassoon in the movie like in all the other films that he's in, is hot on the trail of his archenemy the brilliant but diabolical Prof. Moriarty, Lyn Harding. In a tale of murder and deception in the movie "The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes".
Sherlock retired from police work and living in the country tending his beloved bees and beehives is brought out of retirement when he gets a coded message from one of Prof. Moriarty's hoods.Pllock,about a murder thats about to be committed at the Birlstone Castle. Before Holmes can do anything to prevent the murder from happening he finds out from police inspector Lestrade, Charles Mortimer, that the owner of the Birlstone Castle John Douglas,Leslie Perrins, was murdered. Douglas had his head blown off with a shotgun the night before.
Going with the police to the Birlstone Castle Sherlock Holmes checks out the murder scene to see if he can come up with any clues. Sherlock finds Douglas' wife Ettie, Jane Carr, a bit deceptive about her husband and feels that she's hiding something that can crack the case wide open for reasons only known to herself.
Pressed by Sherlock Holmes Ettie tell him and the police the true story about her husband John and how she first met him. John Douglas is really an American hoodlum from Chicago named John Murdoc who she first met in the coal mining district of Pennsylvania called "The Valley of Fear". Murdoc was a member of a group of criminals called "The Scowlers" who terrorized the people in that area.
Murdoc participated and committed a number of vicious crimes with "The Scowlers" in "The Valley of Fear" and in no time at all became one of the leading henchmen of the outfit run by Boss McGinty, Roy Emerson. One day Murdoc tells McGinty that there's a spy among them and that he'll lead them to him where they can shut him up for good.
Going to this deserted house in the valley Murdoc tell McGinty & Co. that the spy's name is Bernie Edwards and in a moment he'll be coming over and that they can give Bernie a hot reception as soon as he shows up. Murdoc walking out of the house for a minute and then coming in tell the startled "Scowlers" that he's Bernie Edwards and that he's also a agent of the Pinkerton Detective Agency and that their all under arrest. With that the house is raided by the police and McGinty and his top henchmen including Ted Balding, Ben Welden, are arrested and the whole "Scowlers" gang is put out of business for good.
Balding later escapes from prison and goes to England where he gets in touch with Prof. Moriarty to help him find Murdoc/Edwards and offers him $50,000.00 to do it. Balding learning from Prof. Moriarty that Murdoc/Edwards is now known as John Douglas and lives at the Birlstone Castle then sneaks into the castle to murder Douglas. It's then that Douglas turns the tables on him and blows Balding's head off with the shotgun that he had with him. Douglas then puts his wedding ring on Balding's finger and makes it look like it was him, John Douglas, that was murdered.
In the end Prof. Moriarty goes to the castle at night to meet Balding, who he thinks is alive, to get his $50,000.00 reward that he offered him for finding out who the former Murdoc/Edwards is and where he could find him. With Sherlock Holmes and the police having set a trap for him Moriarty is chased up to the castle tower and then falls down into the moat and drowns. As the movie ends we see Sherlock Holmes back home at his country estate tending to his bees.
"The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes" has it's usual brain-twisting clues that only the great Sherlock Holmes' magnificent brain can figure out like half burnt candles missing dumb bells and coded messages. But the most obvious and important clue in the film went right over the great Sherlock Holmes' head; his being unable to see that the body minus it's head wasn't that of John Douglas. Douglas to Balding, who was made to look by Douglas as himself, was as opposite and different as Mutt is to Jeff.
Also the movie had a very annoying soundtrack that sounded like the sounds you would hear if you were in a German U-Boat some 200 feet under the North Atlantic Ocean.
Sherlock retired from police work and living in the country tending his beloved bees and beehives is brought out of retirement when he gets a coded message from one of Prof. Moriarty's hoods.Pllock,about a murder thats about to be committed at the Birlstone Castle. Before Holmes can do anything to prevent the murder from happening he finds out from police inspector Lestrade, Charles Mortimer, that the owner of the Birlstone Castle John Douglas,Leslie Perrins, was murdered. Douglas had his head blown off with a shotgun the night before.
Going with the police to the Birlstone Castle Sherlock Holmes checks out the murder scene to see if he can come up with any clues. Sherlock finds Douglas' wife Ettie, Jane Carr, a bit deceptive about her husband and feels that she's hiding something that can crack the case wide open for reasons only known to herself.
Pressed by Sherlock Holmes Ettie tell him and the police the true story about her husband John and how she first met him. John Douglas is really an American hoodlum from Chicago named John Murdoc who she first met in the coal mining district of Pennsylvania called "The Valley of Fear". Murdoc was a member of a group of criminals called "The Scowlers" who terrorized the people in that area.
Murdoc participated and committed a number of vicious crimes with "The Scowlers" in "The Valley of Fear" and in no time at all became one of the leading henchmen of the outfit run by Boss McGinty, Roy Emerson. One day Murdoc tells McGinty that there's a spy among them and that he'll lead them to him where they can shut him up for good.
Going to this deserted house in the valley Murdoc tell McGinty & Co. that the spy's name is Bernie Edwards and in a moment he'll be coming over and that they can give Bernie a hot reception as soon as he shows up. Murdoc walking out of the house for a minute and then coming in tell the startled "Scowlers" that he's Bernie Edwards and that he's also a agent of the Pinkerton Detective Agency and that their all under arrest. With that the house is raided by the police and McGinty and his top henchmen including Ted Balding, Ben Welden, are arrested and the whole "Scowlers" gang is put out of business for good.
Balding later escapes from prison and goes to England where he gets in touch with Prof. Moriarty to help him find Murdoc/Edwards and offers him $50,000.00 to do it. Balding learning from Prof. Moriarty that Murdoc/Edwards is now known as John Douglas and lives at the Birlstone Castle then sneaks into the castle to murder Douglas. It's then that Douglas turns the tables on him and blows Balding's head off with the shotgun that he had with him. Douglas then puts his wedding ring on Balding's finger and makes it look like it was him, John Douglas, that was murdered.
In the end Prof. Moriarty goes to the castle at night to meet Balding, who he thinks is alive, to get his $50,000.00 reward that he offered him for finding out who the former Murdoc/Edwards is and where he could find him. With Sherlock Holmes and the police having set a trap for him Moriarty is chased up to the castle tower and then falls down into the moat and drowns. As the movie ends we see Sherlock Holmes back home at his country estate tending to his bees.
"The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes" has it's usual brain-twisting clues that only the great Sherlock Holmes' magnificent brain can figure out like half burnt candles missing dumb bells and coded messages. But the most obvious and important clue in the film went right over the great Sherlock Holmes' head; his being unable to see that the body minus it's head wasn't that of John Douglas. Douglas to Balding, who was made to look by Douglas as himself, was as opposite and different as Mutt is to Jeff.
Also the movie had a very annoying soundtrack that sounded like the sounds you would hear if you were in a German U-Boat some 200 feet under the North Atlantic Ocean.
Early Holmes adaptation hits all the right notes
Leofwine_draca22 November 2016
Warning: Spoilers
The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes is a fairly watchable outing for the intrepid detective, predating Basil Rathbone by some 4 years. One of the most unfortunate things about this film is that it was shot on a low budget in the UK, which means that modern-day prints are pretty terrible looking: sound you can't hear half of, crackling all the while, fuzzy-looking picture. If you can put these flaws aside and view the film for what it was at the time it was made, I think you'll be impressed, as this is one of the most literate, engaging, well-scripted and loyal Holmes movies out there.
It's also very static and stagy, which loses it points, but then this is to be expected in the mid-1930s; it wasn't until Rathbone's entrance as the famous detective that Holmes became an adventurer, a fighting hero. Here he's more inclined to sit back and examine a few clues, but then this is in the spirit of the book.
The film does have some other flaws, mainly in the plotting. The inclusion of arch-villain Moriarty seems to be an instance of 'over egging the cake' because he really does feel extraneous to the story here. He adds an extra twenty minutes to the running time, which is why, I guess, they put him in. There's also a lengthy sub-plot set in America, which isn't very interesting – at least until the twist. In fact, the only thing that kept me watching during this mid section of the film was the presence of Roy Emerton, playing 'Boss' McGinty – this huge, scarred British character actor is absolutely fantastic, I couldn't take my eyes off him. What a scary, imposing presence he has – it's a shame he never made it bigger than he did.
There's some more great casting in the central pairing of Arthur Wontner as Holmes and Ian Fleming (not the author) as Watson. These guys are exactly how you imagine them in the stories, and Wontner even closely resembles the original illustrations of Holmes in the Strand magazine. They're great actors to boot, with Fleming adding comedy (although not overdone) as Watson and Wontner ably catching Holmes' edgy, brainy appeal. I wish the mystery had given the duo a little more to do – a little more to get their teeth into, perhaps – but they really do make the film stand out. The same actors paired up for a half dozen or so Holmes outings and, on the strength of this, they're worth tracking down for fans of the big man.
It's also very static and stagy, which loses it points, but then this is to be expected in the mid-1930s; it wasn't until Rathbone's entrance as the famous detective that Holmes became an adventurer, a fighting hero. Here he's more inclined to sit back and examine a few clues, but then this is in the spirit of the book.
The film does have some other flaws, mainly in the plotting. The inclusion of arch-villain Moriarty seems to be an instance of 'over egging the cake' because he really does feel extraneous to the story here. He adds an extra twenty minutes to the running time, which is why, I guess, they put him in. There's also a lengthy sub-plot set in America, which isn't very interesting – at least until the twist. In fact, the only thing that kept me watching during this mid section of the film was the presence of Roy Emerton, playing 'Boss' McGinty – this huge, scarred British character actor is absolutely fantastic, I couldn't take my eyes off him. What a scary, imposing presence he has – it's a shame he never made it bigger than he did.
There's some more great casting in the central pairing of Arthur Wontner as Holmes and Ian Fleming (not the author) as Watson. These guys are exactly how you imagine them in the stories, and Wontner even closely resembles the original illustrations of Holmes in the Strand magazine. They're great actors to boot, with Fleming adding comedy (although not overdone) as Watson and Wontner ably catching Holmes' edgy, brainy appeal. I wish the mystery had given the duo a little more to do – a little more to get their teeth into, perhaps – but they really do make the film stand out. The same actors paired up for a half dozen or so Holmes outings and, on the strength of this, they're worth tracking down for fans of the big man.
Arch Enemy
StrictlyConfidential19 October 2021
Warning: Spoilers
"The Triumph Of Sherlock Holmes" was originally released back in 1935.
Anyway - As the story goes - Holmes and Dr. Watson travel to Biristone Castle to unravel a mysterious murder. The trail leads to a secret American society of coal-miners called the Scowlers. As usual, that diabolical villain, Professor Moriarty, is the evil instigator who has allied with a American mobster to kill the detective who is trying to bring down the Scowlers.
Anyway - As the story goes - Holmes and Dr. Watson travel to Biristone Castle to unravel a mysterious murder. The trail leads to a secret American society of coal-miners called the Scowlers. As usual, that diabolical villain, Professor Moriarty, is the evil instigator who has allied with a American mobster to kill the detective who is trying to bring down the Scowlers.
Innovative Sherlock Holmes mystery, though you have to watch the whole movie to understand why
gridoon202429 January 2021
For at least two thirds of the way, this film plays more like a turkey than a triumph; the direction is static and there are incredibly long flashbacks where the narrator does not even appear in most of the events she is recounting, while Sherlock Holmes becomes a guest star in his own movie. But, in the last third, the film regains its footing with a couple of smart twists which prove that all those flashbacks served a purpose after all. Not to say much more, so that I won't spoil it for you, but this mystery uses a narrative technique that is most unusual for its time and didn't enter the "mainstream" for at least 15 more years, when a much more famous director employed it. Arthur Wontner is a very pleasurable Holmes, but like his other films, the print itself is pretty poor. **1/2 out of 4.
Authentic old guard Holmes
greenbudgie10 February 2021
This is the fourth portrayal of Sherlock Holmes by Arthur Wontner in his authentic old guard style. It tells the tale of 'The Valley Of Fear' fairly faithfully to the original. He was 60 by the time he made this so Wontner is just right to play a Sherlock Holmes of early retirement age. Holmes retires to Sussex to keep bees but Watson and Lestrade soon get him back on a case. The action shifts 20 miles away to Birlstone Castle where the owner Mr Douglas has his head blown away by a sawn-off shotgun.
At Birlstone Castle an old man has been taking an interest in it's old ruined tower. Holmes suspects that a Professor Moriarty is much involved in the brutal killing there. Dr Watson tries to soften Holmes' obsessive suspicion by telling him that Moriarty is just a harmless old professor of mathematics. But Moriarty is full on menace in this film rather than just hovering as in the original 'Valley Of Fear.'
Holmes goes missing from the action for a long time as Mrs Douglas recounts the American part of the story. But of course this is how the original tale was written so perhaps this film shouldn't be faulted for that. In fact the action that is being recounted is good and tells of the secret society of Scowrers. The brutish-looking Roy Emerton is terrific as Boss McGinty of the Scowrers as he towers above his fellow mobsters in his mean and mocking way. But it is good to eventually return to Holmes himself to see how he solves this intriguing mystery.
At Birlstone Castle an old man has been taking an interest in it's old ruined tower. Holmes suspects that a Professor Moriarty is much involved in the brutal killing there. Dr Watson tries to soften Holmes' obsessive suspicion by telling him that Moriarty is just a harmless old professor of mathematics. But Moriarty is full on menace in this film rather than just hovering as in the original 'Valley Of Fear.'
Holmes goes missing from the action for a long time as Mrs Douglas recounts the American part of the story. But of course this is how the original tale was written so perhaps this film shouldn't be faulted for that. In fact the action that is being recounted is good and tells of the secret society of Scowrers. The brutish-looking Roy Emerton is terrific as Boss McGinty of the Scowrers as he towers above his fellow mobsters in his mean and mocking way. But it is good to eventually return to Holmes himself to see how he solves this intriguing mystery.
Excellent Holmes
allan-broadfield25 March 2006
I am afraid that I am a complete sucker for the Arthur Wontner series of Sherlock Holmes films. These films aren't presented in a very good form, in fact the copies of each of these Wontner titles have awful soundracks, soft focus and very flat contrast, seemingly copied from the worst scource possible. It is a pity that we should be subjected to this third class sort of presentation, as I have seen them on British television in a much more acceptable form, so a liitle bit of effort could have produced the goods! I am quite ellated that one of the two missing Wontner films , 'THE SLEEPING CARDINAL', has been found alive and well in the states...I suppose it is a bit too much to expect that this will be be an improvement in picture quality.
Ups and Downs
Hughmanity23 October 2023
This movie was odd because of the construction of it where Holmes is in the beginning and end of the movie but goes missing for a 40 minute stretch in the middle as we go to a very long flashback story.
The sound really isn't great and combined with the quick-clipped way of speaking by the actors it makes for some tough understanding at times. I watched on YouTube and the only subtitles I could get were English auto-generated (meaning voice recognition) which was about 50% wrong on words.
Wontner is great as Holmes and when he's on screen doing his deducting it's fun. The problem is he solves everything so quickly that it's like they had to put this whole other flashback movie into the middle of this one just to slow him down a bit.
It's interesting to watch the acting of the times which, with the exception of the top actors like Wontner and Ian Fleming (Holmes), is very straight forward with rapid fire dialogue. Suffice to say acting has come a long way since 1935.
It's worth a watch but I wish someone would write up a full explainer and post to the internet so I could better understand the nuances of the plot.
The sound really isn't great and combined with the quick-clipped way of speaking by the actors it makes for some tough understanding at times. I watched on YouTube and the only subtitles I could get were English auto-generated (meaning voice recognition) which was about 50% wrong on words.
Wontner is great as Holmes and when he's on screen doing his deducting it's fun. The problem is he solves everything so quickly that it's like they had to put this whole other flashback movie into the middle of this one just to slow him down a bit.
It's interesting to watch the acting of the times which, with the exception of the top actors like Wontner and Ian Fleming (Holmes), is very straight forward with rapid fire dialogue. Suffice to say acting has come a long way since 1935.
It's worth a watch but I wish someone would write up a full explainer and post to the internet so I could better understand the nuances of the plot.
Good Arthur Wontner/Sherlock Holmes Feature
Snow Leopard27 June 2005
This is a good entry in the Arthur Wontner series of Sherlock Holmes movies, adapting one of Arthur Conan Doyle's most interesting and involved stories. The movie does a solid job of telling the story within its obvious budgetary constraints, Wontner as usual looks authentic as Holmes, and the story does the rest. Lyn Harding is solid as Moriarty, but as this series tended to do, the character is played more as a tough guy than as a twisted genius of crime.
The original story is a particularly good one because it takes a Holmes mystery with the usual intriguing details and puzzles, and combines it with an elaborate story about the backgrounds of the other characters involved. The original story has rarely been used in the movies, and it was unfortunately one of the ones not included in the outstanding Jeremy Brett series. So it's particularly fortunate that this version of it is still around.
The settings range from an old English castle to a rough part of the USA where outlaws are in charge. It's too bad that the production values were so low, because with some extra work, the settings could really add a lot to the atmosphere. Here, at least, they provide just enough to make a believable backdrop to the interesting story.
The original story is a particularly good one because it takes a Holmes mystery with the usual intriguing details and puzzles, and combines it with an elaborate story about the backgrounds of the other characters involved. The original story has rarely been used in the movies, and it was unfortunately one of the ones not included in the outstanding Jeremy Brett series. So it's particularly fortunate that this version of it is still around.
The settings range from an old English castle to a rough part of the USA where outlaws are in charge. It's too bad that the production values were so low, because with some extra work, the settings could really add a lot to the atmosphere. Here, at least, they provide just enough to make a believable backdrop to the interesting story.
A lot going on here, but wonderful none the less.
mark.waltz7 February 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Another Arthur Wontner vehicle as Sherlock Holmes (with someone named Ian Fleming as Dr. Watson, no relation to the person who created another legendary super hero), this one initially focuses on the very evil Dr. Moriarty (played with a very openly sinister nature by actor Lyn Harding), obviously seeking revenge against Holmes. With Moriarty temporarily sidelined in the plot, Holmes aides the pretty Jane Carr in dealing with a group of sinister criminals, with Moriarty apparently uninvolved. But being a Holmes mystery, you never know what twists and turns are going to occur, and his name does pop up as a possible member of that gang as well, perhaps the mastermind.
In spite of the somewhat convoluted mixture of two sets of criminal organizations, this remains fascinating because it keeps you guessing as to where it is going to go. The white haired Fleming is a delight as Watson, certainly nothing like Ian Hunter from a few years earlier, and a complete contrast to Nigel Bruce in the American series from a few years later. One thing this has over the earlier Wontner vehicles as Holmes is that it is far less creaky and thus easier to watch, but that's because technical achievements over the past few years in films had allowed them to stop being so static and have a lot more action while moving the camera around. For a low budget picture, this looks very lavish, and it is on par with the best of the Rathbone and Bruce films.
In spite of the somewhat convoluted mixture of two sets of criminal organizations, this remains fascinating because it keeps you guessing as to where it is going to go. The white haired Fleming is a delight as Watson, certainly nothing like Ian Hunter from a few years earlier, and a complete contrast to Nigel Bruce in the American series from a few years later. One thing this has over the earlier Wontner vehicles as Holmes is that it is far less creaky and thus easier to watch, but that's because technical achievements over the past few years in films had allowed them to stop being so static and have a lot more action while moving the camera around. For a low budget picture, this looks very lavish, and it is on par with the best of the Rathbone and Bruce films.
An excellent, though flawed DVD, Sherlock Holmes movie
dj455k26 June 2007
"The Triumoph of Sherlock Holmes" recently came out on DVD. First off the copy is quite awful, although from what I have read there aren't very good video sources to take from. Secondly, Arthur Wontner's Holmes is excellent. He looks like Holmes and he acts like Holmes as portrayed by Conan Doyle.
The movie is based on one of the longer length stories, "The Valley of Fear". The story includes a long flashback to Pennsylvania coal country in the US and is included in the movie. It is very well done. As near as I can tell the scenes in America were done with American actors, including the well known character actor Ben Welden, except for Boss McGinty played by Roy Emerton who does a great job.
The movie contains a good many Holmesian aphorisms taken from other stories. While it's always a pleasure to hear them I can imagine if you saw movie after movie and heard the same lines multiple times it could become a little annoying.
I particularly liked the Watson of Ian Fleming as every time Holmes introduces himself and neglects Watson, Watson nudges him with his arm. A small bit but nicely done.
The movie is based on one of the longer length stories, "The Valley of Fear". The story includes a long flashback to Pennsylvania coal country in the US and is included in the movie. It is very well done. As near as I can tell the scenes in America were done with American actors, including the well known character actor Ben Welden, except for Boss McGinty played by Roy Emerton who does a great job.
The movie contains a good many Holmesian aphorisms taken from other stories. While it's always a pleasure to hear them I can imagine if you saw movie after movie and heard the same lines multiple times it could become a little annoying.
I particularly liked the Watson of Ian Fleming as every time Holmes introduces himself and neglects Watson, Watson nudges him with his arm. A small bit but nicely done.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
