The follow-up to the the very successful The Hound of the Baskervilles,is even better than its predecessor.Basil Rathbone gives a marvelous performance as the super-sleuth.His performance in disguise as a singer at a party is fantastic.He was totally unrecognizable.Nigel Bruce was as always good as Holmes 's sidekick Dr.Watson.But what elevates this entry in the Holmes-series was the portrayal of George Zucco's Dr.Moriarty,Holmes's nemesis. Moriarty's plot to break his enemy was rather clever.I enjoyed seeing Rathbone really getting in to the persona of Holmes in this one.The movie's short running-time was perhaps my only disappointment.
86 Reviews
Showdown between Geniuses.
Coventry2 January 2006
Every great hero needs at least one arch enemy that nearly is his equivalent in intellectual faculties and ingenious working methods. For Sherlock Holmes this nemesis is Professor Moriarty and the fact that he appears in this film first, moreover portrayed by the more-than-brilliant cult star George Zucco, makes "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" maybe the single best entry in the long-running Basil Rathbone/Nigel Bruce movie cycle! The sublime interactions between Holmes and Moriarty lift the quality of this film up to an higher level and, for the first time ever, you get the impression that our master detective is up against an opponent who really forces him to use ALL of his intellect for once. Almost purely for the fun of it, Professor Moriarty decides to embarrass Sherlock Holmes and steal the hugely valuable crown jewels right from under his nose. Through well thought out red herrings and distractions, Moriarty manages to confuse Holmes and to mess up his sense for priority, giving him with a perfect opportunity to steal the jewels. This installment is less of a horror film because the emphasis merely lies on the nuanced acting performances as well as on the light-hearted rivalry between Holmes and Watson. The Victorian setting & timing is excellent, and you should enjoy it as much as you can here, because the series got uplifted to the actual 1940's after this, resulting in a lot of redundant wartime propaganda. Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce are splendid as usual, but the show is undeniably stolen by George Zucco in his familiar role of criminal mastermind. Particularly the sadistic yet sophisticated conversations with his butler are pure class. The only elements that slightly disappointed me was the rushed and action-packed ending which stands in contrast with the rest of the patiently scripted story. Nevertheless, highly recommended!
The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes
Scarecrow-8825 December 2009
Warning: Spoilers
While I was definitely thrilled to at long last see "The Hound of the Baskervilles", I had no idea how much fun I had in store of me regarding this second and last Sherlock Holmes film produced by studio 2oth Century Fox. "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" may be overplotted for some, but there's a significant reason that so much story is at play in this movie..the diabolical Professor Moriarty and cerebral sleuth will be at another battle of great minds with a labyrinthine scenario set up which will end in fine fashion atop the Tower of London.
Again, we have a fantastic cast and dizzyingly complex plot concerning Moriarty's setting up one scheme to disguise another. Ida Lupino, who is simply lovely, has an early part as Ann Brandon, worried for her life after the murders of both her father and brother. Her fiancé is the dashing Jerrold Hunter(Terry Kilburn), who was suppose to keep her brother safe from potential harm. He becomes a suspect when her brother is found on the street strangled(..the killer bashed him over the skull post-mortem as a minor diversion from the original crime)and Brandon receives a drawing(..like he did), sketched by Moriarty himself to keep Holmes preoccupied, threatening her life at a specific date. Meanwhile, a certain jewel is to be stored in a treasure vault in the Tower of London, and Holmes is asked to see that it arrives there safely. Dualing tasks keep Holmes and Watson quite busy, which is all according to Moriarty's orchestrated plan to create the "perfect crime that will forever haunt Holmes".
The chance to see George Zucco as Holmes' greatest adversary is a horror buff's dream, or at least it was mine, and you couldn't ask for a more perfect actor to play him(..except maybe Atwill who later takes this role in "The Secret Weapon"). Zucco has a sneering, smarmy, superiority complex, a belief in his abilities to thwart Holmes, developing complicated scenarios to trap and defeat the celebrated detective. Rathbone and Watson, again, add such wonderment to the proceedings, complimenting the challenging story as it unfolds. I can't express the enjoyment I have seeing Holmes unwind the coils, often analyzing and clinically unweaving the mysteries set before him, getting to the bottom of nefarious criminals' deeds, discovering how to stop them or to call them out into the open. The suspense is well mounted, particularly when Lupino awaits certain doom, the use of a flute ominous in it's "death tune", and a chase through a thick forest where a killer could be close behind. How Holmes is able to solve the cases and halt Moriarty is why I love the Rathbone/Bruce series. The jewel trick, masterminded by Moriarty to get into the cell containing the Queen's crown, is a thing of beauty..too bad he underestimated his arch rival's uncanny abilities to deduce, connecting the dots right in time.
Again, we have a fantastic cast and dizzyingly complex plot concerning Moriarty's setting up one scheme to disguise another. Ida Lupino, who is simply lovely, has an early part as Ann Brandon, worried for her life after the murders of both her father and brother. Her fiancé is the dashing Jerrold Hunter(Terry Kilburn), who was suppose to keep her brother safe from potential harm. He becomes a suspect when her brother is found on the street strangled(..the killer bashed him over the skull post-mortem as a minor diversion from the original crime)and Brandon receives a drawing(..like he did), sketched by Moriarty himself to keep Holmes preoccupied, threatening her life at a specific date. Meanwhile, a certain jewel is to be stored in a treasure vault in the Tower of London, and Holmes is asked to see that it arrives there safely. Dualing tasks keep Holmes and Watson quite busy, which is all according to Moriarty's orchestrated plan to create the "perfect crime that will forever haunt Holmes".
The chance to see George Zucco as Holmes' greatest adversary is a horror buff's dream, or at least it was mine, and you couldn't ask for a more perfect actor to play him(..except maybe Atwill who later takes this role in "The Secret Weapon"). Zucco has a sneering, smarmy, superiority complex, a belief in his abilities to thwart Holmes, developing complicated scenarios to trap and defeat the celebrated detective. Rathbone and Watson, again, add such wonderment to the proceedings, complimenting the challenging story as it unfolds. I can't express the enjoyment I have seeing Holmes unwind the coils, often analyzing and clinically unweaving the mysteries set before him, getting to the bottom of nefarious criminals' deeds, discovering how to stop them or to call them out into the open. The suspense is well mounted, particularly when Lupino awaits certain doom, the use of a flute ominous in it's "death tune", and a chase through a thick forest where a killer could be close behind. How Holmes is able to solve the cases and halt Moriarty is why I love the Rathbone/Bruce series. The jewel trick, masterminded by Moriarty to get into the cell containing the Queen's crown, is a thing of beauty..too bad he underestimated his arch rival's uncanny abilities to deduce, connecting the dots right in time.
Superb version of the stage play...excellent performances by Rathbone, Bruce and Lupino...
Doylenf13 April 2001
Having recently completed a film article due for publication in FILMS OF THE GOLDEN AGE on Ida Lupino, it's a pleasure to report that this is one of her best early performances. She plays a terrified young woman who seeks the help of Sherlock Holmes when she becomes concerned about her brother's safety. He soon determines that she too is being stalked by killers. Her brother is killed and the plot thickens with a sub-plot involving Professor Moriarty's plans to steal the Crown Jewels and the Star of Delhi. Holmes eventually solves the case and defeats the diabolical Moriarty with a plan of his own. Reviewers judged this film even superior to the earlier 'Hound of the Baskervilles'. Indeed, it's fully as atmospheric and suspenseful with handsomely staged scenes in gas-lit Victorian London. George Zucco makes an ideal villain and the main roles by Rathbone, Nigel Bruce and Ida Lupino are handled with their customary skill. Definitely worth seeing and far superior to the later Universal entries which updated all of the Holmes stories.
Excellent Holmes yarn
The_Void3 June 2005
This entry in the Sherlock Holmes series is one of the best and it sees the great Basil Rathbone reprise his role as the eloquent sleuth, Sherlock Holmes, once again. This film sees the world's greatest detective face off against his arch nemesis, Professor Moriarty, who plans to not only commit the world's greatest crime, but do it right under the nose of our protagonist. Like most detective dramas, this one keeps itself alive by offering the audience a constant sense of intrigue and ensuring that we follow the mystery along with Sherlock Holmes. The film also benefits from it's central character, who is always a delight to have on screen before you. Holmes is brought to life with a confidant and assured persona, and you always get the impression that he knows exactly what he's doing. His mannerisms are also a treat, and the way that Holmes uses his spare time to do things such as play violin to houseflies, is absurdly funny and helps to build the character into the eccentric and intelligent man that he is.
While a few people, such as Peter Cushing for example, have played Sherlock Holmes; it will always be Basil Rathbone that will be best remembered for it. His persona blends exquisitely with that of the central character, and it makes for a great piece of casting. His mannerisms and personality are great throughout, and Basil Rathbone was clearly born for this role. The rest of the casting is good too, with Nigel Bruce in the role of Watson making the best of it, and also cult favourite George Zucco, who brings class and sophistication to the role of Holmes' arch enemy Professor Moriarty. The story itself is strong, and the two mysteries that run through it combine well together and both threads are interesting enough to keep the audience entertained throughout. It's a shame that films like this aren't made any more as they make for a great slice of entertainment, as we watch a mystery unravel before our eyes. Still, a lot were made in the 30's and 40's and I plan to track them all down!
While a few people, such as Peter Cushing for example, have played Sherlock Holmes; it will always be Basil Rathbone that will be best remembered for it. His persona blends exquisitely with that of the central character, and it makes for a great piece of casting. His mannerisms and personality are great throughout, and Basil Rathbone was clearly born for this role. The rest of the casting is good too, with Nigel Bruce in the role of Watson making the best of it, and also cult favourite George Zucco, who brings class and sophistication to the role of Holmes' arch enemy Professor Moriarty. The story itself is strong, and the two mysteries that run through it combine well together and both threads are interesting enough to keep the audience entertained throughout. It's a shame that films like this aren't made any more as they make for a great slice of entertainment, as we watch a mystery unravel before our eyes. Still, a lot were made in the 30's and 40's and I plan to track them all down!
The Crown Jewels
telegonus6 October 2002
Released in the landmark movie year of 1939, this is my favorite Sherlock Holmes film. It is set in the proper period, has a reasonable budget, excellent sets, and fog so thick one would have to cut it with a razor. The story has to do with Professor Moriarity's scheme to steal the crown jewels. More than anything, however, the movie is a vehicle for Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce, whose interpretations of Holmes and Watson are so engaging and larger than life that several decades later actors are still compared (usually unfavorably) to these two whenever they attempt to take on these roles. Rathbone makes an impressive Holmes,--cunning, gentlemanly, high-minded, somewhat competitive, intensely focused. One of the many things that makes Rathbone so perfect as Holmes is that while he may fall short of the mark in his portrayal of the character Conan Doyle created in print, he is an ideal movie Holmes. There's an heroic quality to him. Rathbone was more than a bit of a swashbuckler on screen, as is obvious in his many duels with Flynn and Power, and he brought some of this edgy, assertive quality to his interpretation of Holmes, and as is so often the case when an actor varies somewhat from a character created in fiction (Bogart is a far cry from Hammett's "blonde Satan" of a Sam Spade), this can actually work in his favor. Rathbone is Hollywood's Sherlock Holmes, and I can't imagine a better one. Bruce often played Watson as a bumbler later in the series, but in the early entries was more serious and competent. His movie Watson is overall somewhat comical, and creates a charming contrast to the grim, determined Holmes, and works for me because I like a little respite from the seriousness of a mystery, any mystery, since the genre is melodramatic, and hard to take when it gets too heavy. With Bruce on hand it never does.
One of the most entertaining Sherlock Holmes films ever made
Leofwine_draca16 January 2015
Warning: Spoilers
This fine Holmesian adventure marks the second time that Rathbone took up the deerstalker and pipe and stands as one of the best episodes in the popular series. The material is solid, packed with incident, and the film boasts a strong budget used nicely to represent a late Victorian London, full of pea-souper fog, horse-drawn carriages and mysterious gentlemen hanging around on street corners. Holmes fans will find Basil Rathbone giving a definitive performance as the refined detective and I believe this to be his best turn in the role, equalling Cushing's steely determinism twenty years later.
Also fantastic is Nigel Bruce, at his most lovable as the doltish, good-natured Watson, and a supporting cast that give assured and lively performances. Standing out from the crowd are Ida Lupino as the strong-willed and beautiful heroine; Alan Marshal as the cultured but slightly sinister lawyer; and in particular everyone's favourite villain from the 1940s, George Zucco, as Holmes's arch-enemy, the inimitable Professor Moriarty. Zucco is the epitome of refined evil in his performance here and I don't think it could have been bettered in any way.
The story takes many twists and turns and pulls off the difficult job of dealing with two apparently separate story lines at once. At times it appears to be unfocused and doesn't make much sense, but everything ties nicely together in a little package at the end, as is the habit of these movies. This is a film featuring loads of interesting elements, including a South American weapon of death; murders on fog-bound streets; the "Crime of the Century" in the theft of the Crown Jewels; an Incan funeral melody (!); a chinchilla's foot; an albatross; even a greenhouse full of plants features strongly. Everything gels together nicely with some priceless dialogue from our two heroic leads. THE ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES is an exciting, entertaining, downright enjoyable interpretation of literature's most famous detective and showcases Rathbone and Bruce at the peak of their careers.
Also fantastic is Nigel Bruce, at his most lovable as the doltish, good-natured Watson, and a supporting cast that give assured and lively performances. Standing out from the crowd are Ida Lupino as the strong-willed and beautiful heroine; Alan Marshal as the cultured but slightly sinister lawyer; and in particular everyone's favourite villain from the 1940s, George Zucco, as Holmes's arch-enemy, the inimitable Professor Moriarty. Zucco is the epitome of refined evil in his performance here and I don't think it could have been bettered in any way.
The story takes many twists and turns and pulls off the difficult job of dealing with two apparently separate story lines at once. At times it appears to be unfocused and doesn't make much sense, but everything ties nicely together in a little package at the end, as is the habit of these movies. This is a film featuring loads of interesting elements, including a South American weapon of death; murders on fog-bound streets; the "Crime of the Century" in the theft of the Crown Jewels; an Incan funeral melody (!); a chinchilla's foot; an albatross; even a greenhouse full of plants features strongly. Everything gels together nicely with some priceless dialogue from our two heroic leads. THE ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES is an exciting, entertaining, downright enjoyable interpretation of literature's most famous detective and showcases Rathbone and Bruce at the peak of their careers.
Classy Crime Caper
Ron Oliver25 July 2004
THE ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES takes him into deadly conflict with Britain's most dangerous criminal mastermind, Professor Moriarty.
20th Century Fox takes us back to the foggy London streets of 1894 in these exciting exploits of the world's most famous private consulting detective. The production values are of a high order in this story based on William Gillette's stage play about Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's celebrated characters. Basil Rathbone & Nigel Bruce return as Holmes and Watson, perfectly portraying that legendary literary partnership with good grace and cheerfulness, Rathbone allowing some traces of humanity to infuse Holmes' cerebral haughtiness, and Bruce, bumbling and big-hearted, enacting the embodiment of a staunch companion and friend.
Unfairly relegated to 6th place billing is George Zucco, marvelous as Moriarty. He presents us with a consummate villain of enormous intellect & subtle nuance, a monster passionate about his exotic plants but indifferent to human life. It is highly enjoyable watching him plot a dastardly crime while engaging in a masterful duel of wits with Holmes.
The other roles are also very well cast and highlight some fine British character actors: lovely Ida Lupino as a young woman frantic over an unknown evil stalking her family; handsome Alan Marshal as her family's lawyer; dignified Henry Stephenson as the worried Constable of the Tower of London; E.E. Clive as the dogged Scotland Yard inspector; and Mary Forbes as a kindly noblewoman who befriends Miss Lupino.
Some rather brief performances also enhance the whole: Mary Gordon as Holmes' grandmotherly landlady and young Terry Kilburn as his page boy; Peter Willes as Miss Lupino's terrified brother; elderly Frank Dawson as Moriarty's harassed butler; Holmes Herbert as a highly frustrated Law Court Justice; and William Austin as a stranger who has a peculiar encounter with Watson on a London sidewalk.
Two lighthearted moments especially standout -- Rathbone delightfully in disguise, and, at the very conclusion of the film, Watson deftly turning the tables on Holmes.
This was the second in a series of Holmes films starring Rathbone & Bruce which began at Fox Studios. It followed THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES (1939) and, after the jump to Universal Studios, preceded SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE VOICE OF TERROR (1942) three years later.
20th Century Fox takes us back to the foggy London streets of 1894 in these exciting exploits of the world's most famous private consulting detective. The production values are of a high order in this story based on William Gillette's stage play about Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's celebrated characters. Basil Rathbone & Nigel Bruce return as Holmes and Watson, perfectly portraying that legendary literary partnership with good grace and cheerfulness, Rathbone allowing some traces of humanity to infuse Holmes' cerebral haughtiness, and Bruce, bumbling and big-hearted, enacting the embodiment of a staunch companion and friend.
Unfairly relegated to 6th place billing is George Zucco, marvelous as Moriarty. He presents us with a consummate villain of enormous intellect & subtle nuance, a monster passionate about his exotic plants but indifferent to human life. It is highly enjoyable watching him plot a dastardly crime while engaging in a masterful duel of wits with Holmes.
The other roles are also very well cast and highlight some fine British character actors: lovely Ida Lupino as a young woman frantic over an unknown evil stalking her family; handsome Alan Marshal as her family's lawyer; dignified Henry Stephenson as the worried Constable of the Tower of London; E.E. Clive as the dogged Scotland Yard inspector; and Mary Forbes as a kindly noblewoman who befriends Miss Lupino.
Some rather brief performances also enhance the whole: Mary Gordon as Holmes' grandmotherly landlady and young Terry Kilburn as his page boy; Peter Willes as Miss Lupino's terrified brother; elderly Frank Dawson as Moriarty's harassed butler; Holmes Herbert as a highly frustrated Law Court Justice; and William Austin as a stranger who has a peculiar encounter with Watson on a London sidewalk.
Two lighthearted moments especially standout -- Rathbone delightfully in disguise, and, at the very conclusion of the film, Watson deftly turning the tables on Holmes.
This was the second in a series of Holmes films starring Rathbone & Bruce which began at Fox Studios. It followed THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES (1939) and, after the jump to Universal Studios, preceded SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE VOICE OF TERROR (1942) three years later.
You know you're a proper villain when you have your own theme music...
AlsExGal22 March 2021
... played live whenever you happen to be around.
This is the second of two Fox films made for the series with Basil Rathbone as Holmes. The film starts with a jury acquitting Dr. Moriarty (George Zucco) of murder. Right after that, in bursts Holmes and Watson with evidence that proves Moriarty was guilty, but the judge says it is too late. And believe me the judge is not happy about it. As Moriarty shares a cab with Holmes as they leave the courthouse, they both provoke and prod each other verbally. Moriarty says that he intends to break Holmes by pulling off the crime of the century right under his nose. Then he says, with Holmes' reputation ruined, he can retire in peace.
In the following days Holmes gets two requests for help. One is for the crown, helping guard a rare emerald that is to be added to the crown jewels. The other is from a young wealthy woman (Ida Lupino as Ann Brandon) who has received a drawing indicating her brother will be murdered and even gives the date. Ann is not being hysterical, as her father received exactly the same kind of note right before he was murdered when she was a child. This double duty requires Holmes to practically be in two places at once. Is Moriarty up to something? Of course he is! But as to what, watch and find out.
Zucco makes a very good Moriarty. After returning home after his acquittal he goes into his greenhouse to admire his plants and notices one of them is dead. He chastises his manservant for having "murdered" a plant by not watering it properly. Later, when his manservant is shaving him, he practically dares him to kill him with the bare blade. He's evil, he's edgy, and he prevents his role from descending into camp.
There are a couple of odd things I had questions about. At one point, Holmes and Moriarty are having it out in a gun battle and Holmes runs up the stairs of a building. Moriarty chases Holmes. With the police on the way. Up the stairs of a building where there is no exit. Did Moriarty get confused and think this is the twentieth century where a helicopter can arrive with his minions and help him make his escape? Also, the bit with the death threat to the Brandon family. Did Moriarty have something to do with the murder of Ann Brandon's father years ago, or did he just know about it and duplicate the elements? This is never explained.
Nigel Bruce gets some good lines in as Dr. Watson. At one point he is lying in the street helping Holmes reenact a crime. A passerby asks him if he should get a doctor. Watson replies "I'm a doctor, what's the matter with you?".
This is the second of two Fox films made for the series with Basil Rathbone as Holmes. The film starts with a jury acquitting Dr. Moriarty (George Zucco) of murder. Right after that, in bursts Holmes and Watson with evidence that proves Moriarty was guilty, but the judge says it is too late. And believe me the judge is not happy about it. As Moriarty shares a cab with Holmes as they leave the courthouse, they both provoke and prod each other verbally. Moriarty says that he intends to break Holmes by pulling off the crime of the century right under his nose. Then he says, with Holmes' reputation ruined, he can retire in peace.
In the following days Holmes gets two requests for help. One is for the crown, helping guard a rare emerald that is to be added to the crown jewels. The other is from a young wealthy woman (Ida Lupino as Ann Brandon) who has received a drawing indicating her brother will be murdered and even gives the date. Ann is not being hysterical, as her father received exactly the same kind of note right before he was murdered when she was a child. This double duty requires Holmes to practically be in two places at once. Is Moriarty up to something? Of course he is! But as to what, watch and find out.
Zucco makes a very good Moriarty. After returning home after his acquittal he goes into his greenhouse to admire his plants and notices one of them is dead. He chastises his manservant for having "murdered" a plant by not watering it properly. Later, when his manservant is shaving him, he practically dares him to kill him with the bare blade. He's evil, he's edgy, and he prevents his role from descending into camp.
There are a couple of odd things I had questions about. At one point, Holmes and Moriarty are having it out in a gun battle and Holmes runs up the stairs of a building. Moriarty chases Holmes. With the police on the way. Up the stairs of a building where there is no exit. Did Moriarty get confused and think this is the twentieth century where a helicopter can arrive with his minions and help him make his escape? Also, the bit with the death threat to the Brandon family. Did Moriarty have something to do with the murder of Ann Brandon's father years ago, or did he just know about it and duplicate the elements? This is never explained.
Nigel Bruce gets some good lines in as Dr. Watson. At one point he is lying in the street helping Holmes reenact a crime. A passerby asks him if he should get a doctor. Watson replies "I'm a doctor, what's the matter with you?".
A lot of fun
TheLittleSongbird16 December 2010
As a fan of Sherlock Holmes and of Basil Rathbone, I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. The plot is very silly, but is compelling enough and enjoyable throughout the whole duration. The film is well paced and well directed too mostly, while the production values are very nice. The photography, scenery and costumes are beautiful, but what I loved most about Sherlock Holmes was its evocative and haunting foggy London atmosphere. The script is of top-notch quality as well, often intelligent, funny and sophisticated.
The acting I had no qualms with either. George Zucco is an interesting Moriaty and does really well of not being too sinister or too hammy, his performance was a nice balance I felt. Nigel Bruce is decent as Watson, though I can see why people are annoyed by his interpretation of the character. I liked the enthusiasm and blimpish bluster Bruce gave, but there are times here when he does come across as a little too clownish. However, he does have some believable chemistry with Basil Rathbone, who is just superb as a more charismatic and sophisticated not to mention very eloquent Holmes.
Overall, a lot of fun and a case of where any minor flaws are completely overrided by the many strengths. Recommended! 9/10 Bethany Cox
The acting I had no qualms with either. George Zucco is an interesting Moriaty and does really well of not being too sinister or too hammy, his performance was a nice balance I felt. Nigel Bruce is decent as Watson, though I can see why people are annoyed by his interpretation of the character. I liked the enthusiasm and blimpish bluster Bruce gave, but there are times here when he does come across as a little too clownish. However, he does have some believable chemistry with Basil Rathbone, who is just superb as a more charismatic and sophisticated not to mention very eloquent Holmes.
Overall, a lot of fun and a case of where any minor flaws are completely overrided by the many strengths. Recommended! 9/10 Bethany Cox
Great Adventure Yarn - The One Where Moriarty Steals The Crown Jewels
ShootingShark8 January 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The evil criminal genius Professor Moriarty, having narrowly escaped the gallows, vows to ruin the reputation of London's master detective Sherlock Holmes by pulling off the crime of the century under his nose. He cleverly diverts Holmes' attention, appealing to his ego and intellect by anonymously drawing him into a mysterious murder case with very unusual features as a cover for his real intentions - to steal the Crown Jewels !
A follow-up to Twentieth Century Fox's original teaming of Rathbone and Bruce as Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson in The Hound Of The Baskervilles, this exciting caper is an equally impressive production and almost as exciting as its predecessor. The script, based on a play by William Gillette, is a corker - the whole Brandon murder mystery (a great story in itself, involving a gaucho killer who uses a bolas to strangle his victims), which takes up more than half the running-time, is a dummy to cover Moriarty's dastardly plot. Rathbone is sensational in the lead (don't miss his song-and-dance-man bit), and there are terrific supporting performances from the beautiful and talented Lupino and the consumately villainous Zucco. Unlike the later Universal films, this also benefits from a hefty budget, with horse traps racing through fantastic moody fog-filled Westminster streets and Holmes and Moriarty fighting atop The Tower Of London. One gripe with the story though - why does Moriarty, when his plan has worked perfectly, waste all his time gloating in the Jewel Room at the Tower, allowing Holmes the opportunity to rumble the plot and race back to catch him ? That aside however, this is a classic black-and-white Sherlock Holmes adventure for mystery fans everywhere.
A follow-up to Twentieth Century Fox's original teaming of Rathbone and Bruce as Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson in The Hound Of The Baskervilles, this exciting caper is an equally impressive production and almost as exciting as its predecessor. The script, based on a play by William Gillette, is a corker - the whole Brandon murder mystery (a great story in itself, involving a gaucho killer who uses a bolas to strangle his victims), which takes up more than half the running-time, is a dummy to cover Moriarty's dastardly plot. Rathbone is sensational in the lead (don't miss his song-and-dance-man bit), and there are terrific supporting performances from the beautiful and talented Lupino and the consumately villainous Zucco. Unlike the later Universal films, this also benefits from a hefty budget, with horse traps racing through fantastic moody fog-filled Westminster streets and Holmes and Moriarty fighting atop The Tower Of London. One gripe with the story though - why does Moriarty, when his plan has worked perfectly, waste all his time gloating in the Jewel Room at the Tower, allowing Holmes the opportunity to rumble the plot and race back to catch him ? That aside however, this is a classic black-and-white Sherlock Holmes adventure for mystery fans everywhere.
The most astounding crime of the Nineteenth Century Foxed
Spondonman20 March 2005
The only other in-period Rathbone Holmes film, this is brim full of atmosphere and high production values, never mind about how good the acting and direction was too. The many long scenes were taken leisurely which enabled me to get a real feel for Victorian London with all the fog outside the Fox set windows. Sadly the one aspect slightly lacking was the story but only through the comparison to Hound, overall Adventures is easily the best of the rest and the best Holmes-Moriarty duel on film.
Rathbone and Zucco souped up the mental jousting and added something more to the legend, it really was a pity Zucco couldn't do the other two Moriarty outings at Universal. Although Atwill and Daniell were both excellent as well - maybe the part couldn't fail as Holmes' foil! Ida Lupino played her melodramatic part well, she could have smiled at least once though! Nigel Bruce as faithful Watson was perfect as usual, at one point even to lying down and rolling over in the gutter for his ... master.
All in all, a notch down from Hound but in quality a long drop down from this to the Universals, much as I love them too.
Rathbone and Zucco souped up the mental jousting and added something more to the legend, it really was a pity Zucco couldn't do the other two Moriarty outings at Universal. Although Atwill and Daniell were both excellent as well - maybe the part couldn't fail as Holmes' foil! Ida Lupino played her melodramatic part well, she could have smiled at least once though! Nigel Bruce as faithful Watson was perfect as usual, at one point even to lying down and rolling over in the gutter for his ... master.
All in all, a notch down from Hound but in quality a long drop down from this to the Universals, much as I love them too.
One of the better Holmes
jjnxn-111 May 2013
One of the earliest Holmes movies with Basil Rathbone in the lead is one of the better entries in the series. Of course Rathbone and Bruce make a wonderful team but what helps separate this from the others is the casting of a very young Ida Lupino in the menaced maiden role, usually the endangered lady was a pretty but utilitarian actress of minor note. Ida was on her way up at this point and within the year would break through to the majors in "They Drive By Night" and her star quality shines through here making her plight and the mystery more involving. The film itself has good production values and moves at a brisk pace.
In reality, Moriarty would have won!
arminhage13 January 2015
Warning: Spoilers
Before I move forward, I have to mention that this story was not a genuine Arthur Canon Doyle story but rather based on Sherlock Holmes, a character created by him so the major gaps and flaws in the story are not to be subtracted from his credit. Story was grossly incoherent, illogical and hastily sewn together emphasizing on minor events rather than the grand theft itself. Lets see how and I warn you, this is going to be real spoiler if you haven't seen the movie. Story is simple. Moriarty wants engage Sherlock Holmes in a false murder threat to divert his attention from his plan to steal crown jewels. Problem starts right away. Sherlock Holmes is a private detective not the secret service or something and apparently there was no threat so why the crown treasurer wishes Holmes to be present in the delivery of an emerald? It doesn't make sense at all so even Moriarty's assumption that Holmes would be there is illogical... Of course Holmes would be there for story's sake otherwise there would be no story but the whole thing was built up on mud! Homes got involved with the murder threat of the lady and murder of his brother. There is minimal problem with that. Moriarty manages to keep Holmes away from the Tower. In the tower, a fake theft attempt was done so Moriarty can stay inside the tower. Watson goes back to Holmes. that takes at least 30 minutes. There they find out that Moriarty was up to something. It takes lets say 15 minutes. They go to Moriarty's house. It takes 30 minutes. They go inside and find out about his plans (15 minutes). They rush to the tower (another 30 minutes). That's roughly 2 hours and yet we see Moriarty was in the tower holding the same crown he had in his hands 2 hours ago!!! Seriously??? If it was for real, Moriarty would have won, gone with the jewels long before Holmes even finds out about his plan for the crown jewels. Not only the whole story was based on arrogant and stupid idea of Holmes being essential for the security of the crown on top of all British security agencies of the period, Holmes in no way could stop Moriarty if it was for real. Holmes was pictured as plain stupid, something like Inspector Gadget who managed to stop Moriarty by the wish of the writer rather than his intelligence. Some may say it is an old movie and stories were simple and somehow stupid in those early years of sound movies. I would say bullshit! We had masterpieces like Dr Mabuse years before these series. That was not what I expected from a highly acclaimed detective series.
boring stupid illogical movie. 2/10
boring stupid illogical movie. 2/10
Good Cast, Atmosphere, & Action
Snow Leopard3 June 2005
The cast, atmosphere, & action in this version of "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" are all good reasons why it is an enjoyable feature. The story is very loosely based on a play that itself had freely adapted some of Doyle's characters and plot ideas, and thus the plot is essentially entirely new, yet the Victorian atmosphere and Basil Rathbone's portrayal of the great detective give it a pretty good "Holmes" feel.
The basic story idea has Professor Moriarty scheming to exploit one of Holmes's few weaknesses, and although the plot in itself does not come from the novels, it is a perceptive way of using the characters. There are some loose ends in the story that would have been tied together except for some studio-decreed cuts; the notes that accompany the DVD release are quite helpful in covering what was omitted.
George Zucco makes fine use of his screen time as Moriarty, and Ida Lupino makes her character a demure and appealing heroine in distress, while showing some good spirit at the right times. Nigel Bruce's Watson has a rather different feel from Doyle's character, but he gets some good moments of his own here, and Bruce does well with them.
For a great many Sherlock Holmes fans, nothing can now rival the magnificent Jeremy Brett versions from the 1980s and 1990s, with their marvelous atmosphere, careful story adaptations, and Brett's penetrating portrayal of Holmes. But until those were made, Basil Rathbone's portrayal of the detective was as good as any of the many actors who had played him. This movie and its predecessor "The Hound of the Baskervilles" are among the most enjoyable of all of the Rathbone features, for their atmosphere and their lively stories.
The basic story idea has Professor Moriarty scheming to exploit one of Holmes's few weaknesses, and although the plot in itself does not come from the novels, it is a perceptive way of using the characters. There are some loose ends in the story that would have been tied together except for some studio-decreed cuts; the notes that accompany the DVD release are quite helpful in covering what was omitted.
George Zucco makes fine use of his screen time as Moriarty, and Ida Lupino makes her character a demure and appealing heroine in distress, while showing some good spirit at the right times. Nigel Bruce's Watson has a rather different feel from Doyle's character, but he gets some good moments of his own here, and Bruce does well with them.
For a great many Sherlock Holmes fans, nothing can now rival the magnificent Jeremy Brett versions from the 1980s and 1990s, with their marvelous atmosphere, careful story adaptations, and Brett's penetrating portrayal of Holmes. But until those were made, Basil Rathbone's portrayal of the detective was as good as any of the many actors who had played him. This movie and its predecessor "The Hound of the Baskervilles" are among the most enjoyable of all of the Rathbone features, for their atmosphere and their lively stories.
Flawed
astronic15 September 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Don't get me wrong, Sherlock Holmes is one of my favorite characters, I absolutely love the Victorian era setting and it would be unfair to say, that the actors (especially Mr. Rathbone) didn't pull a good job.
However, at least by today's standards the story is just too simple and predictable. At the moment Holmes knew that Moriarty has a connection to the Brandon case and after the striking coincidence of the jewel delivery and the garden party being at the same time, Moriarty's distraction plan should slap Mr. Holmes in his face, however, the detective mastermind fails to see the obvious. Also Moriarty's plan to steal the jewels is beyond dumb: All a criminal mastermind can come up with, is to shave and pose as police officer, with the vague hope that all the people around him don't recognize his prominent face and voice?
Furthermore the screenplay takes all liberties it wants, without paying attention, if something actually makes sense.
Why does Moriarty hire somebody to actually kill Ms. Brandon? He has nothing to gain, but in fact loses, after the caught killer talks about Moriarty's involvement.
Is it really standard procedure of tower guards, to move out with 10 man (and leaving no one behind) when a carriage has a minor accident in front of the tower, so that anybody can sneak past them?
Holmes in his entertainer outfit and the shaved Moriaty are easily recognizable for the viewer, both are very prominent figures, but no character who seems them in 3D and color recognizes them.
Why does Holmes choose to pose as an entertainer? It's a big risk to blow your cover when you have to sing in front of so many people and it's not a cover you can sneak around unobserved with?
Why doesn't Mr. Holmes tell the Tower Guards what's going on instead of sneaking past them?
Why do we have to witness a needless gunfight, when this is definitely out of character for Holmes and Moriaty?
Why do Mr. and Ms. Brandon behave so stupidly when they are under an imminent threat of getting killed? I'm mean, come, running in the woods at night is really a bad idea, when basically all you have to do is just to stay in other people's company.
I could go on for hours.
Things like this really spoiled the movie for me and just mustn't happen in a detective film, where a good story and plausibility are of great importance. Because it's always a pleasure to watch Mr. Rathbone as Sherlock and because dialogs and settings are fine, I'll still give this a weak 6. However, if you're looking for a sound detective movie (and not for a 19th century Sherlock Holmes film), you better look someplace else.
However, at least by today's standards the story is just too simple and predictable. At the moment Holmes knew that Moriarty has a connection to the Brandon case and after the striking coincidence of the jewel delivery and the garden party being at the same time, Moriarty's distraction plan should slap Mr. Holmes in his face, however, the detective mastermind fails to see the obvious. Also Moriarty's plan to steal the jewels is beyond dumb: All a criminal mastermind can come up with, is to shave and pose as police officer, with the vague hope that all the people around him don't recognize his prominent face and voice?
Furthermore the screenplay takes all liberties it wants, without paying attention, if something actually makes sense.
Why does Moriarty hire somebody to actually kill Ms. Brandon? He has nothing to gain, but in fact loses, after the caught killer talks about Moriarty's involvement.
Is it really standard procedure of tower guards, to move out with 10 man (and leaving no one behind) when a carriage has a minor accident in front of the tower, so that anybody can sneak past them?
Holmes in his entertainer outfit and the shaved Moriaty are easily recognizable for the viewer, both are very prominent figures, but no character who seems them in 3D and color recognizes them.
Why does Holmes choose to pose as an entertainer? It's a big risk to blow your cover when you have to sing in front of so many people and it's not a cover you can sneak around unobserved with?
Why doesn't Mr. Holmes tell the Tower Guards what's going on instead of sneaking past them?
Why do we have to witness a needless gunfight, when this is definitely out of character for Holmes and Moriaty?
Why do Mr. and Ms. Brandon behave so stupidly when they are under an imminent threat of getting killed? I'm mean, come, running in the woods at night is really a bad idea, when basically all you have to do is just to stay in other people's company.
I could go on for hours.
Things like this really spoiled the movie for me and just mustn't happen in a detective film, where a good story and plausibility are of great importance. Because it's always a pleasure to watch Mr. Rathbone as Sherlock and because dialogs and settings are fine, I'll still give this a weak 6. However, if you're looking for a sound detective movie (and not for a 19th century Sherlock Holmes film), you better look someplace else.
DVD Improved The Atmosphere, Story
ccthemovieman-120 November 2006
Some national critics rated this the best of the old Sherlock Holmes films. I don't agree with that, but it's a good one. It's also a film I didn't fully appreciate the first time. On the second look, thanks no doubt to the wonderful "restoration" job on the DVD, it brought the cinematography to the forefront and made the whole story more attractive, too.
There are some wonderful scenes with light and shadows and foggy London streets. Story-wise, it's okay nothing that memorable except we see a very young and innocent-looking Ida Lupino playing a nice British girl. Holmes (Basil Rathbone) is his usual deductive self and Dr. Watson (Nigel Bruce) elicits a few laughs along the way, not as many as he did in future films but more than he did in his first Holmes film, "The Hound Of The Baskervilles."
There weren't as many suspects in this SH adventure as in most of them, but that was fine with me. It was more a battle of wits between the good detective and his nemesis, "Dr. Moriarity" (George Zucco), which is better than having a dozen suspects.
There are some wonderful scenes with light and shadows and foggy London streets. Story-wise, it's okay nothing that memorable except we see a very young and innocent-looking Ida Lupino playing a nice British girl. Holmes (Basil Rathbone) is his usual deductive self and Dr. Watson (Nigel Bruce) elicits a few laughs along the way, not as many as he did in future films but more than he did in his first Holmes film, "The Hound Of The Baskervilles."
There weren't as many suspects in this SH adventure as in most of them, but that was fine with me. It was more a battle of wits between the good detective and his nemesis, "Dr. Moriarity" (George Zucco), which is better than having a dozen suspects.
"Always Holmes, until the end!"
classicsoncall22 February 2016
Warning: Spoilers
It's not until the end of the movie that one realizes how many red herrings and factors unrelated to the real mystery are applied to the story. There's all that business about the chinchilla trinket and references to South America creating an expectation that those are important clues to solving a murder, and it's all for naught. Which is kind of cool because it all adds to the suspense relating to Professor Moriarty's (George Zucco) crime of the century.
Moriarty's ruse was actually rather clever, a way to distract Sherlock Holmes (Basil Rathbone) from the Tower of London's Crown Jewels which the evil genius intended to steal. The sleight of hand with the Star of Delhi was a nifty touch too, but the way it was played was rather awkward. I thought Sir Ronald Ramsgate (Henry Stephenson) blew it big time when he declined the additional security that could have been provided by the authorities delivering the Star sapphire. But then we wouldn't have had that thrilling finale.
Besides the great London fog atmosphere and Holmes' obsession for finding just the right note to drive his flies crazy, Ida Lupino is stunning in one of her earliest screen roles. You don't get a sense of her beauty in noir films she made a decade later like "High Sierra" or "Road House", so seeing her here as the vulnerable young woman attempting to prevent her brother's murder is a real treat. Not to mention Basil Rathbone's disguise as a gaucho entertainer, that was a real hoot too.
Moriarty's ruse was actually rather clever, a way to distract Sherlock Holmes (Basil Rathbone) from the Tower of London's Crown Jewels which the evil genius intended to steal. The sleight of hand with the Star of Delhi was a nifty touch too, but the way it was played was rather awkward. I thought Sir Ronald Ramsgate (Henry Stephenson) blew it big time when he declined the additional security that could have been provided by the authorities delivering the Star sapphire. But then we wouldn't have had that thrilling finale.
Besides the great London fog atmosphere and Holmes' obsession for finding just the right note to drive his flies crazy, Ida Lupino is stunning in one of her earliest screen roles. You don't get a sense of her beauty in noir films she made a decade later like "High Sierra" or "Road House", so seeing her here as the vulnerable young woman attempting to prevent her brother's murder is a real treat. Not to mention Basil Rathbone's disguise as a gaucho entertainer, that was a real hoot too.
Probably the best Rathbone/Homes Bruce/Watson picture
jjcremin-16 January 2008
Warning: Spoilers
Basil Rathbone certainly looked the part and was a fine actor. He even he sings and dances almost unrecognizably as a Cockney song and dance man quite well. Why he'd want to bring attention to himself disguised at Lupino's tea party is a plot hole but does show his talent.
Most of the films prior to this he played a stiff upper lip villain that began with Selznick-Cukor's version of "David Copperfield" and "The Hound of the Baskervilles" came before this, his first Holmes movie. The last part of the movie he wears the deerskin cap and cape and become the literary hero brought to life.
Bruce played bumbling Englishmen before and as often noted, his Watson was not true to Conan Doyle's Watson. But if you liked him, his comedy relief played quite well off Rathbone and they were a popular team. In fact, it's really how both are remembered. One of Bruce's funniest moments is here when he lies on the street telling a passerby he's not sick, he's dead.
Ida Lupino made films with even a more famous actor great at playing villains soon to play detective heroes. In fact, she was top billed over Humphrey Bogart in "High Sierra" in which she was love interest to his gangster.
Perhaps that is one of the problems with Holmes. Supposedly, if this film really was based on Gilette's play, Holmes is supposed to end up with a lady instead. Here he just ends up with Watson. The team would have to keep together to the planned series that actually went to another studio.
Very atmospherically done, this moves well and George Zucco does a nice turn as Professor Mortiary, falling to his death as he did in Conan Doyle's short stories.
If you like classic cinema and this one is made in the banner year 1939, this is probably not the best Holmes movie but easily the best Rathbone/Holmes movie.
Most of the films prior to this he played a stiff upper lip villain that began with Selznick-Cukor's version of "David Copperfield" and "The Hound of the Baskervilles" came before this, his first Holmes movie. The last part of the movie he wears the deerskin cap and cape and become the literary hero brought to life.
Bruce played bumbling Englishmen before and as often noted, his Watson was not true to Conan Doyle's Watson. But if you liked him, his comedy relief played quite well off Rathbone and they were a popular team. In fact, it's really how both are remembered. One of Bruce's funniest moments is here when he lies on the street telling a passerby he's not sick, he's dead.
Ida Lupino made films with even a more famous actor great at playing villains soon to play detective heroes. In fact, she was top billed over Humphrey Bogart in "High Sierra" in which she was love interest to his gangster.
Perhaps that is one of the problems with Holmes. Supposedly, if this film really was based on Gilette's play, Holmes is supposed to end up with a lady instead. Here he just ends up with Watson. The team would have to keep together to the planned series that actually went to another studio.
Very atmospherically done, this moves well and George Zucco does a nice turn as Professor Mortiary, falling to his death as he did in Conan Doyle's short stories.
If you like classic cinema and this one is made in the banner year 1939, this is probably not the best Holmes movie but easily the best Rathbone/Holmes movie.
disappointing
lewis-511 August 2010
This movie has some good acting by Basil Rathbone, Ida Lupino, and George Zucco. The photography is good and the sets are well made. There are some suspenseful scenes. Rathbone is a great Sherlock Holmes, second only to the incomparable Jeremy Brett. For all this, I give the movie a 7.
There are two big problems. One is Nigel Bruce. His Dr. Watson is clownish, and I just can't abide it. It turns the movie into a Disney movie. It ruins the sense that this could be a real story about a real detective.
Worse, the plot is silly. As someone has described well on one of the comment threads, it is full of holes. I don't want to give anything away here, but there are so many gaps and illogical points as to once again reduce the movie to little more than a cartoon.
What a waste of great talent!
There are two big problems. One is Nigel Bruce. His Dr. Watson is clownish, and I just can't abide it. It turns the movie into a Disney movie. It ruins the sense that this could be a real story about a real detective.
Worse, the plot is silly. As someone has described well on one of the comment threads, it is full of holes. I don't want to give anything away here, but there are so many gaps and illogical points as to once again reduce the movie to little more than a cartoon.
What a waste of great talent!
- henry
A very entertaining second adventure for Rathbone as Holmes.
BA_Harrison4 September 2011
Every great hero should have an arch-nemesis, an opponent capable of testing them to the limit; for Sherlock Holmes, this worthy antagonist is Professor Moriarty, an evil genius who, every bit as intelligent, obsessive and arrogant as the famous detective, has dedicated his life to becoming the world's most infamous criminal mastermind.
In The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, the second film to star Basil Rathbone as Conan Doyle's iconic creation, Moriarty (George Zucco) narrowly escapes the gallows when Holmes arrives at court with damning evidence only minutes after the professor has been acquitted. Determined to break Holmes' seemingly indomitable spirit, Moriarty devises an audacious robbery that will not only go down in history as the crime of the century, but which will also ruin his rival's reputation in the process.
While subsequent Rathbone Holmes movies would settle for a 'contemporary' 1940s setting, the next few films being used as wartime propaganda, this tale takes place exactly where it should, Victorian London bound by fog, with high production values allowing for bags of cool period set design and plenty of Gothic atmosphere. The screenplay isn't flawless, one or two plot contrivances taking quite some swallowing (a potential victim's decision to walk home through the fog being particularly daft), but it is a lot of fun, providing Holmes with lots of crafty clues to cogitate over as well as an extraordinary chance to show his lighter side (in disguise as a music-hall performer) and a rare opportunity to use brawn over brain in an exciting final showdown against his Machiavellian foil.
Also serving to make this one of my favourite of all Holmes's adventures: a creepy, club-footed, flute-playing, bolas-flinging Chilean assassin (you just don't see enough of them in the movies), and the lovely Ida Lupino as fetching damsel in distress Miss Brandon.
In The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes, the second film to star Basil Rathbone as Conan Doyle's iconic creation, Moriarty (George Zucco) narrowly escapes the gallows when Holmes arrives at court with damning evidence only minutes after the professor has been acquitted. Determined to break Holmes' seemingly indomitable spirit, Moriarty devises an audacious robbery that will not only go down in history as the crime of the century, but which will also ruin his rival's reputation in the process.
While subsequent Rathbone Holmes movies would settle for a 'contemporary' 1940s setting, the next few films being used as wartime propaganda, this tale takes place exactly where it should, Victorian London bound by fog, with high production values allowing for bags of cool period set design and plenty of Gothic atmosphere. The screenplay isn't flawless, one or two plot contrivances taking quite some swallowing (a potential victim's decision to walk home through the fog being particularly daft), but it is a lot of fun, providing Holmes with lots of crafty clues to cogitate over as well as an extraordinary chance to show his lighter side (in disguise as a music-hall performer) and a rare opportunity to use brawn over brain in an exciting final showdown against his Machiavellian foil.
Also serving to make this one of my favourite of all Holmes's adventures: a creepy, club-footed, flute-playing, bolas-flinging Chilean assassin (you just don't see enough of them in the movies), and the lovely Ida Lupino as fetching damsel in distress Miss Brandon.
Nicely Done Pastiche.
rmax30482325 December 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This was based on a play by William Gillette, who played Sherlock Holmes innumerable times on the stage. Much of our image of the world's foremost consulting detective we owe to Gillette, who incorporated the deerstalker hat (unmentioned in the stories, but used in an original magazine illustration by Sidney Paget) and the non-canonical calabash pipe into his performances. These introduced variations wouldn't have bothered Conan-Doyle, who grew to hate Holmes. Holmes, he thought, was a cash cow who stood between him and the literary fame that a Great Novel would have brought him.
The Rathbone/Bruce combination as Holmes/Watson is carried over from their first appearance on film, "The Hound of the Baskervilles." They're both fine in the roles. Rathbone in particular had an uncanny resemblance to the Holmes of Paget's drawings. He was, though, an actor of limited range -- stern, distant, authoritative. He was a great Mr. Murdstone in "David Copperfield" and a splendid villain in Errol Flynn swashbucklers. The fact that, like Rathbone, Holmes was also distant and dispassionate was just a shot that hit the pot. Off the screen, of course, Rathbone was polite and charming and had a spendthrift wife.
Nigel Bruce departs considerably from the role as conceived by Conan-Doyle. In the stories he's intelligent and sensible, even if he is sometimes the butt of Holmes' attempts at joking. In this movie he's more of a buffoon, stumbling, bumbling, and indignant. That's not the kiss of death for the movie. His character brings a touch of humor to the production.
The plot LOOKS a little like something Conan-Doyle might have written, what with its exotic murder weapon and Moriarty, the Napoleon of crime, creeping around in the background fog. But, as written, it suffers from the same weakness as Raymond Chandler's "Farewell My Lovely." Holmes is asked by the Minister of Interior Treasures and Jewelries of the the Cabinet of the Royal Buckingham Museum and Archival Artifacts to privately guard the arrival of the fabulous Star of Delhi, a huge diamond to be added to the Crown Jewels. Then that thread gets dropped for the longest while, as Holmes devotes himself to a second case involving Ida Lupino, that turns out to be a snare.
There are a couple of plot holes. I'll mention two. How did a dwarf Chilean miner come to be familiar with Coleridge's poem, "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner"? And at the end, when Moriarty has the jewels in his pocket, instead of slipping out the open door of the Tower of London, he decides to pursue an armed Holmes up a winding staircase. Well -- a third hole. How come it takes Holmes so long to figure out the bird is an albatross?
It's done in period -- maybe 1895. ALL the stories should have been done in period, unlike the Warner Brothers series with the same lead duo, which made the stories a mosaic of Conan-Doyle's elements and brought them into the 1940s. Holmes simply doesn't look right when dressed in contemporary clothes.
I particularly enjoyed George Zucco's Moriarty. In the stories he was usually off stage. But here he lovingly snips away at his exotic plants and dreams of retiring and, perhaps, devoting his life to science. Many will guffaw at the notion of his becoming a scientist late in life. I mean, no equipment, no laboratory -- no white coat! But, then, why not? You don't need all that junk. Karl von Frisch won a Nobel Prize by discovering the waggle dance of honeybees, by which they communicated to each other (wordlessly) the direction and distance of a good source of pollen. You know how he did it? He cut a beehive in half, sat down with a notebook, and WATCHED the bees for endless hours. Irenaus Eibl-Eibesfeldt established the patterns of nocturnal behavior for domestic cats by just following them around at night. Did THEY have white coats? No, they did not have white coats. Hard to imagine a distinguished Austrian scientist clambering over back yard fences and falling into garbage cans at two in the morning? Try to imagine Professor Moriarty retired and mooning over his hothouse orchids. It's much easier.
The Rathbone/Bruce combination as Holmes/Watson is carried over from their first appearance on film, "The Hound of the Baskervilles." They're both fine in the roles. Rathbone in particular had an uncanny resemblance to the Holmes of Paget's drawings. He was, though, an actor of limited range -- stern, distant, authoritative. He was a great Mr. Murdstone in "David Copperfield" and a splendid villain in Errol Flynn swashbucklers. The fact that, like Rathbone, Holmes was also distant and dispassionate was just a shot that hit the pot. Off the screen, of course, Rathbone was polite and charming and had a spendthrift wife.
Nigel Bruce departs considerably from the role as conceived by Conan-Doyle. In the stories he's intelligent and sensible, even if he is sometimes the butt of Holmes' attempts at joking. In this movie he's more of a buffoon, stumbling, bumbling, and indignant. That's not the kiss of death for the movie. His character brings a touch of humor to the production.
The plot LOOKS a little like something Conan-Doyle might have written, what with its exotic murder weapon and Moriarty, the Napoleon of crime, creeping around in the background fog. But, as written, it suffers from the same weakness as Raymond Chandler's "Farewell My Lovely." Holmes is asked by the Minister of Interior Treasures and Jewelries of the the Cabinet of the Royal Buckingham Museum and Archival Artifacts to privately guard the arrival of the fabulous Star of Delhi, a huge diamond to be added to the Crown Jewels. Then that thread gets dropped for the longest while, as Holmes devotes himself to a second case involving Ida Lupino, that turns out to be a snare.
There are a couple of plot holes. I'll mention two. How did a dwarf Chilean miner come to be familiar with Coleridge's poem, "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner"? And at the end, when Moriarty has the jewels in his pocket, instead of slipping out the open door of the Tower of London, he decides to pursue an armed Holmes up a winding staircase. Well -- a third hole. How come it takes Holmes so long to figure out the bird is an albatross?
It's done in period -- maybe 1895. ALL the stories should have been done in period, unlike the Warner Brothers series with the same lead duo, which made the stories a mosaic of Conan-Doyle's elements and brought them into the 1940s. Holmes simply doesn't look right when dressed in contemporary clothes.
I particularly enjoyed George Zucco's Moriarty. In the stories he was usually off stage. But here he lovingly snips away at his exotic plants and dreams of retiring and, perhaps, devoting his life to science. Many will guffaw at the notion of his becoming a scientist late in life. I mean, no equipment, no laboratory -- no white coat! But, then, why not? You don't need all that junk. Karl von Frisch won a Nobel Prize by discovering the waggle dance of honeybees, by which they communicated to each other (wordlessly) the direction and distance of a good source of pollen. You know how he did it? He cut a beehive in half, sat down with a notebook, and WATCHED the bees for endless hours. Irenaus Eibl-Eibesfeldt established the patterns of nocturnal behavior for domestic cats by just following them around at night. Did THEY have white coats? No, they did not have white coats. Hard to imagine a distinguished Austrian scientist clambering over back yard fences and falling into garbage cans at two in the morning? Try to imagine Professor Moriarty retired and mooning over his hothouse orchids. It's much easier.
Holmes and Moriarty (again)
binapiraeus26 February 2014
This second movie of the film serial with Basil Rathbone starring as Sherlock Holmes is no less suspenseful than the first, "The Hound of the Baskervilles"; in this case, the creepy atmosphere of London's dark, foggy streets provides the adequate atmosphere. And this time we also get to know (again) Holmes' arch-enemy Professor Moriarty, magnificently portrayed by 'shady' character actor George Zucco.
Moriarty has just been acquitted once more of a murder charge, and in all his megalomania he promises Holmes that this time he'll really make the 'coup' of the century - and predicts that not even Holmes will be able to stop him... Now, just like Holmes is able to put himself in Moriarty and his thoughts, so is the criminal mastermind vice versa: he develops a 'double plan', to divert Holmes' restless mind with a 'usual' murder case - while he's planning to steal the crown jewels from the Tower! So, Holmes and his 'sidekick' Watson share the jobs, very conveniently for Holmes: he protects pretty, frightened young Ann Brandon (Ida Lupino, who shows her great talent even from this early role on!), whose brother has just been murdered and now her own life is being threatened; while Watson carefully oversees the procedure of a new stone being added to the well guarded jewels collection - only something goes wrong there, and Holmes has got to step in himself, and even get somewhat violent in another breathtaking climax face to face with Moriarty...
A VERY worthy sequel for the series, this movie (again being set in a wonderfully nostalgic recreation of London at the turn of the 20th century) again proves Basil Rathbone as a perfect choice for the title role, and gives him a chance to show ALL facets of his huge talent: he even does a very funny 'Gay Nineties' style vaudeville act! Generally, all the really frightening atmosphere (some nightly scenes make it look almost pre-noir) is lit up quite a couple of times by light humor, which is very welcome at moments when shivers are running down your spine... One more example of the absolute CLASSIC 'Sherlock Holmes' movies, no doubt!
Moriarty has just been acquitted once more of a murder charge, and in all his megalomania he promises Holmes that this time he'll really make the 'coup' of the century - and predicts that not even Holmes will be able to stop him... Now, just like Holmes is able to put himself in Moriarty and his thoughts, so is the criminal mastermind vice versa: he develops a 'double plan', to divert Holmes' restless mind with a 'usual' murder case - while he's planning to steal the crown jewels from the Tower! So, Holmes and his 'sidekick' Watson share the jobs, very conveniently for Holmes: he protects pretty, frightened young Ann Brandon (Ida Lupino, who shows her great talent even from this early role on!), whose brother has just been murdered and now her own life is being threatened; while Watson carefully oversees the procedure of a new stone being added to the well guarded jewels collection - only something goes wrong there, and Holmes has got to step in himself, and even get somewhat violent in another breathtaking climax face to face with Moriarty...
A VERY worthy sequel for the series, this movie (again being set in a wonderfully nostalgic recreation of London at the turn of the 20th century) again proves Basil Rathbone as a perfect choice for the title role, and gives him a chance to show ALL facets of his huge talent: he even does a very funny 'Gay Nineties' style vaudeville act! Generally, all the really frightening atmosphere (some nightly scenes make it look almost pre-noir) is lit up quite a couple of times by light humor, which is very welcome at moments when shivers are running down your spine... One more example of the absolute CLASSIC 'Sherlock Holmes' movies, no doubt!
Very creepy, but also very stupid
clivey620 January 2010
Very atmospheric and generally entertaining - you really want to find out what happens and there's the sense that Holmes may be out of his depth through being stretched both ways. But as none other than Moriaty threatens to pull of a crime that will ruin Holmes, I can't say it lives up to its promise. It begins great - Holmes and his nemesis agree to share a handsome cab from the court where Moriaty has been acquitted from a murder everyone knows he committed, and engage in Bond-Scaramanga over dinner type banter. Other Bond moments are anticipated, including the use of a bolus, decapitated statues and some Baron Samedi creepy stuff with a flute-like instrument.
While it's very atmospheric, with good use of foggy London, I found the plot quite risible. Rathbone had the usual bite and authority, but it made his cavalier regard for his clients quite astonishing. I mean, the day a man is due to be killed, he's left alone while Holmes is faffing about for clues at the Natural History Museum! And the brother is therefore allowed to walk home through thick London fog on a dark night! You have to say, that's not down to Moriaty's genius, more Holmes' stupidity.
What's more, we know that Moriaty is up to something thanks to some heavyhanded exposition with his subordinate, so we are one step ahead of Holmes all the way. At times I felt it was aimed at 10 year olds.
The ending simply doesn't add up either, unless Moriaty had been 10 years in the planning of this caper.
While it's very atmospheric, with good use of foggy London, I found the plot quite risible. Rathbone had the usual bite and authority, but it made his cavalier regard for his clients quite astonishing. I mean, the day a man is due to be killed, he's left alone while Holmes is faffing about for clues at the Natural History Museum! And the brother is therefore allowed to walk home through thick London fog on a dark night! You have to say, that's not down to Moriaty's genius, more Holmes' stupidity.
What's more, we know that Moriaty is up to something thanks to some heavyhanded exposition with his subordinate, so we are one step ahead of Holmes all the way. At times I felt it was aimed at 10 year olds.
The ending simply doesn't add up either, unless Moriaty had been 10 years in the planning of this caper.
Good Acting, Terrible Plot
chrispattyanne5 July 2007
Of course Basil Rathbone makes a wonderful Sherlock Holmes, George Zucco is as good as any Moriarty and Ida Lupino is a great victim. While the lovable bumbling Nigel Bruce has come to epitomize Watson, he has nothing in common with heroic Dr. Watson created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, except maybe that they are both doctors. True fans of Sherlock Holmes can only cringe at Bruce's interpretation.
The Plot also has none of the mystery of Sherlock Holmes. Moriarty gives away almost his entire plan at the beginning leaving Holmes without a single deduction that the audience has not already made long before. The true genius of Sherlock Holme's stories is watching Holmes take a number of small clues that lead to implausible deductions which when afterward explained by Holmes seem completely and utterly reasonable. I still wait for the definitive Sherlock Holmes which takes the original stories and makes them as exciting on screen as they are to read. If that is what you are looking for, this movie is a flop.
The Plot also has none of the mystery of Sherlock Holmes. Moriarty gives away almost his entire plan at the beginning leaving Holmes without a single deduction that the audience has not already made long before. The true genius of Sherlock Holme's stories is watching Holmes take a number of small clues that lead to implausible deductions which when afterward explained by Holmes seem completely and utterly reasonable. I still wait for the definitive Sherlock Holmes which takes the original stories and makes them as exciting on screen as they are to read. If that is what you are looking for, this movie is a flop.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
