Sherlock Holmes (TV Series 1954–1955) Poster

(1954–1955)

User Reviews

Review this title
41 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
Enjoyable enough, without being definitive
TheLittleSongbird16 December 2010
I am a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes, and had never heard of this series until recently. I saw the first episode, and was really quite impressed so I kept on watching. The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes is a very enjoyable series that has a lot to like about it. I do agree that some of the writing in some episodes sounds as though it was written in haste, and the guest stars are also variable either being pretty good or just okay.

However, although it mayn't be technically polished, the series does have some charming enough production values. The sets and costumes are pleasing, and the photography is good enough for what it is. When the writing is good and not written in haste, it is actually quite good, while the stories are always well-constructed and fun and the theme music is a fine touch. The direction is good, and the pacing is brisk. The acting from the leads is excellent. Ronald Howard is a very interesting Holmes, and I also really enjoyed with what he did with the role, making Holmes charismatic and intelligent as he should be. One may say he lacks the grit of Jeremy Brett, the sophistication of Basil Rathbone and the sly sardonic approach of Ian Richardson, Howard as I've said was thoroughly enjoyable. He also has great chemistry with Howard Marion-Crawford who is terrific as a quite controlled yet still entertaining Watson. And I loved Archie Duncan, who never fails to bring a smile to my face as the increasingly inept Lestrade.

So all in all, I enjoy this series. It is not the best mind you but I wasn't expecting that. I was looking forward to a fun series, and I got exactly that. 8/10 Bethany Cox
27 out of 27 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A marvellous find
petejgarbett31 July 2007
I found a boxed set of 25 of these films on 5 discs in The Works, the British remaindered books outlet, a year ago. (I don't think you have remaindered books in the USA - they're pulped, due to different laws.) The DVD set was produced by a Dutch firm, and not re-mastered - but the films are in quite good condition. They were made first in the year of my birth, 1954, so I did some research to find out why I had never seen them. I had seen episodes from every other British TV Holmes series, and heard, through archive material, episodes from every British and American radio series.

All became clear: they were never shown in Britain! Even though most of the actors were British, with a handful of Americans and French - the series was shot in France - the series was made by an American producer for US TV.

Most stories are good, some are excellent, some are terrible, and some are from the canon, with altered titles for some unfathomable reason (The Engineer's Thumb becomes The Shoeless Engineer, The Greek Interpreter becomes The French Interpreter).

Nine marks instead of ten because of the three or four awful ones - a Red Indian sets up his wigwam inside 221B Baker Street in one of them! I'm glad I walked into that shop. I might never have known about this series otherwise! Enjoy.
24 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Why Just One Season?
While Sherlockians and other Baker Street Irregulars might balk at the liberties taken, this "Sherlock Holmes" series is quite enjoyable, a perfect companion on cold rainy weekends. Ronald Howard is quite affable as the sleuthing tenant of 221B Baker Street, while H. Marion Crawford plays Dr. Watson as nature (read Conan Doyle) intended. The fact that this series was filmed in Paris is suggested in several ways: London Bobbies silently salute Inspector Lestrade, indicating that they were probably portrayed by Frenchmen, Conan Doyle's "The Greek Interpreter" is transformed into "The French Interpreter", and of course there's the inevitable "As long as we're in Paris, we might as well have a story taking place at the Eiffle Tower" episode. One can only imagine what the series would have been like had it been filmed in Rome with Cinecitta at their command. The theme music, more or less a variation on "Gone With the Wind" is interesting, but even more superb in a one-off episode played on a Roger Williams-style piano. Incidentally, the company credited with sound equipment, Poste-Parisien, was a leading commercial radio station in France before the French government declared a broadcasting monopoly after World War II. To sum up, and to paraphrase some other former Baker Street tenants (as in The Apple Boutique) "a splendid time is guaranteed for all!"
17 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Thoroughly enjoyable
cabaretwoman23 May 2005
I'd never heard of this series, or even Ronald Howard, for that matter, until perchance I picked up a four-episode DVD in a dollar store. Now I'm completely hooked, and I must have *every* episode.

Ronald Howard is simply captivating here, and clearly enjoys his role. Just as another reviewer said, he makes the viewer believe he really *is* Sherlock Holmes.

Howard Marion-Crawford is splendid as Dr. Watson, as is Archie Duncan as the inept Instpector Lastrade. The series favors many guests over and over in various guest spots; some are good, though many are, well, pretty bad.

It is Mr. Howard that really makes the series. Wouldn't he be thrilled to know that fifty years after the show aired, and nearly 10 years after his passing, that there are a few of us enjoying this charming piece of work.

Here's to you, Mr. Howard. You were nothing short of wonderful.
56 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Excellent Holmes.
Zapple10020 March 2014
My friend gave me the DVD set as a birthday gift. I never heard of Ronald Howard before this. I was always a Basil Rathbone fan.

I'm really enjoying Ronald Howard as Holmes. Holmes is the one that goes off the path and Dr. Watson has to bring him back.

While the Basile Rathbone are more modern. The Ronald Howard takes you back to the horse and buggy times.

This is more in line with the original books.

These episodes are like potato chips, I can watch five in a row with no problem.

This is one of the best gifts I ever got. Thanks Robin.
9 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Enjoyable
silvanski16 January 2011
I discovered this vintage Sherlock Holmes series via a few episodes available on the Internet Archive, and they got me hooked right away.

Although the episodes are only 30 minute quickies and some of the plot lines are rather shaky, Ronald Howard and H. Marion Crawford got the chemistry between Holmes and Watson working quite brilliantly.

I'd say this makes for excellent no-nonsense entertainment before going to sleep instead of picking up a book or magazine.

See if you can get the low priced boxed set by Millcreek, which besides all 39 TV episodes also includes 8 feature length films with Basil Rathborne, Arthur Wontner and Reginald Owen as the master detective. Picture and audio quality are not top notch but for the low price tag it's well worth buying.
8 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Good show.
DanielWRichardson20 March 2008
This is actually the first screen version of Sherlock Holmes that I saw and it's really one of the best. I think that Ronald Howard makes a great Holmes, second to only Basil Rathbone. I have only seen six episodes, they were all good. Yes even "The Case of the Texas Cowgirl". That's one you can't really take seriously. My favorite so far is "The Case of Harry Crocker". It's pretty funny. The mysteries aren't complex or anything, but the stories are good and at time humorous. Like I said, this was the Holmes that started it all for me. I intend to buy the complete series box set. So if your a fan of mystery or Sherlock Holmes than this is a show for you. Just remember to go easy on the Cowgirl episode.
11 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
It's a series, with many different plots, none of which I'm revealing
While the much more innocent children of 1954-55 (when I was 9 and 10) might have needed a warning that there were conversations about death, and occasional scenes with actors playing their roles (freshly) dead, there are no scenes that would upset a modern child of 9 or 10. Indeed some modern kids might think the whole thing a bit boring, especially as it's in black-and-white, with no computer-generated graphics or bells and whistles, which either didn't exist back then or were just in the thinking-up stage, kids who like old films (there must be some SOME out there!) might enjoy it, as there's some understated wit and humour, not something all Sherlock Holmes films go in for. My pleasure in this series is of course mainly nostalgia, for a time when I was an innocent child living happily with my mum and dad, with living aunts (5) and uncles (4) and innumerable cousins, all living close-by and very loving to me as I was the youngest of my own generation, and was bright and lively, with a strong imagination. Of course I enjoy it all over again, and probably always will.
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Good show to wrap your brain around
jaytl10 April 2011
(as seen on the Americna Pop Classics page on Hulu: http://www.hulu.com/the-adventures-of-sherlock-holmes)

As I have a couple Sherlock Holmes books on my kindle, and enjoyed the recent movie, I decided to watch a few of these episodes. The most important thing to the Sherlock story (at least to me) is the chemistry between Sherlock (Ronald Howard) and Dr. Watson (Howard Marion-Crawford). The two in this show deliver in that department. After watching a few episodes, I can say that I'll be watching the rest, and it's a good time way to spend time. While not the best show out there, and shorter than reading a Sherlock story, it's a good, easy way for fans of the character to get their fix.
10 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
the best there was.
tampa_troubadour4 February 2015
I have seen all the old film , and like them, but I got the 39 of these show a few years ago, and they are the best Holmes, on film, I watch them every winter, I love the portrayal, Holmes is not a total ass as he was when played by Basil Rathbone, and Watson is not a total idiot, btw, that Nigel Bruce, Watson made no since to me, I mean he is a military doctor, not a job a moron would have, Crawford is a more realistic Watson, plus he is Holmes protector many times, it is a friendship of two men that seem like family. I love the look of the show, and the look of the era it is set in, I enjoy the other actors, trying to spot those in multiple roles, there is a lot of that, very talented group, any one for cold lobster and tomatoes for breakfast?
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
a surprisingly likable and effective Holmes and Watson
didi-511 May 2007
This series is a real find. First I spotted some episodes on Bonanza, and now have obtained the entire 39 episode series on DVD.

Although my ideal Sherlock Holmes has to be Jeremy Brett in the long-running Granada TV series, this version with Ronald Howard and H Marion-Crawford is very good indeed. The level of repartee between the two is excellent and, although the writing and acting could be a little wooden at times, the short duration of episodes means the story moves along at a good pace, sometimes using a Conan Doyle tale as its base, sometimes not.

Of course there were poor episodes but these were far outweighed by the superior ones. The series does show its age in the quality of prints available, but all episodes are more or less complete and are mostly free of jitter or hiss on the soundtrack.

Now halfway through the episodes, I am looking forward to seeing the whole series and would recommend this series to all Sherlockians without hesitation.
14 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Brave and Effective Treatment of Holmes
jhboswell3 March 2019
This long-lost series was produced in the early 1950's, after long definitive success of Basil Rathbone in the early '40's. There had been a few other attempts at cinema, but these 39 half-hour stories were the first crack at television.

Very well cast, period settings including background shots of London, strong scripting, droll and humorous, and some very neat mysteries, it only ran one season. What went wrong? Marketing: or the lack thereof. Movies knew how to promote themselves very well in the 50's; television didn't, especially in Britain. And, this series, which boasted fine British acting talent, wasn't filmed there--or even shown there! We're lucky to have what we have of it now.

It's a charming show. Holmes' genius, so important to the canon's enduring success, is adroitly exhibited by Mr Howard. The all-important relationship of Holmes and Watson, often very clumsily portrayed through the years, comes off nicely here. Things have to move along in a half-hour show, but stories don't seem forced and they are engaging. The producers also elected to offer new stories, apart from Mr Doyles' (unlike the popular Granada series thirty years later), and so we have some new adventures of Sherlock Holmes.

I have a 5-disc set from Mill Creek Entertainment, which contains the complete--though woefully brief!--series. Enjoy!
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Enjoyable overall
drpayn196310 March 2019
Anyone looking for faithful adaptations of Conan Doyle stories aren't going to find them here (save for one or two episodes) but if you accept them for what they are, ie original stories (sometimes loosely based on Doyle's writings) then they're mostly enjoyable. Some of the plots creak without quite collapsing and some of the acting is a bit wooden but Messrs. Howard, Marion-Crawford and Duncan are OK. As a nostalgia-fest, they're wonderful, though. It's presumably what viewers saw on ITV soon after its inception in 1956, along with the likes of Colonel March of Scotland Yard and similar detective series.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
historically just a beginning...
winner559 November 2008
Although the production values are very cheap, the real problem with this series is the writing. Some episodes are very strong, to be sure, with careful attention to their source material, the stories by Arthur Conan Doyle. But there are far too many stories that were so hastily written, it feels as though the cast has been stuck improvising for ten or so minutes at a time. Which also indicates a lack of real direction.

Nonetheless, the cast is always making the effort, and seems to be enjoying themselves doing so. Even at the worst moments of the worst scripts they remain in good humor.

One reviewer described the series as "Holmes for beginners." That has it about right. If you can get through the worst episodes, the best episodes will hook you on the great fascination that is Sherlock Holmes.
6 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An Enjoyable Light Portrayal of the Familiar Characters
Snow Leopard1 February 2006
Although there are a great many television and movie adaptations of the Sherlock Holmes characters and stories, most of them are well worth seeing, and many have their own particular approach to the material. This television series lasted only one season, but it has still shown up from time to time on late-night broadcasts and the like, and the whole series is now available on DVD. The half-hour episodes always furnished entertaining short mystery stories with an enjoyable light portrayal of the familiar characters.

As Holmes, Ronald Howard's upbeat, jaunty approach is noticeably different from the styles of Jeremy Brett, Basil Rathbone, and most others who have played the character. But Howard's characterization is well-suited for a fast-paced half-hour format. As Watson, H. Marion Crawford is believable and likable as the stolid, loyal straight man, and as Inspector Lestrade, Archie Duncan is amusingly befuddled.

The plots in a few of the episodes are based on original Arthur Conan Doyle stories, though sometimes with noticeable modifications. The majority, though, are new stories written to fit into the show's own format. Most of the time these fit neatly into the Victorian setting and the Holmes atmosphere, though at other times they seem a slightly odd match for the setting and characters. But every one of the episodes was entertaining and worth seeing, and that's not a bad accomplishment.
29 out of 29 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Well Worth Seeing
brnlbb1 January 2017
I found the full set (39 episodes) on 3 DVDs in a pawnshop for $1. It was worth every penny. Indeed, it might have been worth $2. :-) The actors portraying Holmes and Watson are excellent--well-defined personalities and very likable. The rest are appealingly comic. The episodes are mostly non-canon, and often silly, with many non-sequiturs and plot holes. However, since the series does not take itself seriously, these faults are forgivable. One might say that when an episode is good, it is very good, and when an episode is bad, it is so bad that, seen with the right spirit, it is also good. The fuzzy black-and-white photography, the very inexpensive sets, and the repeatedly-used stock clips (e.g. the Tower, the carriages coming and going) add to the patina of awful greatness. Really, I'm not trying to be supercilious--you will enjoy the series for its fine portrayal of Holmes & Watson, not to mention poor Inspector Lestrade. Lose no time--search the shelves of your local pawnshop today!
4 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Criminally Underrated
sollyharv4 October 2020
I'm not going to go as far as saying it's aged particularly well, but as far as on-screen depictions of Holmes and Watson go this is by far my favourite. Both of them are very likeable and their dynamic feels oddly refreshing when compared to most other takes on the characters, where either Watson is often buffoonishly stupid and useless or Sherlock is coldly unemotional, neither traits being very accurate to the source material. Here I actually believe they are friends, and it's that friendship which makes this show so entertaining despite its age and the poor quality of some of the mysteries.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Innocent pleasure
keith-moyes1 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This short-lived TV series is a fairly lightweight interpretation of Sherlock Holmes, but is well worth a view. I am glad it has been rescued from oblivion and made available on DVD for a new generation of viewers to enjoy.

Ronald Howard, H Marion Crawford and Archie Duncan are by no means the definitive Holmes, Watson and Lestrade but they make a good team in their own right. Watching them go through their paces, I found it was easy to temporarily forget other, more substantial, interpretations of these characters.

The series was shot on film and the production values are pretty good for a cheaply-made TV series of the mid-Fifties. Each episode is limited to a handful of sets, but the standing set of Baker Street is widely used and there is enough location shooting to prevent the shows becoming too claustrophobic. Shooting in France probably stretched the budget further than would have been possible in America, or even England.

Each episode is only 25 minutes, so don't expect complex plots or baffling mysteries. We do get some good deduction from time to time, but on other occasions Holmes leaps to conclusions by something not far short of clairvoyance. Of course, the stories vary in quality, with a couple veering perilously close to farce (the cowgirl and suffragette stories being the most overtly comic) but most are very enjoyable. I tended to watch two or three episodes at a time and I was never bored.

However, I must sound two warnings.

Firstly, the source prints are very ragged: clearly they have all been through the projector far too often. They are watchable, but would benefit from extensive restoration. Since these shows are far from being classics it is unlikely this will ever happen.

Secondly, while it is understandable that a company releasing budget price DVDs will use whatever prints they can get their hands on (and these might be the only ones that have survived), there can be no excuse for the wretched DVD transfer.

Digital recording is inherently inferior to analogue recording, so DVDs are inherently inferior to videos (until they start to deteriorate - which happens quite quickly). I have found that even major companies producing full price DVDs often use inadequate compression software that cannot handle subtle movement (e.g. close-ups of faces). This becomes particularly obtrusive when recording old films, where worn sprocket holes cause a slight shaking of the image that completely confounds many digital recording systems.

Having said that, the DVD transfer here is not just poor; it is probably the worst I have ever seen. Movement is often very jerky and there is highly distracting flickering and wavering throughout, with whole areas of the screen appearing to move independently of each other.

Some episodes seem worse than others (I have no idea why) but even the best of them are dismal. You can buy bargain-basement DVD recorders that give better results than this.

Nonetheless, if you can ignore the poor prints and atrocious transfer and just watch the shows, there is much innocent pleasure to be had.
5 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Delightful
porter-8765514 April 2020
Easy going old TV show. Holmes is a tad younger than you'd expect, but other than that, Mr Howard's portrayal of the great detective is immensely enjoyable.

The stories are simple and well written for the most part. Yes, the cowgirl episode is pretty awful, but with 38 other episodes to watch, just skip it.

None of the episodes have been remastered and likely never will be. You can likely pick up the whole series for a few bucks at the Dollar Store or on Amazon. Definitely worth it at twice the price.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
EDIT
drpayn196310 March 2019
I've just seen that this wasn't shown in the UK until 2006 so my presumption that ITV would have screened this in around 1955-56 was wrong.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
Don't worry Watson, I can solve it
pensman5 February 2022
Thank you Roku for all the streaming channels. You can find these episodes on several Roku channels but Tubi seems to have the clearest copies. Ronald Howard gives us a Holmes with a sense of humor that humanizes more than many of the Holmes out there. But. Howard Marion. Crawford is one of the best characterizations of Dr. Watson. His Watson is brave and a stalwart companion who not only has a brain, Watson was a doctor after all, but one who can handle himself with his fists. The episodes run the gamut from the excellent with clever stories to the god awful. Archie Duncan is a decent Lestrade but he is made the buffoon and foil for both Holmes and Watson. It's unfortunate that this series will probably be forgotten which is a shame. Watching these as a boy made me a fan of the stories and novels. I have been a member of The Sherlock Holmes Society of London for many years now, and this series was the first step toward that membership. As a close, I must mention. Richard Lark who plays Lestrade's aide Sgt. Wilkins. There are some fun moments as the good Sgt leads Lestrade rather than just being a yes man.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Surprising!
JohnHowardReid14 July 2016
Warning: Spoilers
I haven't yet seen the whole series. Just the first two episodes. Being a firm Conan Doyle/Sherlock Holmes fan, I was always curious to see the series. It was never shown in my country, so you can imagine how much I welcomed Mill Creek's 2012 DVD. You can also imagine how disappointed I was with Episode One. I thought the writing flaccid, the acting poor, the direction under-directed, and production values skimpy. I was going to turn the DVD off and throw the whole lot away, but by the time I'd made up my mind, episode two had already started. To my surprise, it gripped my attention right from the outset. The plot was intriguing, production values quite good by the humble standard of television, the direction skillful, and the acting from all concerned much more assured. (To be continued),
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Much better than I expected
brucebaskin9 November 2023
Confession: After decades of loving both their movies and radio shows together, Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce ARE Holmes and Watson to me (although Doyle's Watson was never the bumbler the writers had Bruce portray him as) to the point that I even resisted other actors in those roles. Until now.

I started watching this TV series on YouTube a few weeks ago and while Rathbone and Bruce still hold my virtual crowns, Ronald Howard and H. Marion Crawford have both charmed me after almost a dozen episodes. The series is much lighter and less dour than the Rathbone/Bruce collaborations could be and while some episodes are nothing close to Grammy material, others are quite decent. As others here have mentioned, Howard and Crawford work very well together and seem to be having fun with their roles. Howard is a younger and more buoyant Holmes than Rathbone and (a real bonus) Crawford's Watson is much closer to what Doyle seemed to have in mind: a step behind Holmes, yes, but nobody's fool and more colleague than subservient. They really carry the series even with the hit-or-miss writing they worked with. Archie Duncan does fine as Lestrade despite HIS role being written as a perpetual bumbler instead of Watson. The fact that episodes are set in Victorian times is a plus...no Nazi-chasing here.

If you're expecting the serious, sometimes darker version of Holmes as portrayed by Rathbone (who grew to hate the role because he was typecast by it) plus myriad plot twists, you won't find that here. What you will find is a more fun version sans plot twists because a 30-minute show is too tight for heavy intrigue. Just give it three episodes for a fair chance because, as mentioned, some scripts are simply not very good (the Texas Cowgirl episode being eminently avoidable altogether). It took three to win me over and I'm glad it did.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Sherlock
slappysquirrel_200028 September 2022
I actually saw this series for the first time on PBS in the late 80's. It's better than some of the other interpretations out there. But it's what to be expected for the production values and acting styles from the 50's. I was quite surprised to find it airing on some of the movie/tv apps available on Fire TV, etc. I actually wish they had made more than 39 episodes. The acting by some of the other guest actors was a bit childhood play quality and painful to watch at times. I was very surprised to see in one episode that one of Holmes' clients was the actress who portrayed Lovey from Gilligan's Island.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Way too short
bkoganbing4 January 2013
Arthur Conan Doyle wrote a few full length novels and several short stories about the adventures of his fabled detective Sherlock Holmes. And of course they were used as the basis for many of the episodes of this British TV series that starred Ronald Howard as Holmes and Howard Marion Crawford as his faithful scribe Dr. Watson.

Howard and Crawford both do a fine job in the part as does Archie Duncan as Inspector Lestrade of Scotland Yard. But sad to say that in the few episodes I saw of this series, the stories compressed into a half and hour time slot don't really develop at all.

The sleuth of Baker Street had to wait until the BBC gave him and hour time slot with Jeremy Brett a generation later. Howard and Crawford should have been given the same for this series.
2 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed