#39: The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (1939) June 12, 2008
Posted by badblokebob in : Crime, adaptations, 4 stars, 1930s, Adventure, 2008, Mystery, Sherlock Holmes , trackback1939 | Alfred Werker | 79 mins | DVD | PG
Never mind waiting two or three years for a sequel these days — after the 1939 Hound of the Baskervilles was a box office success, Fox had a sequel out just five months later! I reviewed that first Rathbone/Bruce film back in February, promising an irregular series reviewing the further thirteen pictures the pair starred in. Well, I’ve finally got round to watching the second, and while I was a tad harsh on the first I found myself enjoying this one more.
The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes pits the titular detective against his arch-nemesis, Moriarty, in what’s really speaking a relatively weak plot — most depressing of all is how easily Moriarty’s plan to distract Holmes almost succeeds. But never mind that! There’s rain-lashed, fog-drenched Victorian London streets! Brutal murders by foul foreigners! Dastardly plots against the crown! Galloping carriages! Romantic subplots! A smattering of comedy! A song-and-dance number! (No, really, there is.) And a final shoot out… in the Tower of London! You can’t escape the joyous feeling that this was designed as pure entertainment, literally including something for everyone.
Bruce’s Watson may bumble about too much for the purists (me included, more often than not), the murder plot lacks proper explanation (the production notes on Optimum’s DVD pleasingly expand on this), Rathbone’s characterisation of Holmes may be a touch too friendly… but by then I’m just nitpicking. This sequel is atmospherically, entertainingly and excitingly executed, and that’s plenty good enough for me.
Comments»
I’m actually pretty fond of Nigel Bruce’s Watson. Purists always complain about his portrayal and I can see why. The thing is that I came to these films as a kid and had no baggage from the stories to colour my view. So to me, Rathbone and Bruce were, and remain, the best Holmes and Watson. I’ve since read all the Holmes stories and I’m no great fan of them. As mysteries, I find them poor fare when compared to Christie, Carr or any of the 1920s & 1930s crime writers.
BTW, George Zucco’s Moriarty is a marvellous performance - I remember, as a child, feeling really creeped out by him.
Mine wife is a bit of a Holmesphile - she prefers the Jeremy Brett starring Granada TV series in terms of authenticity, but finds the Rathbone movies to be much more fun. And they are! Though I would argue there’s a lot of merit in trying to recreate the Conan Doyle stories to a reasonable degree of faithfulness, the series is a bit dry. Rathbone and Bruce are just more accessible, and the pair show some real mutual affection in their performances.
I hope you include more of these in your 100. I have a guilty affection for the war years entries, especially the propaganda speeches at the end of each story, whilst The House of Fear remains my outright favourite. There’s a fantastic review of the Definitive Collection boxset at DVD Times - http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=56170. Well worth a look.
Whilst on the subject of Holmes, and if you don’t mind the tangential aside, can I give a shout for Murder by Decree, the 1979 mystery starring Christopher Plummer and James Mason? It’s a Holmes meets Jack the Ripper affair that is much, much better than it sounds, has bags of atmosphere, and some genuine steel in a rare showing of anger by the detective.
I completely agree about George Zucco, Livius. It’s a shame they kept changing the actor who played Moriarty over the course of the series, it would’ve been nice to have just stuck with him!
And I can certainly see where your wife’s coming from, Mike, though I’ve only seen the Brett series intermittently and not for a fair while. The ones I do remember were certainly high quality, but saying Rathbone/Bruce are more accessible and fun seems on the money. I own the complete Brett series on DVD (picked it up dirt cheap recently), so intend to get round to going through them all at some point.
I’m (slowly) working my way through all 14 of the Rathbone films, so reviews of the remaining 12 should turn up at some point. (Technically I’ve seen some before, thereby breaking my own rules by including them all, but I was young and I really can’t remember which so it seems unfair to arbitrarily exclude a couple of random entries!)
Murder by Decree is somewhere on my (long and physically non-existant) list of films I want to see, as I’m a bit of a Jack the Ripper ‘fan’ (for want of a better word), as well as a Holmes one (obviously). I may have it somewhere taped off the TV, but I do that so often that I’ve quite forgotten!
Yes, they kept swapping Moriartys all through the series but Lionel Atwill and Henry Daniell were pretty good too. Strangely enough, both Zucco and Daniell turned up in ‘in Washington’, though neither one played the professor in that entry.
Murder by Decree is a cracking movie in my opinion, Mike. I intend to write a piece on it myself soon.