Wonderful Movie

The joyful confection is coated in a sparkly gloss, bright enough to gleam from the darkest, most cynical corners.

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

Sherlock Holmes' arch-nemesis Professor Moriarty (George Zucco) orchestrates a plot to keep Holmes busy while he commits the crime of the century. Second of the Basil Rathbone Sherlock Holmes series and the last at Fox. Considered by many (not me) to be the best of the Rathbone Holmes films. Rathbone is pitch perfect as Holmes. Bruce, in my opinion, is perfect as Watson. I know that ruffles the feathers of purists who don't appreciate Bruce's comic Watson but I find him endearing and an incredible asset to the series. Zucco is a great Moriarty but I kept wishing there was more of him throughout the film. He was the first of several actors to play Moriarty in the series, my favorite being Henry Daniell. Ida Lupino, never the strongest actress, does fine here. The rest of the supporting cast is good, with the always enjoyable E.E. Clive a standout. The series would move to Universal three years after this. While I enjoy both of the Fox films immensely, I prefer the Universal ones. But then, I'm a fan of Universal and their style during the 1940s in particular.

Reliable Holmes story with Basil Rathbone and Dr. Watson as usual his social, albeit bumbling self.Ida Lupino is the femme fatal, her brother is murdered and she must seek help from Holmes to find out why.George Zucco as Moriarty is menacing and fun, as when his faithful servant gives him a shave with a straight-edge, and Moriarty sneers that he should want to cut his throat. Moriarty states he has nothing but contempt for most humankind.The sets are appropriately foggy and dense, London Victorian streets, oil lamps, a murder occurs in Bayswater Park; an odd Chilean flute chant, some sort of death song. There are also references to the albatross.When you see films like this today you appreciate the quality of a true suspense story, it doesn't always have wild action, but it has real suspense and theme, which is rare these days. 9/10.

The second pairing of Rathbone and Bruce as Holmes and Watson, released a few months after the success of "The Hound of the Baskervilles," is a good-looking film that has the venerable detective matching wits with Professor Moriarity, as the latter schemes a jewel heist. Lupino, although British born, usually played Americans. Hence, it's a little odd seeing her sporting an English accent here. The foggy London atmosphere is a big plus, but the plot is less than compelling. This is based on a play by William Gillette, a Holmes aficionado, rather than a story by Conan Doyle. Unlike the best of Conan Doyle, the plot lacks a mystery to really draw the viewer in.

Big budget TCF excelled at historical dramas, so I guess it's not surprising that their recreation of a fog-bound 19th century London remains impressive, along with a couple nice touches (the creepy oboe dirge, the "strangled" stature). This is an entertaining version of Holmes as he seeks to save Ann's (Lupino) life and possibly the crown jewels from arch- criminal Moriarty. But the movie differs importantly from the better-known Universal entries. Having just seen the Roy William Neill's later Universal series with Rathbone and Bruce, I can't help but make comparisons. There's much less "comic relief" in this film, specifically no buffoonish Inspector Lestrade, and while Watson bumbles comically at times, it's more a character quality than an extended laugh-getter. But, most notable is the way Holmes is portrayed in each version. Spoiler coming up—unlike the Universal series, Holmes is actually outwitted here by the nefariously clever Moriarty (Zucco). I kept expecting Holmes to see through Moriarty's ruse and turn up in disguise to thwart the stealing of the crown jewels, which likely would have been Neill's approach (the unerring Holmes). But Holmes doesn't. Instead, he's fooled by Moriarty's diversion with Ann, and had Moriarty not dallied in the jewel cage, his "crime of the century" would have succeeded and trumped Holmes at the same time. Unlike Universal's version, this is a Holmes who can be outwitted, and I like the way the screenplay reveals how Moriarty exploits Holmes' weak spot, viz. his "restless" mind.Nonetheless, director Werker's stylistic approach here is much more routine than Neill's emphasis on colorful characters and imaginative touches. Looks to me like TCF treated the film as just another well-produced feature, whereas Neill had a personal attachment to his Holmes features, both producing and directing the series for Universal. He had something of a formula, but it's one that worked well and usually managed something distinctively memorable (the "hopping" boy in …Pearl, the human chessboard in …Faces Death, etc.). TCF's Holmes probably comes closer to the original, but I confess a sneaking preference for Universal's more contrived programmers. Still and all, this film is made memorable by its depiction of a fallible Holmes, even if he does triumph in the end.