34 reviews
"...of abominable memory."
Sherlock Holmes became such a quick fixture in motion pictures that it is possible to write studies on the various movies and actors centered on that character.
This particular film was an early Hollywood take on Holmes in the sound period. It is interesting to note that it came out only three years after Sir Arthur Conan Doyle died in 1930. By the time this had come out Hollywood had done silent and sound films about Holmes with William Gillette, John Barrymore, and (more recently) Clive Brooks. But the three best Holmes' of the sound period were still to come along: Arthur Wontner in Great Britain, Basil Rathbone in Hollywood, and Jeremy Brett (on television). Holmes in this version was Reginald Owen, best remembered for his "Ebenezer Scrooge" in the 1938 version of "A Christmas Carol". Owen was a very good character actor (villainous in films like "The Call Of The Wild", but funny as anything in "The Good Fairy"). He had played Watson already, so he was one of the few actors to essay both friends parts. But he seemed too laid back to be a good Holmes.
"A Study In Scarlet" appeared in December 1887 in "Beeton's Christmas Annual", a long forgotten magazine in Great Britain, which is only now recalled because of Conan Doyle's novella. If you are lucky enough to stumble onto the Beeton's of that month and year (and it is the original) than hold onto it - it's worth many thousands of dollars.
It's in two parts. The first half is "The Lauriston Gardens Mystery", wherein Dr. John H. Watson (our narrator) introduces us to his friend and roommate Sherlock Holmes, and then to the adventure (set in April 1881) where he first became aware that Holmes was a consulting detective, and was consulted by Scotland Yard's Detectives Tobias Gregson and "G." (no further name ever given) Lestrade (not "Lastrade" as the movie's cast of characters named him). Lestrade would be the best known of the detectives in the saga who would consult Holmes (and would be most memorably played by Dennis Hoey in the Rathbone films). Here he's played by Alan Mowbray - not badly but with little electricity.
The plot of the first portion of the novella is about the murder of two men, one by poison and one by a knife wound in the heart. Holmes traces the story back to the old west, where in the second half (entitled "The Country of the Saints") it is linked to the Mormons in Utah.
Most (if not all) was jettisoned, into a story about murder for insurance, centering around Anna May Wong and Alan Dinehart. Dinehart's character Thaddeus Merrydew, is based on a single line of writing in the four novels and fifty six short stories that were written by Conan Doyle. In "The Adventure of the Empty House", when reading a list of people with "M" in their name (he is searching for the biography of Colonel Sebastian Moran), he finds a reference to "Merrydew of abominable memory." That's it! No "Thaddeus Merrydew", just "Merrydew". Somebody concocting the script remembered that one reference. I may add, this was also the last time in movies there was any villain named Merrydew against Mr. Sherlock Holmes.
As an early talkie film about Holmes, it is worth seeing - but it is not among the best Holmes movies.
This particular film was an early Hollywood take on Holmes in the sound period. It is interesting to note that it came out only three years after Sir Arthur Conan Doyle died in 1930. By the time this had come out Hollywood had done silent and sound films about Holmes with William Gillette, John Barrymore, and (more recently) Clive Brooks. But the three best Holmes' of the sound period were still to come along: Arthur Wontner in Great Britain, Basil Rathbone in Hollywood, and Jeremy Brett (on television). Holmes in this version was Reginald Owen, best remembered for his "Ebenezer Scrooge" in the 1938 version of "A Christmas Carol". Owen was a very good character actor (villainous in films like "The Call Of The Wild", but funny as anything in "The Good Fairy"). He had played Watson already, so he was one of the few actors to essay both friends parts. But he seemed too laid back to be a good Holmes.
"A Study In Scarlet" appeared in December 1887 in "Beeton's Christmas Annual", a long forgotten magazine in Great Britain, which is only now recalled because of Conan Doyle's novella. If you are lucky enough to stumble onto the Beeton's of that month and year (and it is the original) than hold onto it - it's worth many thousands of dollars.
It's in two parts. The first half is "The Lauriston Gardens Mystery", wherein Dr. John H. Watson (our narrator) introduces us to his friend and roommate Sherlock Holmes, and then to the adventure (set in April 1881) where he first became aware that Holmes was a consulting detective, and was consulted by Scotland Yard's Detectives Tobias Gregson and "G." (no further name ever given) Lestrade (not "Lastrade" as the movie's cast of characters named him). Lestrade would be the best known of the detectives in the saga who would consult Holmes (and would be most memorably played by Dennis Hoey in the Rathbone films). Here he's played by Alan Mowbray - not badly but with little electricity.
The plot of the first portion of the novella is about the murder of two men, one by poison and one by a knife wound in the heart. Holmes traces the story back to the old west, where in the second half (entitled "The Country of the Saints") it is linked to the Mormons in Utah.
Most (if not all) was jettisoned, into a story about murder for insurance, centering around Anna May Wong and Alan Dinehart. Dinehart's character Thaddeus Merrydew, is based on a single line of writing in the four novels and fifty six short stories that were written by Conan Doyle. In "The Adventure of the Empty House", when reading a list of people with "M" in their name (he is searching for the biography of Colonel Sebastian Moran), he finds a reference to "Merrydew of abominable memory." That's it! No "Thaddeus Merrydew", just "Merrydew". Somebody concocting the script remembered that one reference. I may add, this was also the last time in movies there was any villain named Merrydew against Mr. Sherlock Holmes.
As an early talkie film about Holmes, it is worth seeing - but it is not among the best Holmes movies.
- theowinthrop
- Sep 30, 2006
- Permalink
Nicely Atmospheric
I had never seen Reginald Owen in anything but a somewhat weak Christmas Carol. He plays a larger, more imposing Sherlock Holmes. Holmes' appearance is usually rather striking, so actors play on his idiosyncrasies. In this movie, he sort of blends in. The story has nothing to do with the story. It will probably never be produced as written because of it's religious issues. This is an attempt to apprehend the big cheese in a series of murders involving the "Scarlet Circle." Men are dying according to the same poem used in Christie's Ten Little Indians (And Then There Were None). Holmes is aware of what is going on, but can't really strike quickly. This results in deaths not being prevented. While there is a seriousness to this film, there is a lot of humor as well. The characters are rich and interesting and the acting is pretty good. See it for another angle on the Holmes canon.
Did Agatha Christie see this movie first?
Good for Its Era & Genre (Has No Real Similarity With the Story of the Same Name)
This early sound-era portrayal of Sherlock Holmes is good for its era and genre, with solid acting and an interesting story that is set in a believably mysterious atmosphere. An important note is that the story has no real similarity with the Arthur Conan Doyle story titled "A Study in Scarlet", but rather draws its characters and material from several different stories, plus at least one Agatha Christie novel. As long as you don't expect to see the original story, there is certainly enough to make this a feature worth seeing.
Reginald Owen is solid as Holmes, although he does not leave his mark on the role in the way that Basil Rathbone and Jeremy Brett did. Owen does have the unique distinction of having played both Holmes and Dr. Watson (having played the latter in "Sherlock Holmes" the year before "A Study in Scarlet").
The rest of the cast likewise play their characters in a straightforward fashion, allowing the story and atmosphere to get the main focus. The one who does stand out is Anna May Wong, who adds beauty and a mysterious presence, although unfortunately she does not get a lot of screen time.
The story itself has numerous turns, and keeps you guessing. The atmosphere might not always be Holmes-like, but it is quite suitable for the story, and it is aided by good use of the lighting and photography. Overall, if you can set aside the misleading (for Holmes fans) title, it is an entertaining mystery with some good touches.
Reginald Owen is solid as Holmes, although he does not leave his mark on the role in the way that Basil Rathbone and Jeremy Brett did. Owen does have the unique distinction of having played both Holmes and Dr. Watson (having played the latter in "Sherlock Holmes" the year before "A Study in Scarlet").
The rest of the cast likewise play their characters in a straightforward fashion, allowing the story and atmosphere to get the main focus. The one who does stand out is Anna May Wong, who adds beauty and a mysterious presence, although unfortunately she does not get a lot of screen time.
The story itself has numerous turns, and keeps you guessing. The atmosphere might not always be Holmes-like, but it is quite suitable for the story, and it is aided by good use of the lighting and photography. Overall, if you can set aside the misleading (for Holmes fans) title, it is an entertaining mystery with some good touches.
- Snow Leopard
- Apr 10, 2005
- Permalink
A decent Holmes
As long as one understands this version of A STUDY IN SCARLET bears no resemblance to its source material, one can enjoy the performance of Reginald Owen -- best known for playing Scrooge -- as the inimitable Sherlock Holmes. The story as such involves a secret group of individuals who are being knocked off one at a time. A fortune is at stake! Holmes is called in and more or less immediately identifies the killer(s), but the movie stretches events out to feature length, and a bad movie it is not. Owen makes an acceptable Holmes, even though the story has been moved forward to the time in which the movie was made. Warburton Gamble's Dr. Watson leaves something to be desired, but most movie Watsons can be found lacking. Only Ian Fleming in 1935's TRIUMPH OF SHERLOCK HOLMES and the Dr. Watsons of the Jeremy Brett TV series come even close to the Watson of the Conan Doyle stories. Worth a look as a novelty.
- xredgarnetx
- Dec 29, 2006
- Permalink
worth a look for Anna May Wong
Don't study it too hard
"A Study in Scarlet" was produced by the low-budget E. W. Hammons at the low-budget Tiffany Studios starring a former Watson (possibly cast because of his association with Holmes films), Reginald Owen, as Sherlock Holmes. The presence of Holmes and Watson is the only connection to the Arthur Conan Doyle story of the same name, and that, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. I have no problem with a Sherlock Holmes film straying from slavish fidelity to the creator of the character. However, this one seems to deviate from the original not as a result of the filmmakers' creativity being exercised in order to make something new, but often in ways that make Holmes into someone that resembles a generic detective protagonist more than the most recognizable of them all.
It's a little odd to see a supposed Sherlock Holmes dart around wearing clothes clearly dated to the 1930s (the only appearance of the famous deerstalker is in cartoon form in the opening titles), but since the story doesn't depend on anything terribly time-period appropriate, the transposition to the contemporary setting doesn't have too much of an effect. A curiosity here is that we are repeated told that Sherlock Holmes lives at 221A Baker Street, not the traditional 221B, even though he still seems to be living upstairs. Whether that's a simple error on somebody's part or a nod to the liberties being taken with the original stories there is no way to tell.
Owen, unfortunately, is rather stiff and unremarkable in is portrayal of Sherlock Holmes. Many point out that he doesn't look the part (and, traditionally, he doesn't) but that hasn't been a problem for countless other actors. If he had managed to make the role his own through his performance it wouldn't have been for him either. He has little presence and seems to think that if he bellows each line with enough conviction and self-satisfaction he'll sound as if he knows what he's talking about.
Sadly the rest of the actors are rather wooden and unimpressive as well, including Anna May Wong. Warburton Gamble makes no impression as Watson, and some of the murder victims are laughably unconvincing in their hesitant screams for help at their dying moments. Everything is taken deadly seriously except for some overplayed comic relief involving characters at a pub, which only semi works.
There is a good mystery story at the heart of this film about a circle of criminals whose members are being murdered one-by-one, but the execution (including the direction which, the exception of one clever shot inside Merrydew's office near the end, mainly doesn't go beyond static two- an three-shots) is too lackluster to serve it well. The scriptwriter deserves credit for a good concept and for a good method of developing the story through showing us going on in all quarters without completely explaining its significance, but nobody else seems to have been trying very hard.
It's still entertaining most of the time, and fun for viewers who will eat up anything Holmesian, but it's far from the best executed film version of the detective's adventures.
It's a little odd to see a supposed Sherlock Holmes dart around wearing clothes clearly dated to the 1930s (the only appearance of the famous deerstalker is in cartoon form in the opening titles), but since the story doesn't depend on anything terribly time-period appropriate, the transposition to the contemporary setting doesn't have too much of an effect. A curiosity here is that we are repeated told that Sherlock Holmes lives at 221A Baker Street, not the traditional 221B, even though he still seems to be living upstairs. Whether that's a simple error on somebody's part or a nod to the liberties being taken with the original stories there is no way to tell.
Owen, unfortunately, is rather stiff and unremarkable in is portrayal of Sherlock Holmes. Many point out that he doesn't look the part (and, traditionally, he doesn't) but that hasn't been a problem for countless other actors. If he had managed to make the role his own through his performance it wouldn't have been for him either. He has little presence and seems to think that if he bellows each line with enough conviction and self-satisfaction he'll sound as if he knows what he's talking about.
Sadly the rest of the actors are rather wooden and unimpressive as well, including Anna May Wong. Warburton Gamble makes no impression as Watson, and some of the murder victims are laughably unconvincing in their hesitant screams for help at their dying moments. Everything is taken deadly seriously except for some overplayed comic relief involving characters at a pub, which only semi works.
There is a good mystery story at the heart of this film about a circle of criminals whose members are being murdered one-by-one, but the execution (including the direction which, the exception of one clever shot inside Merrydew's office near the end, mainly doesn't go beyond static two- an three-shots) is too lackluster to serve it well. The scriptwriter deserves credit for a good concept and for a good method of developing the story through showing us going on in all quarters without completely explaining its significance, but nobody else seems to have been trying very hard.
It's still entertaining most of the time, and fun for viewers who will eat up anything Holmesian, but it's far from the best executed film version of the detective's adventures.
- hte-trasme
- Nov 4, 2009
- Permalink
Mystery society
- nickenchuggets
- Jun 26, 2024
- Permalink
"My interest is to bring the criminal to justice."
- classicsoncall
- Oct 25, 2004
- Permalink
"SIX DEAD MEN"
KBS Productions paid for the title, but not the plot, of Doyle's 1st Holmes story. Instead, and I might never have known this if not for some helpful contributor to the IMDB, they adapted-- unofficially (and presumably, UNPAID!), Belgian author Stanislas-André Steeman's 1931 detective novel "Six Hommes Morts". I've looked around, and I haven't yet found any evidence that this novel, published in French, has ever been translated into English. However, I've just learned it has been adapted to film at least 4 times, with this being the 1st version. The others were "THE RIVERSIDE MURDERS" (UK / 1935), "LE DERNIER DES SIX" (France / 1941) and "L'inspecteur Wens: SIX HOMMES MORTS" (an episode of the 1975 French anthology TV series, "Les grands détectives")! Now I'm interested in tracking those down for comparison.
Physically, Reginald Owen reminds me a bit of a young Ray Milland (or, a bit, of stage actor William Gillette). He may not look like the traditional idea of Holmes, but thanks to the script, he certainly SEEMD like him, making all sorts of amazing observations that escape the notice of Inspector Lestrade and Dr. Watson (who's mainly here as the audience-identification character, for Holmes to explain the plot to). Owen fares better as Holmes than he did as Watson in Fox's "SHERLOCK HOLMES" only 6 months earlier, while Alan Morbray, who was Scotland Yard inspector Colonel Gore-King in that, returns here as Lestrade.
I've seen this movie at least 4 times now, and have enjoyed it more with each viewing. Part of it is the slowly-developing plot, part is seeing some of the wonderful character actors of the period who I've come to recognize from other films turning up. Among them are Anna May Wong (who once played Fu Manchu's daughter), Halliwell Hobbes (who was in several Rathbone HOLMES films), Olaf Hytten (ditto; he also played "Sheerluck Jones" in the insane comedy short "Lost In Limehouse", which came out only a month before this), and Billy Bevan (a policeman in "Dracula's Daughter", he serves a comic-relief role as a tavern customer, similar to Herbert Mundin in the earlier Clive Brook film).
Given the similarities to "The Five Orange Pips" by Doyle, "Six Dead Men" by Steeman, or "Ten Little Indians" by Agatha Christie, I have to wonder WHICH story Christie might have been borrowing from when she wrote HER novel several years after this!
I only wish someone could locate a complete print of this and do a proper restoration, as between the poor picture and sound quality, and all the words missing due to frequent cuts, this is in almost as bad shape as Raymond Massey's "THE SPECKLED BAND". The screenplay here would have made an excellent installment in the Universal HOLMES series with Rathbone; if it had been, it would have been fully restored by now, as those 12 films were!
Physically, Reginald Owen reminds me a bit of a young Ray Milland (or, a bit, of stage actor William Gillette). He may not look like the traditional idea of Holmes, but thanks to the script, he certainly SEEMD like him, making all sorts of amazing observations that escape the notice of Inspector Lestrade and Dr. Watson (who's mainly here as the audience-identification character, for Holmes to explain the plot to). Owen fares better as Holmes than he did as Watson in Fox's "SHERLOCK HOLMES" only 6 months earlier, while Alan Morbray, who was Scotland Yard inspector Colonel Gore-King in that, returns here as Lestrade.
I've seen this movie at least 4 times now, and have enjoyed it more with each viewing. Part of it is the slowly-developing plot, part is seeing some of the wonderful character actors of the period who I've come to recognize from other films turning up. Among them are Anna May Wong (who once played Fu Manchu's daughter), Halliwell Hobbes (who was in several Rathbone HOLMES films), Olaf Hytten (ditto; he also played "Sheerluck Jones" in the insane comedy short "Lost In Limehouse", which came out only a month before this), and Billy Bevan (a policeman in "Dracula's Daughter", he serves a comic-relief role as a tavern customer, similar to Herbert Mundin in the earlier Clive Brook film).
Given the similarities to "The Five Orange Pips" by Doyle, "Six Dead Men" by Steeman, or "Ten Little Indians" by Agatha Christie, I have to wonder WHICH story Christie might have been borrowing from when she wrote HER novel several years after this!
I only wish someone could locate a complete print of this and do a proper restoration, as between the poor picture and sound quality, and all the words missing due to frequent cuts, this is in almost as bad shape as Raymond Massey's "THE SPECKLED BAND". The screenplay here would have made an excellent installment in the Universal HOLMES series with Rathbone; if it had been, it would have been fully restored by now, as those 12 films were!
weak early Holmes with terribly miscast Owen
A Holmes mystery with the feel of the canon
- briantaves
- Sep 4, 2005
- Permalink
Not Too Bad Of A Sherlock Holmes Film
I have admit I am with others on Reginald Owen's Sherlock Holmes... his acting is fine but he does not "fit" Holmes at all. He does not look or act like the Sherlock Holmes we have all come to know. It's not a horrible portrayal of Sherlock but it's not all that great either. This is simply not Reginald's style of character - he cannot capture Sherlock's personality.
The story of A Study in Scarlet is a good one! I realize it's not like the book but viewing the film as simply Hollywood entertainment then it's a pretty good story. I like this movie just not as well as other Sherlock Holmes films and it's mainly because of Reginald Owen is Sherlock - that might be shallow but it's just my personal taste in Sherlock Holmes.
7/10
The story of A Study in Scarlet is a good one! I realize it's not like the book but viewing the film as simply Hollywood entertainment then it's a pretty good story. I like this movie just not as well as other Sherlock Holmes films and it's mainly because of Reginald Owen is Sherlock - that might be shallow but it's just my personal taste in Sherlock Holmes.
7/10
- Rainey-Dawn
- Jul 12, 2016
- Permalink
Except for the presence of Anna May Wong, this picture has little to show for itself. A typical Poverty Row product of the 1930s, it holds few surprises.
The movie has little to do with the A. Conan Doyle story of the same name. Very cheaply made, its sets are so drab as to give the impression that the film is actually an expose of living conditions in the lower depths -- a proletarian Depression saga. The actors -- especially the three rather portly middle-aged stage actors cast as Holmes, Watson and Inspector Lestrade ("Lastrade" here) -- move gingerly around the various pieces of sad furniture, obviously fearful of breaking up the sets, one of which is supposed to be "221-A" (sic) Baker Street. (Perhaps the change in address was for legal reasons.)
Again, for reasons of their own, the producers inserted a tedious scene involving some ancient English vaudevillians doing a "drunk" routine, so ancient it might have come from a medieval farce.
However, the story, for what it is, does hold one's interest and moves along quickly, even though it made little sense. The pretty little ingénue playing the heroine has the disconcerting habit of displaying emotion two or three beats after the relevant action, and her neatly mustached boyfriend may have been one of the gimcrack chairs strewn around the set for all the life he shows.
The gorgeous Anna May Wong apparently wandered in from another movie. She's on camera for only about 10 minutes, but her talent is so much greater than any other member of the cast that she makes every scene she graces memorable. Lord, how that lady could slink!
Two possible "borrowings"-- 1. A literary device holding the story together -- a children's rhyme -- may have been borrowed by Agatha Christie for "Ten Little Indians", a book she wrote long after most prints of this movie had been converted to banjo picks. 2. A cinematic device -- a claustrophobic winding staircase -- may have been borrowed by Hitchcock for "Foreign Correspondent."
Again, for reasons of their own, the producers inserted a tedious scene involving some ancient English vaudevillians doing a "drunk" routine, so ancient it might have come from a medieval farce.
However, the story, for what it is, does hold one's interest and moves along quickly, even though it made little sense. The pretty little ingénue playing the heroine has the disconcerting habit of displaying emotion two or three beats after the relevant action, and her neatly mustached boyfriend may have been one of the gimcrack chairs strewn around the set for all the life he shows.
The gorgeous Anna May Wong apparently wandered in from another movie. She's on camera for only about 10 minutes, but her talent is so much greater than any other member of the cast that she makes every scene she graces memorable. Lord, how that lady could slink!
Two possible "borrowings"-- 1. A literary device holding the story together -- a children's rhyme -- may have been borrowed by Agatha Christie for "Ten Little Indians", a book she wrote long after most prints of this movie had been converted to banjo picks. 2. A cinematic device -- a claustrophobic winding staircase -- may have been borrowed by Hitchcock for "Foreign Correspondent."
Not Based on the Original Story of the Same Name
I first started reading the Holmes saga almost 40 years ago.Since then,my search has included all of the stories in the Canon,a great number of the pastiches,a vast number of the films,plays,and T.V. specials,and other works.So,while not considering myself a TRUE expert,nonetheless,I have a working knowledge of many of the adaptations.
There has yet,to my knowledge,to be a dramatisation of the original story of this name.And,it seems,for good reason.The plot involves the murder of 2 American tourists to London,both of whom being members of the Church of Latter Day Saints.The framework story then opens,and shows a fictionalized,and highly derogatory account of a Mormon totalitarian police state.Dissidents are terrrorized,nonconformists are murdered,and travelers are slaughtered so that new additions can be obtained for the harems of the Elders.
Understandably,given these details,one can understand as to why NO adaptation has yet,and probably never will be completed.Not only would it never play in Salt Lake City,but it would also alienate a major religious body.
There has yet,to my knowledge,to be a dramatisation of the original story of this name.And,it seems,for good reason.The plot involves the murder of 2 American tourists to London,both of whom being members of the Church of Latter Day Saints.The framework story then opens,and shows a fictionalized,and highly derogatory account of a Mormon totalitarian police state.Dissidents are terrrorized,nonconformists are murdered,and travelers are slaughtered so that new additions can be obtained for the harems of the Elders.
Understandably,given these details,one can understand as to why NO adaptation has yet,and probably never will be completed.Not only would it never play in Salt Lake City,but it would also alienate a major religious body.
- schweinhundt1967
- Nov 17, 2003
- Permalink
Owen Makes A Decent If Not Memorable Holmes
A man receives a nursery rhyme and dies. Alan Dinehart assembles a group of people and discusses how the loot is to be split up following his death. A lady calls on Reginald Owen as Sherlock Holmes to complain about his death, and how she doesn't know how she will live. Soon, Alan Mowbray as Lestrade turns up in Baker Street because there is another murder with another nursery rhyme.
It doesn't sound like any Holmes adventure you've heard of, and that's because the producer bought only the right to the title from the Arthur Conan Doyle estate; the story would have been a lot more, so he hired Robert Florey to write a new screenplay, and let Owen write his own lines; Owen had played Watson in a couple of movies and figured that was a sort of apprenticeship. Surprisingly, given my lack of enthusiasm for the actor, he is all right in the role, Holmes as a pure thinking machine, lacking any of the tics or nervous energy that other performers put into the role. With a decent mystery, good supporting actors, including Anna May Wong, June Clyde, and Billy Bevan, it's a decent little Poverty Row mystery, even if it didn't break any house records.
It doesn't sound like any Holmes adventure you've heard of, and that's because the producer bought only the right to the title from the Arthur Conan Doyle estate; the story would have been a lot more, so he hired Robert Florey to write a new screenplay, and let Owen write his own lines; Owen had played Watson in a couple of movies and figured that was a sort of apprenticeship. Surprisingly, given my lack of enthusiasm for the actor, he is all right in the role, Holmes as a pure thinking machine, lacking any of the tics or nervous energy that other performers put into the role. With a decent mystery, good supporting actors, including Anna May Wong, June Clyde, and Billy Bevan, it's a decent little Poverty Row mystery, even if it didn't break any house records.
Static scarlet
Am a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes and get a lot of enjoyment out of Arthur Conan Doyle's stories. Also love Basil Rathbone's and especially Jeremy Brett's interpretations to death. So would naturally see any Sherlock Holmes adaptation that comes my way, regardless of its reception.
Furthermore, interest in seeing early films based on Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories and wanting to see as many adaptations of any Sherlock Holmes stories as possible sparked my interest in seeing 'A Study in Scarlet', especially one with such an appetising and great title. Also with interest as to how Reginald Owen, a bizarre casting choice on paper (but some initially weird casting choices have been known to come off surprisingly better than expected so that wasn't a concern), would fare as Holmes.
'A Study in Scarlet' is a very loose film adaptation, the names and title being the only resemblances. It is not one of the best Sherlock Holmes adaptations certainly, the best of the Jeremy Brett adaptations and films of Basil Rathone fit under this category. It's also not among the very worst, although one of the lesser ones overall, being a little better than any of the Matt Frewer films (particularly 'The Sign of Four') and much better than the abominable Peter Cook 'The Hound of the Baskervilles'.
There are good things with 'A Study in Scarlet'. Anna May Wong really spices things up in a sensual performance, shame she didn't have more screen time. Alan Mowbray is a quick-witted and not too idiotic, if not quite electric, Lestrade and Alan Dinehart intrigues as Merrydew.
Nice shots here and there and the ending is a satisfying surprise if not ingenious. The set-up and frame-work is neat.
However, anybody who raised eyebrows at Owen's casting before watching are not going to find themselves converted seeing him in the role. It's not because he's wrong physically, he is also far too stiff and tends to overplay the role. Warburton Gamble is an insipid and forgettable Watson, having the opposite problem of being too much of a buffoon like Nigel Bruce but displaying little personality. The lacklustre at best chemistry between the two and the wanting performances of both actors makes this iconic partnering fall flat. June Clyde is both melodramatic and disengaged with some ridiculously delayed reactions.
Visually, 'A Study in Scarlet' is pretty lacking too, time and budget limitations seem to be evident here. There is nothing evocative or handsome about the production values, the sets being very drab and most of the way it's shot and edited is very primitive.
Moreover, too much of the script lacks flow and intrigue, just as insipid as Gamble's Watson and with comic relief that is overplayed and pointless. The direction is never more than pedestrian. Other than Owen and Gamble, the biggest faults are the story and pace. The pace tends to be dull, hurt by some very tedious padding that is not always necessary. The story lacks tension and suspense as well as not always easy to follow.
Overall, underwhelming. 4/10 Bethany Cox
Furthermore, interest in seeing early films based on Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories and wanting to see as many adaptations of any Sherlock Holmes stories as possible sparked my interest in seeing 'A Study in Scarlet', especially one with such an appetising and great title. Also with interest as to how Reginald Owen, a bizarre casting choice on paper (but some initially weird casting choices have been known to come off surprisingly better than expected so that wasn't a concern), would fare as Holmes.
'A Study in Scarlet' is a very loose film adaptation, the names and title being the only resemblances. It is not one of the best Sherlock Holmes adaptations certainly, the best of the Jeremy Brett adaptations and films of Basil Rathone fit under this category. It's also not among the very worst, although one of the lesser ones overall, being a little better than any of the Matt Frewer films (particularly 'The Sign of Four') and much better than the abominable Peter Cook 'The Hound of the Baskervilles'.
There are good things with 'A Study in Scarlet'. Anna May Wong really spices things up in a sensual performance, shame she didn't have more screen time. Alan Mowbray is a quick-witted and not too idiotic, if not quite electric, Lestrade and Alan Dinehart intrigues as Merrydew.
Nice shots here and there and the ending is a satisfying surprise if not ingenious. The set-up and frame-work is neat.
However, anybody who raised eyebrows at Owen's casting before watching are not going to find themselves converted seeing him in the role. It's not because he's wrong physically, he is also far too stiff and tends to overplay the role. Warburton Gamble is an insipid and forgettable Watson, having the opposite problem of being too much of a buffoon like Nigel Bruce but displaying little personality. The lacklustre at best chemistry between the two and the wanting performances of both actors makes this iconic partnering fall flat. June Clyde is both melodramatic and disengaged with some ridiculously delayed reactions.
Visually, 'A Study in Scarlet' is pretty lacking too, time and budget limitations seem to be evident here. There is nothing evocative or handsome about the production values, the sets being very drab and most of the way it's shot and edited is very primitive.
Moreover, too much of the script lacks flow and intrigue, just as insipid as Gamble's Watson and with comic relief that is overplayed and pointless. The direction is never more than pedestrian. Other than Owen and Gamble, the biggest faults are the story and pace. The pace tends to be dull, hurt by some very tedious padding that is not always necessary. The story lacks tension and suspense as well as not always easy to follow.
Overall, underwhelming. 4/10 Bethany Cox
- TheLittleSongbird
- Apr 29, 2018
- Permalink
mind-numbingly dull
This is a poor and bizarre Sherlock Holmes movie. It's poor because the story has very little to do with the original Conan Doyle story. Heck, they even included a bunch of characters that weren't in this tale! It's bizarre because Reginald Owen seemed a very odd choice for the lead--seeming much more suited to the role of Watson than Holmes. Much of this is just tradition--actors famous for playing this same role repeatedly were William Gillette, Arthur Wontner, Basil Rathbone and Jeremy Brett were all thin guys and bore some similarity to each other. Owen just looked nothing like them and this took some getting used to. This isn't a bad thing--just an odd thing.
Also, I am really confused by the film because although it bears almost no similarity to "A Study in Scarlet", the film is very similar to Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None" (a.k.a. "The 10 Little Indians" and another title which I can't use because I doubt if IMDb would allow me to use the original title due to political correctness). However, Christie's novel did not appear until the late 1930s, so it appears that perhaps she lifted the plot from this 1933 film or at least was strongly inspired by it. I am really surprised there wasn't a lot of uproar about the similarities.
If you ignore all these aspects, you still have a poor film because the film had such poor production values. There was no incidental music, lousy dialog, the acting was often VERY poor and the whole thing simply had no energy. As a result, instead of being engaging, the whole thing was mind-numbingly dull and I can't recommend you see it.
Also, I am really confused by the film because although it bears almost no similarity to "A Study in Scarlet", the film is very similar to Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None" (a.k.a. "The 10 Little Indians" and another title which I can't use because I doubt if IMDb would allow me to use the original title due to political correctness). However, Christie's novel did not appear until the late 1930s, so it appears that perhaps she lifted the plot from this 1933 film or at least was strongly inspired by it. I am really surprised there wasn't a lot of uproar about the similarities.
If you ignore all these aspects, you still have a poor film because the film had such poor production values. There was no incidental music, lousy dialog, the acting was often VERY poor and the whole thing simply had no energy. As a result, instead of being engaging, the whole thing was mind-numbingly dull and I can't recommend you see it.
- planktonrules
- Mar 29, 2008
- Permalink
Why did he want to kill himself? Did you ever meet his wife!
Well directed by Edwin L. Marin, of all people!
- JohnHowardReid
- Dec 27, 2017
- Permalink
Not as good as...
Not as good as the ones with Basil Rathbone or Jeremy Brett... Fascinating to see a film from 1933. Study the clothes and furnitures for example. Basil Rathbone, I miss you!
Good but not Great.
I was intrigued by the thought of Reginald Owen playing Sherlock Holmes because I disliked him as Ebeneezer Scrooge in MGM's " A Christmas Carol" (1938). In that role he was very subdued and did not bring the character to life, although I have been spoiled in this regard by Alastair Sim; would the same happen here?
Happily, he was much better as Holmes, but once again I have been spoiled by Basil Rathbone and Arthur Wontner. Nevertheless, he was more than adequate but was done in by the leaden pace of the proceedings in A Study In Scarlet - it could have been so much better with a little tension and suspense and a few less dead spots, as the the storyline was excellent. I especially enjoy mysteries in which the murderer is unknown until the last scene.
A good entry in the Holmes series - unless you've seen the aforementioned Rathbone or Wontner in the title role.
Happily, he was much better as Holmes, but once again I have been spoiled by Basil Rathbone and Arthur Wontner. Nevertheless, he was more than adequate but was done in by the leaden pace of the proceedings in A Study In Scarlet - it could have been so much better with a little tension and suspense and a few less dead spots, as the the storyline was excellent. I especially enjoy mysteries in which the murderer is unknown until the last scene.
A good entry in the Holmes series - unless you've seen the aforementioned Rathbone or Wontner in the title role.
A Study In Somnolence.
- rmax304823
- Nov 26, 2011
- Permalink
Sherlock Holmes: Murder by Death
A STUDY IN SCARLET (World Wide, 1933), directed by Edwin L. Marin, suggested by the book by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (credited as A. Conan Doyle), introduces Reginald Owen to the role as Sherlock Holmes for the first and only time. In fact, Owen's name isn't credited above the title, but actually the central figure being Sherlock Holmes in A STUDY IN SCARLET, almost as if Holmes is appearing as himself. Owen, seldom a leading man, best known as Ebenezer Scrooge in "A Christmas Carol" (MGM, 1938), may be an interesting choice as Holmes, considering a handful of actors having enacted this legendary sleuth in the past, William Gillette on stage; and/or Arthur Wontner in several British-made movies. Yet there's none more famous than Basil Rathbone (Holmes) with Nigel Bruce (Doctor Watson) in what developed into a popular film series for Universal a decade later. It's a little known factor that Owen happens to be the first actor to play Watson in one movie, 1932s SHERLOCK HOLMES (Fox) featuring Clive Brook, and Holmes in another. As often stated for A STUDY IN SCARLET, the plot actually doesn't follow Conan Doyle's first Holmes novel, but instead contains an original idea scripted by Robert Florey with continuity and dialogue credited by Reginald Owen himself.
The story opens at Victoria Station, London (with a light post and car indicating a modern setting for one brief scene), where two cleaning ladies, having difficulty opening the door to a compartment, get Mr. Partrudge, a porter, to look into the matter. Observing from the outside window, he and another porter find its passenger, James Murphy, dead. After a coded newspaper clipping "6, 9, 3, 7, 13, 7, Scarlet 23, 4, 7, Limehouse M," is shown on screen from the Daily Telegraph, the following segment shows a secret meeting presided by Thaddeus Merrydew (Alan Dinehart), a crooked lawyer and legal representative of a mysterious organization called The Scarlet Ring. In attendance are Jabez Wilson (J.M. Kerrigan), William Baker (Cecil Reynolds), Malcolm Dearing (Halliwell Hobbs), Captain Pike (Wyndham Standing), Ah Yet (Tetsu Komai), and Eileen Forrester (June Clyde), engaged to John Stanford (John Warburton), and daughter of one of the recently deceased members, where Merrydew, explains in the event of a member's death, the estate is left to the survivors and divided evenly. Three days later, Sherlock Holmes (Reginald Owen) and his assistant, Doctor Watson (Warburton Gamble) of 221-A Baker Street, are visited by Murphy's widow, Annabella Mary (Doris Lloyd), a pub owner, explaining how she's been cheated of her late husband's fortune left to the organization. Holmes, suspecting foul play in Murphy's murder, takes the case that allows him the opportunity to further investigate Merrydew, whom Holmes describes as "king of blackmailers," "the most dangerous crook" and "a slimy, venomous snake." During the investigation of a study in scarlet, more murders occur, all with little rhyme notes found as possible clues. With further assistance of Inspector Lestrade (Alan Mowbray), Holmes encounters another suspect, Mrs. Pyke (Anna May Wong), a Chinese widow with a mysterious past.
Slow moving and virtually score-less, A STUDY IN SCARLET offers several scenes worth noting. If the murdering notes ("Six little black boys playing with a dive. A bumble bee stung one, and there were five," "Five little black boys going in for law, one cut a chancery, and then there were four," "Four little black boys going out to tea, a red herring swallowed one, and then there were three," "Three little black boys walking in the zoo. The big bear hugged one, and then there were two," etc.) sound familiar, then look no further to what eventually became "And Then There Were None" (published 1939-40), a classic novel by Agatha Christie. Slight difference, Black Boys was changed to Little Indians. Could it be that Christie had seen this movie and lifted some material for her novel? Another interesting factor found in A STUDY IN SCARLET is how the camera becomes the subject matter with Merrydew looking directly and talking into it, without revealing the identity of that person. This visual style is most identified to 1940s film noir mysteries, notably LADY IN THE LAKE (MGM, 1946) and DARK PASSAGE (WB, 1947), though done earlier in A FAREWELL TO ARMS (Paramount, 1932), which makes one wonder which film and director originated that visual style.
With limited byplay between Holmes and Watson, this edition is very much Holmes indeed, crime solver. Though he does take time to disguise himself at one point, it's not much of a disguise. Other members in the cast include Leila Bennett (Daft Dolly, credited as Daffy Dolly); Hobart Cavanaugh (The Bartender); and Tempe Piggot (Mrs. Hudson, famously played by Mary Gordon in the Rathbone series).
Acceptable adaptation that's become a curio to film buffs. Frequently presented on television starting in the late 1970s, A STUDY IN SCARLET, available on video and DVD formats, often played on Arts and Entertainment Cable television before turning up on Turner Classic Movies (TCM premiere: June 5, 2008). For anyone interested in learning more about Doyle's actual "A Study in Scarlet" novel, read the book. (**)
The story opens at Victoria Station, London (with a light post and car indicating a modern setting for one brief scene), where two cleaning ladies, having difficulty opening the door to a compartment, get Mr. Partrudge, a porter, to look into the matter. Observing from the outside window, he and another porter find its passenger, James Murphy, dead. After a coded newspaper clipping "6, 9, 3, 7, 13, 7, Scarlet 23, 4, 7, Limehouse M," is shown on screen from the Daily Telegraph, the following segment shows a secret meeting presided by Thaddeus Merrydew (Alan Dinehart), a crooked lawyer and legal representative of a mysterious organization called The Scarlet Ring. In attendance are Jabez Wilson (J.M. Kerrigan), William Baker (Cecil Reynolds), Malcolm Dearing (Halliwell Hobbs), Captain Pike (Wyndham Standing), Ah Yet (Tetsu Komai), and Eileen Forrester (June Clyde), engaged to John Stanford (John Warburton), and daughter of one of the recently deceased members, where Merrydew, explains in the event of a member's death, the estate is left to the survivors and divided evenly. Three days later, Sherlock Holmes (Reginald Owen) and his assistant, Doctor Watson (Warburton Gamble) of 221-A Baker Street, are visited by Murphy's widow, Annabella Mary (Doris Lloyd), a pub owner, explaining how she's been cheated of her late husband's fortune left to the organization. Holmes, suspecting foul play in Murphy's murder, takes the case that allows him the opportunity to further investigate Merrydew, whom Holmes describes as "king of blackmailers," "the most dangerous crook" and "a slimy, venomous snake." During the investigation of a study in scarlet, more murders occur, all with little rhyme notes found as possible clues. With further assistance of Inspector Lestrade (Alan Mowbray), Holmes encounters another suspect, Mrs. Pyke (Anna May Wong), a Chinese widow with a mysterious past.
Slow moving and virtually score-less, A STUDY IN SCARLET offers several scenes worth noting. If the murdering notes ("Six little black boys playing with a dive. A bumble bee stung one, and there were five," "Five little black boys going in for law, one cut a chancery, and then there were four," "Four little black boys going out to tea, a red herring swallowed one, and then there were three," "Three little black boys walking in the zoo. The big bear hugged one, and then there were two," etc.) sound familiar, then look no further to what eventually became "And Then There Were None" (published 1939-40), a classic novel by Agatha Christie. Slight difference, Black Boys was changed to Little Indians. Could it be that Christie had seen this movie and lifted some material for her novel? Another interesting factor found in A STUDY IN SCARLET is how the camera becomes the subject matter with Merrydew looking directly and talking into it, without revealing the identity of that person. This visual style is most identified to 1940s film noir mysteries, notably LADY IN THE LAKE (MGM, 1946) and DARK PASSAGE (WB, 1947), though done earlier in A FAREWELL TO ARMS (Paramount, 1932), which makes one wonder which film and director originated that visual style.
With limited byplay between Holmes and Watson, this edition is very much Holmes indeed, crime solver. Though he does take time to disguise himself at one point, it's not much of a disguise. Other members in the cast include Leila Bennett (Daft Dolly, credited as Daffy Dolly); Hobart Cavanaugh (The Bartender); and Tempe Piggot (Mrs. Hudson, famously played by Mary Gordon in the Rathbone series).
Acceptable adaptation that's become a curio to film buffs. Frequently presented on television starting in the late 1970s, A STUDY IN SCARLET, available on video and DVD formats, often played on Arts and Entertainment Cable television before turning up on Turner Classic Movies (TCM premiere: June 5, 2008). For anyone interested in learning more about Doyle's actual "A Study in Scarlet" novel, read the book. (**)
Who's the bloke who killed Mrs. Murphy's husband?
A Study In Scarlet finds character actor Reginald Owen, much better known as Scrooge in MGM's A Christmas Carol, taking a turn as Sherlock Holmes. Owen had previously played Dr. Watson in another film so he became the only actor in cinema history to be both Holmes and Watson on the big screen.
Holmes is hired by Doris Lloyd as Mrs. Murphy whose husband at the beginning of the film met with a mysterious death in a locked train cabin. He was a member of a mysterious fraternal order of some kind whose members assets are split among the other members upon their demise. Alan Dinehart is attorney for this group and he's as slick a shyster as you would ever want to find. In fact Watson played by Warburton Gamble here says that Mrs. Murphy is in need of a probate lawyer more than a detective.
Watson is wrong because she does need the services of Sherlock Holmes. In fact the beautiful June Clyde whose place she's in because of her late father also needs his service and even more as it turns out as a few more members start dropping.
A Study In Scarlet is inferior Holmes, not because of Reginald Owen, but because of a really bad script that left several questions unanswered. Why is Clyde part of the group when her father's assets should have gone to the others? Why are all the killings starting at this particular point? And for the fact that there is criminal activity at work, this really is a contest of wills and belongs in probate court.
Still Owen is a fine Watson and Alan Mowbray is an interesting Inspector Lestrade. But Baker Street purists will not be happy.
Holmes is hired by Doris Lloyd as Mrs. Murphy whose husband at the beginning of the film met with a mysterious death in a locked train cabin. He was a member of a mysterious fraternal order of some kind whose members assets are split among the other members upon their demise. Alan Dinehart is attorney for this group and he's as slick a shyster as you would ever want to find. In fact Watson played by Warburton Gamble here says that Mrs. Murphy is in need of a probate lawyer more than a detective.
Watson is wrong because she does need the services of Sherlock Holmes. In fact the beautiful June Clyde whose place she's in because of her late father also needs his service and even more as it turns out as a few more members start dropping.
A Study In Scarlet is inferior Holmes, not because of Reginald Owen, but because of a really bad script that left several questions unanswered. Why is Clyde part of the group when her father's assets should have gone to the others? Why are all the killings starting at this particular point? And for the fact that there is criminal activity at work, this really is a contest of wills and belongs in probate court.
Still Owen is a fine Watson and Alan Mowbray is an interesting Inspector Lestrade. But Baker Street purists will not be happy.
- bkoganbing
- Jan 14, 2012
- Permalink