Customer Reviews

The Sherlock Holmes: A Study in Scarlet

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This 1933 B&W film, which clocks at 72 minutes, not the 77 stated on the box, is enjoyable as an early example of a Sherlock Holmes movie. However, the video and sound quality are rather iffy. The print is fuzzy and of low contrast, whereas the sound track has a loud continuous background noise that sometimes makes the characters hard to understand.
The movie features Reginald Owen as Holmes, who had starred as Watson in a 1932 film, and who would star as Scrooge in the 1938 film A Christmas Carol. Owen does a decent speaking job as Holmes but visually jars as he is by far the chubbiest Holmes on screen. Warburton Gamble plays a undistinguished, at times whining (due to the cold) Watson. The film is also of interest because of its 1933-vintage costumes and settings. There are two obvious goofs: Holmes's digs are at 221A Baker Street instead of 221B, and the bungling Scotland Yard inspector is Lastrade instead of Lestrade.
The story has nothing to do with the Arthur Conan Doyle study of the same name. Rather, the movie deals with a mysterious secret trust, the Scarlet Ring. Its members progressively die off, accompanied by a nursery rhyme--and then there were five, four, .... Agatha Christie borrowed this motif in her 1939 mystery novel (and later a play), Ten Little Niggers (American titles: Ten Little Indians, And Then There Were None), which, curiously, has a character named Owen.

This is an odd duck of a Sherlock Holmes film. Anyone who knows the first thing about Holmes knows that A Study in Scarlet was Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's first story about the Great Detective, so it's only natural that this early film (1933) would bring that story to life - but it doesn't, as this Study in Scarlet has very little in common with Doyle's published story. The really odd thing about this film, though, is Holmes' address, which is 221A Baker Street rather than 221B Baker Street. A pre-Scrooge Reginald Owen doesn't make for a bad Sherlock (but he does make for a plump one), although he comes up woefully short against the likes of Basil Rathbone and the incomparable Jeremy Brett. I should note that this is Owen's one and only appearance as Holmes - and, somewhat ironically, it came a year after he played Dr. Watson opposite Clive Brooks' Sherlock Holmes.

This is a fairly standard pastiche affair. You've got this secret little society calling itself the Scarlet Ring, and it's clearly up to no good. Holmes first hears of it when the widow of one of its members seeks his help after seeing her dead husband's estate turned over to the group, leaving her with nothing. Apparently, the group's leader, smarmy lawyer Thaddeus Merrydew (Alan Dinehart), has been in Holmes' sights for some time, and he is eager to finally nab him. In a way, it's a race against time because members of the Scarlet Ring keep turning up dead under suspicious circumstances. Holmes does his investigation (including a little undercover work in disguise), figures everything out, and - in the end - explains it all to Watson and the rest of us. That explanation includes some pretty big facts that we had no possible way of knowing on our own, though, and that never sets too well with me.

With shadowy killers, secret passages, coded messages, and a blonde damsel in distress, this Study in Scarlet makes for a perfectly adequate little mystery - but neither the film nor Reginald Owen truly captures the essence or carries the aura of vintage Sherlock Holmes. And poor Dr. Watson (Warburton Gamble) might as well be a piece of furniture, as he serves almost no purpose in the film.

A Study In Scarlet the film has very little to do with the novel of the same name. On it's own merits though it is a highly enjoyable classic mystery film. There are plenty of twists and atmosphere and I greatly enjoyed Reginald Owens as Holmes. Owens may take some time to get used to if you are used to Rathbone or Brett. He's different, unique, and exquisite in his own way. I love this movie!

The movie is so old it is at times almost faded out, but the story itself is rather interesting. The plot of the story has been used in many things including an episode of the Simpsons. It's the beauty of Holmes stories, as the story progresses, it's as if you are Holmes trying to figure out who did what and who didn't.

I think that anyone that enjoys a good mystery with an interesting plot, you'll like this even if you aren't yet a fan of the great detective Sherlock Holmes. For a low price, it's worth it.

Excellent cast, save a lackluster Dr. Watson, in a so-so Sherlock Holmes mystery based loosely on Conan Doyle's original title. The film is old and creaky and refuses the high psychological logic of Sherlock Holmes' perfect science in a few apparent plot holes, but the supporting cast is exceptional, and although star Reginald Owen's Sherlock leans a little closer to Perry Mason, he quite fits the shoes of the famed detective.

This is an odd duck of a Sherlock Holmes film. Anyone who knows the first thing about Holmes knows that A Study in Scarlet was Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's first story about the Great Detective, so it's only natural that this early film (1933) would bring that story to life - but it doesn't, as this Study in Scarlet has very little in common with Doyle's published story. The really odd thing about this film, though, is Holmes' address, which is 221A Baker Street rather than 221B Baker Street. A pre-Scrooge Reginald Owen doesn't make for a bad Sherlock (but he does make for a plump one), although he comes up woefully short against the likes of Basil Rathbone and the incomparable Jeremy Brett. I should note that this is Owen's one and only appearance as Holmes - and, somewhat ironically, it came a year after he played Dr. Watson opposite Clive Brooks' Sherlock Holmes.

This is a fairly standard pastiche affair. You've got this secret little society calling itself the Scarlet Ring, and it's clearly up to no good. Holmes first hears of it when the widow of one of its members seeks his help after seeing her dead husband's estate turned over to the group, leaving her with nothing. Apparently, the group's leader, smarmy lawyer Thaddeus Merrydew (Alan Dinehart), has been in Holmes' sights for some time, and he is eager to finally nab him. In a way, it's a race against time because members of the Scarlet Ring keep turning up dead under suspicious circumstances. Holmes does his investigation (including a little undercover work in disguise), figures everything out, and - in the end - explains it all to Watson and the rest of us. That explanation includes some pretty big facts that we had no possible way of knowing on our own, though, and that never sets too well with me.

With shadowy killers, secret passages, coded messages, and a blonde damsel in distress, this Study in Scarlet makes for a perfectly adequate little mystery - but neither the film nor Reginald Owen truly captures the essence or carries the aura of vintage Sherlock Holmes. And poor Dr. Watson (Warburton Gamble) might as well be a piece of furniture, as he serves almost no purpose in the film.

A Study in Scarlet, 1933 film

The movie was "suggested" by the book. It begins at "Victoria Station London". Two charwomen try to open a carriage door. There is a body inside. A young couple visit a house. There is a meeting of a group. Sherlock Holmes recognizes a book code in the newspaper. Mrs. Murphy calls on Sherlock Holmes about the death of her husband; she is penniless. "Deep water, Watson." Another member of that group is shot dead! Holmes talks to his widow Mr. Pyke. Another name is crossed off a list. Holmes is called in on another case, and diagnoses the events from the clues! Holmes and Dr. Watson visit lawyer Thaddeus Merrydew. Merrydew visits Miss Eleanor Forrester. Then we see a country inn and some comic relief. A visitor inspects the Pyke mansion. Is this a trick?

Holmes posts an ad about the "Scarlet Ring" in the newspaper. That group meets again. "Who'll be next?" The plunder will be distributed next week to the remaining members. A telephone call summons Holmes. They save Miss Forrester from an "accident". Who visits Merrydew? Next there is a meeting in that country inn. The police will watch the Grange that night. Miss Forrester was lured to the Grange to spend the night. A stranger arrives in the night and fog. He is caught with Miss Forrester, and unmasked. The mystery is solved. Holmes explains how he figured it out from a ring found on a dead body. ["The Valley of Fear"?]

This movie has nothing in common with the original story of the same name. Its plot is similar to "The Sign of Four". The writer of this story borrowed parts from the original stories to create a new story that is as good as the originals.

Criminals in Sir Conan Doyle's stories are rather simple people, not because they are simple but because the world that is imagining them is simple. Victorian and then Georgian England did not like complicated problems. These two stories are typical of that style in two different directions. "A Study in Scarlet" is a love affair that turns sour because two young men abduct the young woman and she is forced to marry one of them, till she dies of real death as much as of sadness. Then vengeance produces the crime. These stories are so simple that we know from the start what it is about, but the interest is in the details and the intricate way the details are revealed for us to be misled and to just accept to follow the lead. Doctor Watson is there to be the bait and the ploy, or even the decoy, so that we fall in the trap. Then add some disguises, some night darkness, some lamps, some transvestites and some other rather weird and somber things and situations and you have it all. And you fall. The police is dumb, I mean Scotland Yard of course, and Sherlock Holmes is a genius, who survives on cocaine, though they forget to tell you that. The "Study in Scarlet" introduces another element that Conan Doyle used all the time: the American criminal who of course disturbs the mind of our Scotland Yard protectors because they are different and work with another logic. If they had a Queen, these Americans, they would have found a way to finally have a black Prince of Wales, or at least Princess of the same place. The second short film, The Boscombe Valley Mystery introduces another favorite theme of Sherlock Holmes's. The colonial empire, and in that case Australia. Some people back from there are settling their accounts with blackmail, arguments, violence, vengeance, forced marriages and unofficial affairs, and all that to capture a fortune on one side with a lot of greed along with it and to hide some devious ways used to make that fortune on the other side. In other words they are playing black Jack at twenty-one hundred hours on the pontoon of life and death between here and there. And it takes Sherlock Holmes, some cigar ashes - sorry cigarettes are still not quite in the fad - and a footprint to find out who is the black sheep in the pack. Funny suspense and amusing little secrets, that are at least as difficult to get out of the retainer of them as it would be to undress a nude man. Sherlock Holmes has his own ways to tickle people when they have an itchy spot.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne, University Paris 8 Saint Denis, University Paris 12 Créteil, CEGID

This isn't A. Conan Doyle's original story but stands on it's own as a film. Members of a criminal society start to die as an unknown enterprise approaches completion. When Holmes is visited by a vengeful widow, it is learned that an unscrupulous lawyer is behind the mystery. The movie has false suicides, a beautiful Anna May Wong, hidden passages, and murders galore in it's 72 minutes. Sherlock Holmes must sort through the clues as they emerge in a matter of days for this well-crafted film.

I have purchased a number of sets with older B&W films from the pre-'50's. Several movies I wanted in better remasters, "The Study In Scarlet" being one of them. Actually this version is an improvement over the first copy I possess. While there is a noisier background audio, a white line that runs down the middle sporadically, and a bumpy last ten minutes--the improved listenable audio, and clarity of film (mostly) makes this a better addition to my library.

If you're into perfection this 1933 film wasn't preserved as well as it could have been, and perhaps more attention to restoration should be done. But for an original "talkie" whodunit with great charactors, it will keep you in suspense many times over.

** There's a spoiler in the second paragraph, be warned **

First be warned that this Alpha Video transfer isn't very good at all; I checked it against the copy that appears on the "Mystery Classics" 50-pack for Mill Creek - a company notorious for their poor-quality dupe copies - and it's not any better than the version on that set. This is scratchy, indistinct and fuzzy at times, with poor sound and lots of noticeable dialog dropout. So it's conceivable that a better print would make some difference in my feelings.

Not likely though. Overall this is one of, if not the, poorest Holmes films I've seen - the John Barrymore silent from a decade earlier is probably it's closest competition. A large part of the problem rests in the casting of Reginald Owen who is not only physically wrong - a jowly, double-chinned Holmes just doesn't work - but also just plain irritating and seemingly uninterested in the character. I'm sure the screenplay has a lot to do with things also, as it makes out Holmes to be more of a super-cop than anything else, and every time he explains (in even more exasperated tones than is usual for the character) his miraculous sleuthing it comes off as talking down to both his fellow police and Watson, and to us the audience. Of course, Holmes is supposed to be arrogant - but here it's a sort of flip arrogance - hard to explain exactly, but it just seems both perfunctory and unnecessary. And having Holmes shoot one of the bad guys in the back at the end -- that didn't work at all.

The plot has little to do with the novel from which it takes its name; here Holmes is on the trail of a murderer slowly killing off members of some secret society which is only revealed in nature at the end but which we can figure out very early on. The whole Mormon backstory and flashback nature of the novel is gone - apparently there were worries about alienating people at the time; this is after all a Hollywood, not a British production which could conceivably have been more daring. Everything feels very by-the-numbers, the rest of the actors aren't really interesting either except for Anna May Wong as the femme fatale who brings at least a little eroticism and enthusiasm to her part. Director Edwin L. Marin is best known for a number of quite solid Randolph Scott westerns made between 1946 and his death in 1951, and some well-regarded if slightly obscure films noir; he doesn't show a whole lot of talent in this, his second film.

All in all, there's little to recommend this except to the Holmes fanatic who has to see it all. It would be lovely if some enterprising company would put together a cleaned-up set of the four extant films featuring Arthur Wontner as Holmes, produced at the same time period as this film (1931-37) but in Britain - and this would be worth having as an extra on such a set I suppose. The Wontner films aren't great, but they're more fun than this one and alas the extant video copies are just as poor. No Rathbone, perhaps, but all of these early versions deserve some acknowledgement, and it's clear that the character can still bring in the box office in 2010.