The process of dragging the Victorian character Sherlock Holmes into modern times had commenced already by 1931, when Arthur Wontner played Holmes for the first time in SHERLOCK HOLMES' FATAL HOUR. Between then and 1937, he made four more Holmes films, this being the third film of the total of five. The setting is firmly contemporary. Dr. Watson (played feebly by Ian Hunter) makes a phone call from a public telephone box, and when he and the girl (played by Isla Bevan with one of those ridiculous wobbly voices, in between ludicrous fainting fits) visit a circus or fun fair in the dangerous area 'behind Kings Cross' in London, we see kiddies driving electric dodgem cars. However, the atmosphere of the film is firmly Edwardian, verging on Victorian, and the stuffy manners of all the characters are from such a distant past that even Conan Doyle might have been embarrassed by them. Despite all of these factors, this is a charming glimpse of a lost era of incomprehensible manners and pathetic flirtations, of drooping victim girls and pompous oaf police chiefs. Arthur Wontner plays Holmes with an arch and knowing air. He is convincing enough to make the films watchable. This is a film for people who like watching vintage Sherlock Holmes films, and there are plenty of such folk, amongst whom I from time to time may also be numbered. The villains of the film are perhaps the best cast, such as Roy Emerton with his wonky eyes and deadpan crook's manner. This was only the second feature film in which he appeared, but already he was a born classic character actor. He appeared again with Wontner as an arch villain in THE TRIUMPH OF SHERLOCK HOLMES in 1935. Emerton died in 1944 at the early age of 51. He had been a soldier in World War I, and variously also a stevedore, a cowboy, a fireman, a railroad worker, and a miner. They don't train character actors like that anymore! He appeared in 34 films and added authenticity to them all, I am sure. Perhaps his most unlikely part was as Octavius in Josef von Sternberg's I, CLAUDIUS (1937), which I have not seen.

It's an imperfect telling of the tale -- and a truly lousy print -- but entertaining nonetheless. The script spends too much of the running time on two hoodlums who are after the Rajputana pearls or whatever they're called. Good thing they're Indian, not Italian. And too much time on innocent young Mary Morstan in her flower shop. Holmes and Watson don't appear until about twenty minutes into the film. In the story as written, she simply shows up at 221b Baker Street because she's puzzled about the gifts of pearls she's been receiving. But at least, in this movie, the escaped Andaman convict, Jonathan Small, has his lengthy back story shown in a brief prologue, so that's gotten efficiently out of the way. The rest of the film follows roughly in the footsteps of the printed tale. Holmes and Watson pursue a stolen treasure that's in the hands of the two goons and their curious friend. Holmes makes some fantastic deductions that not even Conan-Doyle would have dreamed up. He infers from a man's penmanship that the writer had only one leg. Credo quia absurdum. But he gets one thing right when he deduces from a footprint that the foot had never worn shoes. I spent two years on a small Pacific island and it was almost immediately apparent whether the marks of bare feet in the sand had been left by natives or tourists.For those of us accustomed to a Sherlock Holmes that looks and acts like either Basil Rathbone or Jeremy Brett, Arthur Wontner is a strange specimen. He LOOKS like the Paget drawings! And in profile he strongly resembles Rathbone. But he's also shorter, like Brett. And, like neither of his two famous successors, he moves lazily, casually, stiffly. And his chief weakness is his voice. It's rather mousy and pinched. It sounds as if it's HE who should be behind the counter in that florist's shop, not Mary Morstan.Watson is Ian Hunter, better known as Richard the Lion Heart in "The Adventures of Robin Hood." As one of the Sholto brothers, Miles Malleson is incredibly youthful and looks something like Alfred Hitchcock. No one else in the cast stands out except Thug Number Two, a tattooed giant of a man who could take Mike Mazurki apart.I've sort of made fun of it but I shouldn't be too harsh on the movie. It was hard to produce a sound movie with any dexterity in 1932 because of technical limitations. You can see some obvious examples in the movie. But it is, after all, Sherlock Holmes and, unlike the updated versions from Universal Studios in the 40s, this one tries to show us something of the original story.

I have been a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes for many years, both in book form and movie/TV versions. Movie versions have been churned out for well over 100 years and there have been some odd casting for the great detective e.g. Clive Brook, Rupert Everett & even Roger Moore! Personally, I have always favoured the Rathbone/Bruce versions even though they stretched the imagination on occasions by leaping from Victorian London to London during the second World War. I only recently managed to obtain copies of Arthur Wontner in The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes and The Sign of Four and I have to say Wontner seems to be the perfect Sherlock Holmes. What a pity he didn't make more Sherlock Holmes movies! Apart from the sound quality of the print (which has been mentioned in other reviews), his physical similarity to the original Strand Magazine illustrations by Sydney Paget (and others) and his portrayal of Sherlock Holmes is quite remarkable.

Until Jeremy Brett came along to give the consummate portrayal of Sherlock Holmes, the character of Watson has been mired in buffoonery. In this early movie, it continues. Not only is he totally incompetent, he is seen as a wolfish thirties guy on the make. Of course, in the original story, Mary Marston does eventually marry Watson, but other than his sincerity and kindness, he doesn't seem so obvious. She is also seen as a bit too bold. The movie itself has some content to recommend it, but overall, it's made to be a bit silly. Holmes has none of the idiosyncrasies that make him so interesting. He's kind of a "normal guy," a bit boring. He takes none of the cynical delight in one upping Watson, although he talks about it. Obviously, this was done on a low budget, but stands up reasonably well for the the 1930's. The plot is a good one. I always wonder why, if you have a good story, written by an accomplished writer, why it is necessary to make such wholesale changes. The movie is set in the period of the 1930's with cars and outboard motors. This isn't as anachronous as some of the Rathbone Holmes movies which took place in the 40's. If you want to see another take on the Holmes persona, give this a look.