source: Sherlock Holmes

The invention of the logical detective in Sherlock Holmes was profoundly important, directly leading to the great invention of noir, the descendants of which dominate our viewing vocabulary. The notion that people were deeply logical and that a human mind was capable of mastering this logic was the great promise that swept over the world post Darwin and Freud. You could read the original stories regardless of how you felt about this and indeed the author himself was an anti-science spiritualist. The stories placed themselves at the center of human confidence and angst. Moriarty did not feature in many of the stories, but in film has been elevated to evil incarnate, himself the template of hoards of supervillain geniuses. Some film presentations of Holmes either take his deductive abilities seriously or they cleverly play with logic versus something else, often passion. Oddly, none of these Basil Rathbone films treat Holmes as a brilliant man. Almost never does he reason things out as he does in the stories; instead he simply chases clues with the assumption that the obvious answer is wrong. We see no brilliance, only opportunity. So even though the *idea* of Sherlock (and Mycroft and Moriarty) is essential to a history of film, these particular movies are dispensable, silly wastes.

... played live whenever you happen to be around. This is the second of two Fox films made for the series with Basil Rathbone as Holmes. The film starts with a jury acquitting Dr. Moriarty (George Zucco) of murder. Right after that, in bursts Holmes and Watson with evidence that proves Moriarty was guilty, but the judge says it is too late. And believe me the judge is not happy about it. As Moriarty shares a cab with Holmes as they leave the courthouse, they both provoke and prod each other verbally. Moriarty says that he intends to break Holmes by pulling off the crime of the century right under his nose. Then he says, with Holmes' reputation ruined, he can retire in peace. In the following days Holmes gets two requests for help. One is for the crown, helping guard a rare emerald that is to be added to the crown jewels. The other is from a young wealthy woman (Ida Lupino as Ann Brandon) who has received a drawing indicating her brother will be murdered and even gives the date. Ann is not being hysterical, as her father received exactly the same kind of note right before he was murdered when she was a child. This double duty requires Holmes to practically be in two places at once. Is Moriarty up to something? Of course he is! But as to what, watch and find out. Zucco makes a very good Moriarty. After returning home after his acquittal he goes into his greenhouse to admire his plants and notices one of them is dead. He chastises his manservant for having "murdered" a plant by not watering it properly. Later, when his manservant is shaving him, he practically dares him to kill him with the bare blade. He's evil, he's edgy, and he prevents his role from descending into camp. There are a couple of odd things I had questions about. At one point, Holmes and Moriarty are having it out in a gun battle and Holmes runs up the stairs of a building. Moriarty chases Holmes. With the police on the way. Up the stairs of a building where there is no exit. Did Moriarty get confused and think this is the twentieth century where a helicopter can arrive with his minions and help him make his escape? Also, the bit with the death threat to the Brandon family. Did Moriarty have something to do with the murder of Ann Brandon's father years ago, or did he just know about it and duplicate the elements? This is never explained. Nigel Bruce gets some good lines in as Dr. Watson. At one point he is lying in the street helping Holmes reenact a crime. A passerby asks him if he should get a doctor. Watson replies "I'm a doctor, what's the matter with you?".

The only other in-period Rathbone Holmes film, this is brim full of atmosphere and high production values, never mind about how good the acting and direction was too. The many long scenes were taken leisurely which enabled me to get a real feel for Victorian London with all the fog outside the Fox set windows. Sadly the one aspect slightly lacking was the story but only through the comparison to Hound, overall Adventures is easily the best of the rest and the best Holmes-Moriarty duel on film. Rathbone and Zucco souped up the mental jousting and added something more to the legend, it really was a pity Zucco couldn't do the other two Moriarty outings at Universal. Although Atwill and Daniell were both excellent as well - maybe the part couldn't fail as Holmes' foil! Ida Lupino played her melodramatic part well, she could have smiled at least once though! Nigel Bruce as faithful Watson was perfect as usual, at one point even to lying down and rolling over in the gutter for his ... master. All in all, a notch down from Hound but in quality a long drop down from this to the Universals, much as I love them too.

Before I move forward, I have to mention that this story was not a genuine Arthur Canon Doyle story but rather based on Sherlock Holmes, a character created by him so the major gaps and flaws in the story are not to be subtracted from his credit. Story was grossly incoherent, illogical and hastily sewn together emphasizing on minor events rather than the grand theft itself. Lets see how and I warn you, this is going to be real spoiler if you haven't seen the movie. Story is simple. Moriarty wants engage Sherlock Holmes in a false murder threat to divert his attention from his plan to steal crown jewels. Problem starts right away. Sherlock Holmes is a private detective not the secret service or something and apparently there was no threat so why the crown treasurer wishes Holmes to be present in the delivery of an emerald? It doesn't make sense at all so even Moriarty's assumption that Holmes would be there is illogical... Of course Holmes would be there for story's sake otherwise there would be no story but the whole thing was built up on mud! Homes got involved with the murder threat of the lady and murder of his brother. There is minimal problem with that. Moriarty manages to keep Holmes away from the Tower. In the tower, a fake theft attempt was done so Moriarty can stay inside the tower. Watson goes back to Holmes. that takes at least 30 minutes. There they find out that Moriarty was up to something. It takes lets say 15 minutes. They go to Moriarty's house. It takes 30 minutes. They go inside and find out about his plans (15 minutes). They rush to the tower (another 30 minutes). That's roughly 2 hours and yet we see Moriarty was in the tower holding the same crown he had in his hands 2 hours ago!!! Seriously??? If it was for real, Moriarty would have won, gone with the jewels long before Holmes even finds out about his plan for the crown jewels. Not only the whole story was based on arrogant and stupid idea of Holmes being essential for the security of the crown on top of all British security agencies of the period, Holmes in no way could stop Moriarty if it was for real. Holmes was pictured as plain stupid, something like Inspector Gadget who managed to stop Moriarty by the wish of the writer rather than his intelligence. Some may say it is an old movie and stories were simple and somehow stupid in those early years of sound movies. I would say bullshit! We had masterpieces like Dr Mabuse years before these series. That was not what I expected from a highly acclaimed detective series. boring stupid illogical movie. 2/10

As a fan of Sherlock Holmes and of Basil Rathbone, I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. The plot is very silly, but is compelling enough and enjoyable throughout the whole duration. The film is well paced and well directed too mostly, while the production values are very nice. The photography, scenery and costumes are beautiful, but what I loved most about Sherlock Holmes was its evocative and haunting foggy London atmosphere. The script is of top-notch quality as well, often intelligent, funny and sophisticated. The acting I had no qualms with either. George Zucco is an interesting Moriaty and does really well of not being too sinister or too hammy, his performance was a nice balance I felt. Nigel Bruce is decent as Watson, though I can see why people are annoyed by his interpretation of the character. I liked the enthusiasm and blimpish bluster Bruce gave, but there are times here when he does come across as a little too clownish. However, he does have some believable chemistry with Basil Rathbone, who is just superb as a more charismatic and sophisticated not to mention very eloquent Holmes. Overall, a lot of fun and a case of where any minor flaws are completely overrided by the many strengths. Recommended! 9/10 Bethany Cox

Very atmospheric and generally entertaining - you really want to find out what happens and there's the sense that Holmes may be out of his depth through being stretched both ways. But as none other than Moriaty threatens to pull of a crime that will ruin Holmes, I can't say it lives up to its promise. It begins great - Holmes and his nemesis agree to share a handsome cab from the court where Moriaty has been acquitted from a murder everyone knows he committed, and engage in Bond-Scaramanga over dinner type banter. Other Bond moments are anticipated, including the use of a bolus, decapitated statues and some Baron Samedi creepy stuff with a flute-like instrument. While it's very atmospheric, with good use of foggy London, I found the plot quite risible. Rathbone had the usual bite and authority, but it made his cavalier regard for his clients quite astonishing. I mean, the day a man is due to be killed, he's left alone while Holmes is faffing about for clues at the Natural History Museum! And the brother is therefore allowed to walk home through thick London fog on a dark night! You have to say, that's not down to Moriaty's genius, more Holmes' stupidity. What's more, we know that Moriaty is up to something thanks to some heavyhanded exposition with his subordinate, so we are one step ahead of Holmes all the way. At times I felt it was aimed at 10 year olds. The ending simply doesn't add up either, unless Moriaty had been 10 years in the planning of this caper.

I am a real fan of Arthur Conan Doyle's version of Sherlock Holmes. Because of that, I have mixed feelings about this movie. On one hand, this movie and THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES (both made by Fox in 1939) are both a lot closer to the original stories than the later series with the same stars for Universal Studios. But, on the other, they STILL come up pretty short when compared to the British series starring Jeremy Brett that was made during the 1980s--as this series was very, very faithful to the original stories, while the Fox movies still take a few liberties with the original plot. Overall, this STILL is a very good movie and it is fun to watch--so don't get the idea I disliked the film. Heck, if they'd never made the Jeremy Brett episodes, I might have been more inclined to score this film a 9. The fact that this plot is new and not derived from a Conan Doyle story actually didn't bother me, as the characters behaved much like the original stories. So instead of fighting Nazis like he did in several of the Universal Basil Rathbone films (something Holmes COULDN'T have done), Holmes is dealing with his old nemesis Moriarty. While Moriarty did not appear in many of the original stories, he was a fan favorite, so I could certainly understand why he was brought into the film. About the only major problem about the film, really, is that all too often in the Rathbone/Nigel Bruce films, they made Watson out to be a total idiot and not much help--whereas in the original stories, Watson was, from time to time, a lot of help--particularly when it came to shooting or subduing people. The direction, acting from all the cast (including supporting roles by Ida Lupino, Henry Stephenson and George Zucco), and cinematography were all excellent. The film is excellent--but I am the type of die-hard fan that can enjoy this film but still feel it isn't exactly THE Sherlock Holmes. In retrospect, Jeremy Brett and company have really ruined me for other Holmes movies.

Having recently completed a film article due for publication in FILMS OF THE GOLDEN AGE on Ida Lupino, it's a pleasure to report that this is one of her best early performances. She plays a terrified young woman who seeks the help of Sherlock Holmes when she becomes concerned about her brother's safety. He soon determines that she too is being stalked by killers. Her brother is killed and the plot thickens with a sub-plot involving Professor Moriarty's plans to steal the Crown Jewels and the Star of Delhi. Holmes eventually solves the case and defeats the diabolical Moriarty with a plan of his own. Reviewers judged this film even superior to the earlier 'Hound of the Baskervilles'. Indeed, it's fully as atmospheric and suspenseful with handsomely staged scenes in gas-lit Victorian London. George Zucco makes an ideal villain and the main roles by Rathbone, Nigel Bruce and Ida Lupino are handled with their customary skill. Definitely worth seeing and far superior to the later Universal entries which updated all of the Holmes stories.

I was very surprised that this flick was actually pretty boring. The pace is very slow and is not helped out any by the incredibly wooden acting of Ida Lupino. Though there is some cool, moody, atmospheric music, it's most definitely not one of the better entries in the series which is surprising since this was only the 2nd Rathbone Holmes movie and since it was made in 1940 a golden year for great movies.