[profh0011]

a couple years ago, I watched several versions of "A CHRISTMAS CAROL" on Youtube-- including the Alistair Sim version.  And I could SEE why people thought it was the best!

I've seen him in some other detective film, but I forget which one.

But I've seen GREEN FOR DANGER 2-1/2 times now.  I first checked it out because I saw it had Sally Gray in it (she became my FAVORITE "Saint" girl!).  Somehow when I taped it off some channel in the middle of the night, they must have started it early and I missed the first 10 minutes or so.  But I've since seen it online twice from the beginning.  I'll be definitely getting it on DVD at some point.

His "Inspector Cockerill" dressed like Jon Pertwee but reminded me of Columbo, both decades before-the-fact.


There's a George Cole film I plan to get a copy of as well-- TOO MANY CROOKS.  I got halfway thru that when I suddenly realized the plot was similar to RUTHLESS PEOPLE.  Terry-Thomas played the role Danny DeVito had later.  Reading up on it later, it seems both films were probably inspired by an even earlier story.

I find it fun-- sometimes-- to compare different adaptations of stories.


Try watching HIS KIND OF WOMAN and THE FIFTH ELEMENT back-to-back and tell me the one wasn't at least partly inspired by the other.   

(Vincent Price plays the Chris Tucker role.)

[Robb_K]

a couple years ago, I watched several versions of "A CHRISTMAS CAROL" on Youtube-- including the Alistair Sim version.  And I could SEE why people thought it was the best!

I've seen him in some other detective film, but I forget which one.

But I've seen GREEN FOR DANGER 2-1/2 times now.  I first checked it out because I saw it had Sally Gray in it (she became my FAVORITE "Saint" girl!).  Somehow when I taped it off some channel in the middle of the night, they must have started it early and I missed the first 10 minutes or so.  But I've since seen it online twice from the beginning.  I'll be definitely getting it on DVD at some point.

His "Inspector Cockerill" dressed like Jon Pertwee but reminded me of Columbo, both decades before-the-fact.

Maybe it was "An Inspector Calls" from 1954?  Sim also played a police seargeant to Gordon Harker's Inspector Hornleigh, in the 3 Inspector Hornleigh films during the 1930s.

[paw broon]

You know, it is odd.  I mentioned Alistair SIM as the clueless sergeant a few days ago on one of our boards, yet, not a peep from any of you. At the same time I wrote that he was in the 3  Inspector Hornleigh films with the great Gordon Harker as Hornleigh.  All 3 are on YouTube.
Basil Sydney also had a part in the Will Hay comedy, Black Sheep of Whitehall.

[Robb_K]

You know, it is odd.  I mentioned Alistair SIM as the clueless sergeant a few days ago on one of our boards, yet, not a peep from any of you. At the same time I wrote that he was in the 3  Inspector Hornleigh films with the great Gordon Harker as Hornleigh.  All 3 are on YouTube.
Basil Sydney also had a part in the Will Hay comedy, Black Sheep of Whitehall.

I LOVE the Inspector Hornleigh films, despite them being a bit silly.  The portrayals, especially by Harker, and the understated, subtle Sim, are classic, and wonderful.  I never liked The Will Hay films, even as a child.  They were always way too slapstick and silly to me.  I just never thought Hay funny, even though I like several farcical types, like The Marx Brothers, W.C. Fields, and most of the Terry-Thomas films, and, of course, Monty Python, Ripping Yarns, and the like.

[profh0011]

A STUDY IN SCARLET
(BBC-TV / 1968)

This is a weird one.  A man turns up dead, both Inspector Gregson and Inspector Lestrade are involved, Watson seems generally unaware of Holmes' methods, what almost seems simple is told in a very convoluted, confusing manner, and the Baker Street kids show up. 

The problem, of course, is someone deciding, in the 2nd BBC series, to try adapting Doyle's very 1st Holmes story-- which was a short NOVEL-- in a single episode of the TV series.  The entire opening sequence-- when Watson meets Holmes for the first time, and they decided to share the rent on a flat together-- is missing. You have to see the pilot of the Ronald Howard series back in 1954 to see that part of the story, but that episode then proceeded to tell a completely different story than this one.

It's funny to see LaStrade confidently declare, "Cherchez la femme!", when both Lee Chan & Parisian Police Inspector Jules Joubert said the exact same thing in CHARLIE CHAN IN MONTE CARLO, which I re-watched just last night!

Joey Daly, the music hall performer, was played by Joe Melia, who later played the main villain Jonathan Small in the 1983 version of THE SIGN OF FOUR with Ian Richardson!

Inspector Gregson was played by George A. Cooper, who I've seen in 2 episodes of THE AVENGERS, 2 of THE SAINT, a RANDALL AND HOPKIRK (DECEASED), a NEW AVENGERS, and DRACULA HAS RISEN FROM THE GRAVE (no doubt the thing he did I've seen the most times).  He came back as Gregson in "The Greek Interpreter", but that episode is among the missing.

Inspector Lestrade was played this time by William Lucas, who I've seen in X THE UNKNOWN, a DANGER MAN, a SAINT, 2 AVENGERS, and the Peter Davison DOCTOR WHO story "Frontios".  Oddly, this was his only episode as Lestrade, where he replaced Peter Madden from the earlier series, while Madden appeared in this series playing a different character!

Alice Charpentier, who was the focus of one of the criminal's unwanted attentions, was played by Edina Ronay, a hot little number who I've seen in 2 AVENGERS, A HARD DAY'S NIGHT, NIGHT TRAIN TO PARIS, A STUDY IN TERROR, CARRY ON COWBOY, and a RANDALL AND HOPKIRK (DECEASED).

Jefferson Hope, the man Holmes was looking for, was played by Larry Cross, who I've seen in a SAINT, THE GIRL HUNTERS, CARRY ON COWBOY, and an AVENGERS.

Joseph Stangerson, the 2nd person to get murdered in his story, was played by one of my favorites, Ed Bishop, who among many other things starred in CAPTAIN SCARLET AND THE MYSTERON, UFO, and the BBC-radio version of PHILIP MARLOWE.

The scene where Holmes tells Watson he's placed an ad in the paper, and to have his revolver ready, is clearly a tribute to a nearly-identical scene in Poe's "The Murders In The Rue Morgue".  The later scene where a cabbie is asked up to help with a heavy piece of luggage, allowing Holmes to slap handcuffs on him, later wound up in the William Gillette SHERLOCK HOLMES stage play, and the Arthur Wontner film THE SLEEPING CARDINAL (alias SHERLOCK HOLMES' FATAL HOUR).

Doyle, like Poe before him and Christie after him, liked to do variations on themes, and this is very obvious when you compare A STUDY IN SCARLET and THE VALLEY OF FEAR.  Both stories involved criminal gangs in America, a love triangle, and someone being hunted across Europe.  They're like mirror-images of each other.  In this one, a murderer is chased by a vengeful lover, in the latter, a Pinkerton man is pursued by a criminal who escaped the police after his gang was rounded up.  It's easy to see how some fans might be confused at times as to which story they're actually watching.

Peter Cushing complained bitterly about this series not allowing proper rehearsal time, and watching this episode I can see his point.  Nigel Stock's performance in this one is the stiffest I've seen him do, there's a totally-blown line from Cushing that wound up in the finished recording, and overall, the whole thing looks and feels like an episode of Dan Curtis' daytime soap DARK SHADOWS, which was also known for looking cheap and having flubbed lines wind up being broadcast.

Even so, it's criminal that the BBC wiped 2/3rds of the episodes, and I wish all 16 of them were still intact and available, instead of just 6.

[profh0011]

DER HUND VON BASKERVILLE
(Ondra-Lamac Film / Germany / 1937)

This was my 4th time seeing this one, and I just keep enjoying it MORE!

Something I've seen a lot of film adaptations do, is whenever you have stories told out of sequence with flashbacks, there's a tendency to show all the events in the order they happened.  That certainly is the case here.  The film opens with Lord Hugo Baskerville, some 600 years in the past, finding out his wife no longer loves him and is having an affair with another man.  After killing the man in a swordfight, his wife's huge dog attacks and kills him.

We then cut to Sir Charles Baskerville, discussing the legend with his friend Dr. Mortimer, when Beryl Vendeleure, who turns out to be a distant relative, arrives. An eccentric neighbor, Stapleton, stops by. Apart from being a naturalist, he's also an outspoken mysogenist, who immediately takes an intense dislike of Beryl.  But soon after he's has invited her to stay, Charles receives a phone call which sends him outside... where, moments later, he's found, DEAD, with the footprints of a large dog next to his body.

At the reading of the will, everyone, especially Beryl, are surprised to learn Charles had a nephew, Henry, living in Paris and working an an engineer.  When he arrives, Mortimer tells him he's trying to engage the services of Sherlock Holmes to look into the bizarre goings-on at Baskerville Castle.

And it's nearly a half-hour in before we finally meet Watson, who with Holmes' assistant, are driving their house-keeper crazy with their studies into cigarette ashes.  Holmes arrives fresh from an important case, and proceeds to confuse Watson by talking about both his most recent case and the identity of the man who left his walking-stick behind, at the same time.  Mortimer meets Holmes, who requests Mortimer try to distill the "legend" down into 100 words or less.  Henry calls from his hotel, angered that not one but two of his boots have vanished, at which point Holmes says the case is suddenly looking interesting.  "Shall we go?"  "You will. I'm busy." "But what shall I do?" "Keep the hound on his LEASH!"

Some of the dialogue, at least in the English subtitles, seem more modern than the 1930s to me, and add an extra level of humor.  I also love how they use Mussorgsky's "Night On Bald Mountain" on the soundtrack over some of the darker, more moody scenes.

Watson, as played by Fritz Odemar, is sharper & more quick-witted than usual in this version. It amazes me how much this adaptation plays fast-and-loose with various elements of the story, yet still managing to be recognizable.  For example, it's Beryl who calls out Barrymore's signalling at the window, prompting an admission from his wife that the escaped convict is her brother. Then you have Stapleton being the one with a telescope on his 2nd floor, which allows Watson to locate the hiding place of whoever is hiding out on the moor.  And then there's Beryl.  Traditionally, she's Stapleton's wife, but pretending to be his sister.  In the Rathbone film, she's actually Stapleton's step-sister, and completely unaware of what he's doing.  Here, she's openly known as a distant relative of Henry, while she & Stapleton pretend not to know each other-- even though, they're actually brother and sister.

Watson proves his skill with women while trying to placate an angry, irate Post Office telephone operator in the middle of the night, who Holmes rightly concludes has the key to Sir Charles' death.  And, as it turns out, she just put thru another call between Henry & Stapleton, which had led Henry away from the house against Holmes' firm orders!  They arrive just in time to save him from one of the least-impressive-looking hounds ever, while Barrymore gets into the action angrily trying to stop Stapleton from escaping.  Instead, he's thrown from a speeding carriage, just before it winds up sinking into the moor-- with Stapleton on board!

Back at Baker Street, Holmes & Watson receive news that Henry & Beryl are engaged.  "The same old story." "Women are not meant to be understood."

FUN flick.  I'd say it's spookier-looking than the Rathbone film, but not half as much as the 1929 version.  On the other hand, it's less authentic to the novel than either of those, but still manages to be more authentic than the 1959 Hammer version!  The next time I do a "HOUND" marathon, I'll have a lot more versions to watch back-to-back.

Something I didn't realize at first, director Karel Lamac also did LELICEK IN THE SERVICES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES (1932).  While that was an outright comedy, HOUND mixes mystery and spookiness with character humor.  While Bruno Guttner made a good if very unusual Holmes, part of me wishes Lamac had brought back Martin Fric from the earlier film... although, Holmes is in so little of this, he might have been wasted here.


Sir Charles is advised by Stapleton not to trust Beryl.


An annoyed Sir Henry calls to report his missing boot.


Even Barrymore, the butler, doesn't trust Beryl-- but Henry does!


Watson & Henry discover Holmes' hiding place.


Holmes advises Henry NOT to leave the house!

[profh0011]

LE DERNIER DES SIX
(Continental Films / France / 1941)

A perfect example of how multiple adaptations of a single source material can be drastically different, yet each one highly-entertaining.  This was the 3rd film version of Stanislas-Andre Steeman's "SIX HOMMES MORTS" (Six Dead Men), following "A STUDY IN SCARLET" (1933 / America) and THE RIVERSIDE MURDER (England / 1935).  I wondered if I was crazy for going after all 3, but I've enjoyed all 3 of them so much, I'm not the least bit sorry I did.

6 friends who made money betting together on the horse races decide to go their separate ways but sign a contract that whatever their fates, at the end of 5 years, they're all share the benefits equally.  So of course, as the deadline approaches, and they gather together, suddenly, they start being killed off one by one.  Someone at a site names "French Films.com" implied this was a swipe of Agatha Christie's "TEN LITTLE INDIANS", which was published in 1939, apparently unaware that the Belgian novel was published in 1931, which, if there was any swiping going on, would be on Christie's part!

The 3 films are so drastically-different in style and content, outside the central mystery plot.  One scene they all have in common (which I was able to correctly predict), is when one of the friends is describing the murder of another, suggests one of them will kill off all the others, and then, suddenly gets shot while standing in a doorway.  But a moment later, the body disappeared! Having seen the 2 earlier films already, I knew where this development was going.  What I found interesting was how the witness to this shooting, Henre Senterre (played by Andre Luguet) while physically reminding me of a French version of Reginald Denny, also vaguely reminded me of actor Ian Fleming, who played the corresponding character in the 1935 version!

While Holmes in the 1933 film had no interest no women, and Inspector Winton in the 1935 film fell in love with a pushy newspaper reporter, Pierre Fresnay, as "Le commissaire Wensceslas Voroboevitch" (alias "Monsieur Wens") has a very hot-tempered actress girlfriend "Mila Malou" (played by Suzy Delair).  She reminded me vaguely of Annie Potts, except with such an aggressively-abbrasive personality that I couldn't possibly tolerate her the way Wens does!

Early-on I realized this was the most lavish-looking, biggest-budgeted adaptation of this story so far.  The house where the friends meet is a virtual palace, and the fancy music-hall looks like something out of a Hollywood musical, with a dance number in the later tradition of The June Taylor Dancers, and other woman standing around on the sides of the stage completely naked (I bet this film never passed The Hayes Office over here!).

The photography is also STUNNING.  I would say this qualifies as "noir", everything seems to be in high-contrast dark & light, so many shadows everywhere, so such crisp, clean imagery. My Dad once spoke with admiration for German technical ability, lamenting their politics, and the Continental studio was entirely financed by the Nazis.

The highlight of the film, for me, was Commissioner Wens, who was quite an amusing, witty character.  There were quite a few moments I found outright hilarious, but not without some effort, as the dialogue and English subtitles were going by so fast, I really had to pay attention to not get lost.

With all the inspiration and/or swiping going on between various authors and screen-writers, the ending of the film really caught my attention.  Focused on a chase through an underground tunnel, the sequence reminded me an awful lot of a similar one in the 1962 Indian film "BEES SAAL BAAD" (loosely adapted from Doyle's "The Hound of the Baskervilles"), while the actual climax saw the murderer go down in quicksand just like from that book (a detail NOT in the '62 film).

I keep wondering if "Six Hommes Mort" has been translated into English.  It'd be interesting to know exactly how the book went, as compared to the film versions.

This was the 2nd DVD I got from "Rare Films And More".  Like the other one, the 1937 "HOUND", it was on a DVD-R, with English subtitles, a somewhat-confusing menu, and a WW2-era newsreel as a bonus.  This one, though narrated in German (I think) was done from The Allies' POV, as it consistently showed refugees from German's "barbarity" and stressed how The Allies (and The French in particular) were ready to drive back "The Hun".  Considering the atrocities being committed worldwide right now by the USA, Watching this disturbing footage put me in a mood something like this might not have done decades ago.



The friends randomly choose where they'll each go to seek their fortunes.


Mila & Wens  (It MUST be love-- how else could he put up with her?)


Wens & one of his top men, Picard.


Jean (a jealous and frustrated suitor) and Lolita.


Something The Hayes Office would object to.

[crashryan]

I notice that the script was written by Georges "Wages of Fear" Clouzot. This sent me to Clouzot's page on Wikipedia, where I learned that when this film was made Clouzot was returning to movies following five years in a sanatorium recovering from tuberculosis. The article says:

By the time Clouzot left the sanatorium and returned to Paris, World War II had broken out. French cinema had changed because many of the producers he had known had fled France to escape Nazism.

Clouzot's health problems kept him from military service. In 1939, he met actor Pierre Fresnay, who was already an established film star in France. Clouzot wrote the script for Fresnay's only directorial feature Le Duel, as well as two plays for him: On prend les memes, which was performed in December 1940, and Comedie en trois actes, which was performed in 1942. Despite writing scripts for films and plays, Clouzot was so poor that he resorted to trying to sell lyrics to French singer Edith Piaf, who declined to purchase them. In World War II, after France was invaded by Germany and subsequently during the German occupation, the German-operated film production company Continental Films was established in October 1940. Alfred Greven, the director of Continental, knew Clouzot from Berlin and offered him work to adapt stories of writer Stanislas-Andre Steeman. Clouzot felt uncomfortable working for the Germans, but was in desperate need of money and could not refuse Greven's offer. Clouzot's first film for Continental was the adaptation of Steeman's mystery novel Six hommes morts (Six Dead Men). Clouzot retitled the film Le Dernier des six, having been influenced by actress Suzy Delair while writing the script, allowing her to choose the name of the character she would play.

After the success of Le Dernier de six, Clouzot was hired as the head of Continental's screenwriting division. Clouzot began work on his second Steeman adaptation, which he would also direct, titled The Murderer Lives at Number 21. It starred Fresnay and Delair playing the same roles they had performed in Le Dernier de six. Released in 1942, the film was popular with audiences and critics.

[profh0011]

Thanks for that!

I'm really amazed at HOW MUCH I enjoyed that movie last night. Now, I can't wait to see if I can track down the sequel.

I just noticed the 2nd one was remade in 1948... in Argentina. Gee, I wonder if THAT film is available on DVD?

The crazy thing is, all this I owe to some unknown contributor at the IMDB who pointed out in the "Trivia" section of "A STUDY IN SCARLET" (1933) that the film was really based on "Six Hommes Morts".  After I did some research on the story, its author, and various film adaptations of his work, I passed on what I found to the IMDB via their system.  Absurdly, while the 3 later adaptations of "Six Hommes Morts" ALL had "connections" to each other added, whoever did it, NEGLECTED to add connections to "A STUDY IN SCARLET", or to the other 3 films on that film's page.  WTF?

For whatever reason, it was the one instance where their system prevented me from adding the info myself, but someone there deliberately refused to add those particular "connections".  I wish I knew who it was that mentioned Stanislas-Andree Steeman in the first place, because I've made a point of mentioning him in all 3 reviews I've written, and I've got a growing list of films based on his books I'm going after.


I swear, since I started buying DVDs, I've been enjoying collecting & watching old movies & TV shows more than I can ever remember doing so with comic-books.  (And I was recording movies & TV shows on videotapes since late 1979.)



Much later, "Continental" was the name of a comics publisher in Brazil that specialized in horror (while also doing superheroes, westerns, humor, etc.)  After 2 years they had to change their name because some other book publisher was called "Continental".  Their 2nd name, "October", had been registered by another company called "Editorial April" (who mostly did licensed books from America), and they eventually settled on "Taika" for the rest of their existence, just at the point where their 2 founders had a falling out and separately left the company they started in the hands of the "money men" who over time ran it INTO THE GROUND.

[crashryan]

By the way, Prof, one review of  Le Dernier des six speculated that the "noirish" touches may mean that Clouzot took a hand in directing the picture, given that such things weren't Lacombe's style but were right up Clouzot's alley. It'd be interesting to watch the sequel, which Clouzot did direct, and compare approaches.

[The Australian Panther]

The influence of Doyle and Sherlock Holmes can't be underestimated.
Here is one I did not know about.   
Mason, A. E. W. (Alfred Edward Woodley) and his detective  [Gabriel Hanaud]

The quote below is from the Canadian site FADED PAGE where you can find several of his books.

In 1910, Mason undertook to create a fictional detective as different as possible from Sherlock Holmes, who had recently been resuscitated after his supposed death by Arthur Conan Doyle in 1903. Inspector Gabriel Hanaud was stout, not gaunt like Holmes; a professional policeman, not a gentleman amateur; from the French surete, not Victorian England; and relying on psychological insights rather than physical evidence. His "Watson" is a retired London banker named Mr. Julius Ricardo.

Hanaud's appearance in the 1910 novel, At The Villa Rose marks "the first major fiction detective of the Twentieth Century," according to a historian of the genre. Set in the south of France, its plot also ridicules spiritualism and mediums, well-known enthusiasms of A. Conan Doyle.

Four more Hanaud novels and several short stories followed, the last, The House in Lordship Lane, in 1946 and the only one set in England.

The first Hanaud book was a best-seller, as were several of his 20 novels, and as such often adapted into films, often more than once. A 1920 version of At the Villa Rose was a great success in British movie theaters that year, even as a play version of the novel simultaneously began a long run at the Strand. A successful silent version of The Four Feathers followed the next year.

The first sound version was shot both in English and in French at Twickenham Studios in 1930, making it the first British bi-lingual production, released in America under the name The Mystery of the Villa Rose. This marked the film debut of Austin Trevor, an actor from Northern Ireland, in the role of Mr. Ricardo. Trevor would go on to be the first actor to create Hercule Poirot on the screen. Veteran British director Walter Summers directed At the Villa Rose, aka House of Mystery in 1940.

Mason's many subsequent novel adaptations appear to have been staples of the "quota quickies" churned out in the 1920s and 30s in Twickenham and other studios under the British requirements to shore up its local film industry against the enticements of Hollywood productions.--Wikipedia.

At the Villa Rose by A E W Mason #audiobook
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwtV-Bq2N2A&list=PLrqdxIeaHFVb2pr9wISRaSoCukVYYXhKC&index=2

NB, I note from the above quote, [A 1920 version of At the Villa Rose was a great success in British movie theaters that year, even as a play version of the novel simultaneously began a long run at the Strand.]

YouTube has a movie 'House of Mystery' but dated 1934, not 1940. It doesn't credit Mason, but is based on an earlier play. I haven't read the book, so don' t know if there is a relationship. I suspect so.
The movie looks like the granddaddy of that type of Hollywood staple.   

House of Mystery (1934)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zg2ZbV0xeyI

The Four Feathers 1939 [Alexander Korda] [Screenplay RC Sherriff] Great movie!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mApKrfQwCfY     

Cheers! - and enjoy the audio book if you choose.

[profh0011]

Geez, I just found out about another German SHERLOCK HOLMES film from 1937 that I never heard of before...

DIE GRAUE DAME (The Gray Lady)

This stars Hermann Speelmans as Holmes.  There doesn't appear to be a Watson (it happened in a lot of early SH films).  It's available on DVD-R from Rare Films And More (which started out originally as "German War Films" before expanding their scope).  Only one problem:  it's IN GERMAN-- with NO English subtitles. 

I'm sorry, I can't deal with that.  I watched thre '37 HOUND once without subtitles, but at least there I had an idea of what the story was about going in.

[crashryan]

At the Panther's suggestion I listened to the LibriVox reading of At the Villa Rose introducing A E W Mason's detective M. Hanaud. It was time well spent. The mystery keeps you guessing and Hanaud is an interesting character. When Mason set out to create a detective most unlike Sherlock Holmes he checked all the boxes. Outgoing, talkative, rotund, a police official rather than an amateur, emotional...quite a contrast. But it's to Mason's credit that Hanaud stands on his own as a three-dimensional character, not just as an anti-Holmes.

The story concerns the murder of a wealthy woman with a thing for seances. Her young companion, a woman with a mysterious past, disappears following the crime and all the evidence points to her as the guilty party. Hanaud patiently pulls all the conflicting clues together to solve both murder and disappearance. There are two spurts of violent action, but like most mysteries of the period it's primarily talking and thinking. The solution is satisfying and Hanaud is a likeable protagonist, save perhaps for his being extremely conceited. M. Ricardo, whom Wikipedia identifies as Hanaud's Watson figure, doesn't narrate the story. It's told in standard third person. In fact Ricardo doesn't have much to do until the mystery's solution starts to emerge and Hanaud needs someone to talk to.

The story has a timeless quality and more than once I was tripped up by forgetting it is set in 1910. One notable example is that while automobiles figure in the story, when a character "takes a cab from the station" in an important scene, the cab is horse-drawn. I was thinking motorized taxicab, and the scene didn't make sense until the author happened to mention the horse.

Despite the novel's age, Mason's writing is not at all stodgy. I have two complaints. The first is not unique to Mason. At several points in the mystery the detective understands the significance of a clue and doesn't share the insight with his sidekick (and the reader). I know this sort of information withholding is a frequent gimmick in mysteries to keep the mystery mysterious. The problem here is that Hanaud announces that he knows what's going on and actively refuses to explain, using the metaphor of a ship's captain. The captain is entitled to know what the crew thinks but he doesn't have to share his thoughts with them. His attitude only calls attention to the fact that it's a plot device. He should have just shut up about it or used the old excuse, "I can't tell you until I'm sure of my facts."

My lesser gripe is with the novel's structure. The murder is solved and the perpetrators apprehended about three-quarters of the way through the book. The remaining six chapters describe in detail how the crime was carried out and explain how the clues that puzzled Hanaud came to be. It's useful information because it ties up all the loose ends, but it's rather anti-climactic. This section would have worked better if it had been condensed.

I searched for online copies of the earlier movie adaptations, a silent in 1920 and two sound versions (one in English, one in French) from 1930. I struck out. Someone must have tied up the rights and issued them on DVDs for Profh to add to his collection. Too bad. By the way, the 1934 House of Mystery has no connection with the book.

[profh0011]

The story concerns the murder of a wealthy woman with a thing for seances.

See CHARLIE CHAN IN LONDON.


My lesser gripe is with the novel's structure. The murder is solved and the perpetrators apprehended about three-quarters of the way through the book. The remaining six chapters describe in detail how the crime was carried out and explain how the clues that puzzled Hanaud came to be.

Hmm.  See A STUDY IN SCARLET, THE SIGN OF FOUR and THE VALLEY OF FEAR!


At several points in the mystery the detective understands the significance of a clue and doesn't share the insight with his sidekick (and the reader). I know this sort of information withholding is a frequent gimmick in mysteries to keep the mystery mysterious.

I did a 4-part murder mystery back in the early 90s, where I used this-- a bit.  The thing is, I wanted there to be 3 cliffhangers, so at the end of each chapter, I deliberately held back a bit of info-- until the beginning of the NEXT part!

Among the MANY adaptations I've seen of THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES, they had multiple different ways of revealing what was going on.  In the 1968 BBC version with Cushing & Stock, Holmes is just about to tell Watson who the murderer is, when they hear the scream of the convict, Selden, being killed by the dog.  They race to the scene, too late, but then Holmes tells Watson NOT to say anything, as the killer is approaching... and, it's Stapleton.  One of the most effective reveals , I thought. 

I'm feeling more guilty every day that I still haven't gotten around to read the actual stories.  It would give me a far-better idea of what parts of which films were "authentic" and which weren't.

[profh0011]

THE SIGN OF FOUR
(British Broadcating Corporation / 1968)

Repeating what they did with "A Study In Scarlet", the BBC series with Peter Cushing & Nigel Stock decided to adapt Doyle's 2nd-ever Holmes story-- and the 2nd novel-- as a single episode, rather than a 2-parter.  This seems insane, except on watching the result, I'm stunned that so little that seems important was left out. In fact, there are several sequences in this version I have not seen in ANY of the multiple other ones I've seen, and several scenes that are allowed to play out at a rather relaxed, leisurely pace.  Of course, to make up for this, huge chunks are cut out entirely, and what's left races by at a frightening pace, the likes of which I've only seen in the 2nd half of the Tom Baker version of "HOUND".

Ann Bell presents a very sweet, attractive version of Mary Morstan, and more time is spent focused on the budding romance between her & Watson than any other version I've seen outside of the 1932 Arthur Wontner-Ian Hunter film. Paul Daneman's Thaddeus Sholto is reasonably eccentric (including his "Elmer Fudd" lisp), much younger than Miles Malleson's from the '32 film, not as handsome as the one from the Ian Richardson film, but nowhere near as annoying-as-hell as when Ronald Lacey played him in the Jeremy Brett version. It's amusing and a bit awkward when, near the end, both Mary & then Watson mistake his actions as those of a romantic rival, when he's just someone out to do the right thing.

Cushing's Holmes is genuinely hyper-active in this, as he's racing to get thru as much of the dialogue and the story as possible in the absurdly-limited time allotted. He doesn't even have a chance to go undercover in disguise as Wontner, Richardson or Brett did. But I did enjoy his amusment at the expense of his Scotland Yard counterpart.

The highlight of this version, for me, was John Stratton as Inspector Athelney Jones, a man who's so arrogant, egotistical and conceited, he makes Lestrade look like a real sweetheart by comparison.  More than any other version of Jones I've seen, Stratton is hilarious when he first dismisses Holmes as "the theorist", then, only seconds later, begins spewing out his own half-baked theories, which Holmes takes almost too much delight in picking apart.  "And the dead man gets up to lock the door from the inside?" "...There's a flaw there... Somewhere... "

In recent years, the locked-door murder has become to me a blatent tribute to the one in Poe's "The Murders In The Rue Morgue", with a sailor and an organgutan replaced by a one-legged man and a pygmy.  Despite this episode being near the end of the 2nd BBC series, so much of it displays Holmes explaining his methods and philosophy toward life that it screams to be watched before all the others (except for "A Study In Scarlet", which should be watched first).  I especially enjoyed his meeting up with the butler, McMurdo, who he once went several rounds of boxing with years earlier.

In a bit of continuity I missed on earlier viewings, Wiggins (Tony McLaren) makes his 2nd appearance, coming to see Holmes by himself after he was instructed to leave the rest of his underaged detectives in the street in "Scarlet".

So much of the back-story, mood and character were left out of this adaptation, yet the parts that are here make me enjoy this as a very enjoyable alternative to the others.  My favorite is still the Ian Richardson film, while my least-favorite, sadly, is the one with Jeremy Brett.  (Now I'm just waiting for the British Film Institute to do their massive restoration project on the Eille Norwood series, so I can see the 1923 version cleaned up properly. The video currently on Youtube is a real chore to plow through until then.)


Mary Morstan


Thaddeus Sholto


the butler


Inspector Jones


the riverboat chase!

[profh0011]

Mary Morstan, who later became Watson's 1st wife, was played by Ann Bell.  I've seen her in DR. TERROR'S HOUSE OF HORRORS, a DANGER MAN, 2 SAINTs, TO SIR WITH LOVE, and, much later, a POIROT.

Thaddeus Sholto (and, for once, his murdered brother Bartholomew as well) is played by Paul Daneman.  I've seen him in a SAINT and a BLAKE'S 7, but I confess I don't recall him from either.

Jonathan Small, who has a much-smaller part in this adaptation than usual, is played by Howard Goorney.  I've seen him in 2 AVENGERS, THE EVIL OF FRANKENSTEIN, a DANGER MAN, a SAINT, WHERE'S JACK?, a RANDALL AND HOPKIRK (DECEASED), THE BLOOD ON SATAN'S CLAW, and TO THE DEVIL A DAUGHTER.

Wiggins, the leader of The Irregulars, was played by Tony McLaren.  He only has a very short acting resume, but spent more time as a producer.

Inspector Jones was the deep-voiced John Stratton.  He's the one guest-actor in this who really stood out in my memory.  I've seen him in the tv version of QUATERMASS AND THE PIT, a U.F.O., (the episode "E.S.P.", where he played one of the most tragic characters on the show, John Croxley), FRANKENSTEIN AND THE MONSTER FROM HELL (the director of the asylum), but mostly, the Colin Baker DOCTOR WHO story "The Two Doctors", where he played "Shockeye", a voracious meat-eating alien who more than anything wanted to taste the flesh of human beings.

[profh0011]

SILVER BLAZE / MURDER AT THE BASKERVILLES
(Julius Hagen Productions / UK / 1937 / 1941 in US)

Following THE TRIUMPH OF SHERLOCK HOLMES, Holmes is back at Baker Street, presumably Watson & wife have moved elsewhere, and Holmes finally accepts the latest in a long-standing series of invitations to relax in the country from his old friend, Sir Henry Baskerville, who he helped out 20 years earlier.  At the same time, Lestrade is being transferred to oversee the modernization of the police department in that general area, so they look forward to possibly seeing each other there.

But meanwhile, Colonel Sebastian Moran has found a suitable property in a rough industrial neighborhood to serve as the new headquarters of his boss, Professor Robert Moriarty, who presumably didn't die when he fell into that water-filled moat in the previous film.

Within this new framework, the classic story of a murder and a missing race horse unfolds rather authentically.  Those complaining about all the additions should check out a similar adaptation in the 2006 "CASINO ROYALE" with Daniel Craig, where the entire first half of the film was all-new material, but the second half actually followed the source novel fairly accurately.

I currently have 3 different copies of this sadly Public Domain film, in various stages of disrepair.  The first is a videotape copy of a videotape rental I made about 20 years ago.  I haven't checked it in detail yet, but I do know it's the UK print, with the title "SILVER BLAZE".  Then there's the 2003 DVD from Alpha Video / Oldies.com, which is a US print, "MURDER AT THE BASKERVILLES".  The print is a bit fuzzy, but very watchable, and the sound is fairly clear.  And then there's the 2016 DVD of the UK print, "SILVER BLAZE", from The Film Detective.com, listed as part of their "Restored Classics" line.  Well, I wouldn't really agree with that.  The entire film is way too dark, it's almost impossible to see anything in nighttime scenes, and the sound is appallingly bad.  But that's not all.

The further problem is, although allegedly 6 minutes was cut from the US print, both DVDs are missing DIFFERENT parts of the film!  I won't know exactly what's missing from each without watching each one with a stopwatch running and taking extensive notes, but I can lay out a few obvious things from near the beginning and end of each.

The Alpha Video "MURDER..." DVD is missing the opening scene, where Moran, in disguise, discusses the empty factory building with the estate agent.  That scene is on the "SILVER" disc, but, the end of the NEXT scene, where Moriarty tells Moran the place is a "fortress which should prove impervious even to Sherlock Holmes", is missing.  As is the opening of the 3rd scene, where Holmes tells Mrs. Hudson he objects to being referred to as an "invalid".  These bits ARE on the "MURDER..." disc.

Near the end of the film, when Moriarty hears that his chauffer has captured Dr. Watson, Moran blurts out, "What the HELL is HE doing here?" on the UK "SILVER BLAZE" disc.  But on the US "MURDER" disc, there's an obvious, awkward cut, reducing the line to, "What the is HE doing here?"  I guess the US Hayes office / Production Code still didn't like the word "HELL" in their movies.

Finally, at the end, the US "MURDER" disc has Moriarty yell, "BLAST you!", while, oddly enough, the UK "SILVER" disc, you see him mouth the words, but the film is SILENT at that point.  Did the British really find "BLAST you!" offensive??

Making this all the more ironic, I paid much more the the far-inferior DVD.  I dearly wish somene would locate decent, complete prints of all of Arthur Wontner's films and do proper restorations on them.  But until then, at least in my experience, stick with the Alpha Video version.


They have a lot of nerve calling this "restored".


Alpha Video's is far-more watchable.  And, as usual, somebody at Alpha Video did a very nice design on the box.

[profh0011]

THE MAN WHO WAS SHERLOCK HOLMES  (1937)

2nd time around for this. No real new comments, see my previous review.  The combination of comedy and building suspense can leave you exhausted by the end.  I had the biggest SMILE on my face when it was over.

I have the 2008 Televista DVD.  Easy-to-work menu, 12 chapters, and a gallery of stills accompanied by the song from a third of the way into the movie.  Excellent restoration on the film and good sound. 

[profh0011]

Just watched the 1939 HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES (Basil Rathbone's debut) on DVD again.  After seeing so many other adaptations of the same story, and most recently, both the 1968 and 1937 versions, it becomes SHOCKINGLY obvious just how MANY changes 20th Century-Fox made in their version.  It remains a very good movie, but it's nowhere near the most authentic... or, the moodiest-looking.

[profh0011]

One of my favorite bits in this version, which I'm pretty sure was one of the many things created just for this version, was the mysterious peddler wandering around on the moor. He's so ANNOYING... but also funny, as when he pulls out a police whistle and insists on blowing it loudly right in the faces of Watson, Beryl & Henry.

Then, when he wanders off, Watson actually notices he's suddenly limping on the wrong foot. I had to run the film back a moment to make sure of this. Funny enough, the guy is still holding his walking stick with his right hand, but as he walks away, he's limping on his left leg, which doesn't make any sense... unless you realize, the guy is FAKING it, as Watson suspects, but Watson doesn't realize the guy WANTS Watson to notice it.

Because, of course, it's Holmes IN DISGUISE. In no other version does Watson get SO PISSED OFF and stay that way so long as Nigel Bruce does in this one, when Holmes reveals himself, laughing in his best friend's face, before then adding injury to insult by pulling out his violin and begin playing it.

[The Australian Panther]

  One of my favorite bits in this version, which I'm pretty sure was one of the many things created just for this version, was the mysterious peddler wandering around on the moor. He's so ANNOYING... but also funny, as when he pulls out a police whistle and insists on blowing it loudly right in the faces of Watson, Beryl & Henry.

Then, when he wanders off, Watson actually notices he's suddenly limping on the wrong foot. I had to run the film back a moment to make sure of this. Funny enough, the guy is still holding his walking stick with his right hand, but as he walks away, he's limping on his left leg, which doesn't make any sense... unless you realize, the guy is FAKING it, as Watson suspects, but Watson doesn't realize the guy WANTS Watson to notice it.

Because, of course, it's Holmes IN DISGUISE. In no other version does Watson get SO PISSED OFF and stay that way so long as Nigel Bruce does in this one, when Holmes reveals himself, laughing in his best friend's face, before then adding injury to insult by pulling out his violin and begin playing it.

This kind of thing goes back to stage acting and is known as ' a bit of business'. The Actors make a script work by adding physical things they do when interpreting the role that are not actually specified by the script.
That's why actors who have worked on the stage are often much more versatile and creative than those who have not. 

[profh0011]

An e-mail just sent to the editor of SHERLOCK magazine, who apparently did the audio commentaries on the MPI Rathbone box set.


I just listened to the audio commentary on the MPI box set's "HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES", and it mentioned it was by the editor of SHERLOCK magazine.  So I thought I'd get in touch.

Fascinating stuff.  In all the times I've watched, I NEVER ONCE noticed that Richard Green played Sir Hugo in the flashback!

It also somehow escaped me that there is NO explanation for who sent the letter of warning, since in virtually every other version it appears, it's Beryl who's trying to warn Henry away from what she knows her husband Jack is planning.

It is clearly explained what the conenction is between the convict and Mrs. Barryman-- though it's held back much longer than normal-- when Holmes refers to him as, ".........your brother..........."

I suspect the Hayes Office and their censorship was behind changing Beryl to Jack's STEP-sister and having her be completely innocent.  This would be similar to what happened to Howard Hawk's version of "THE BIG SLEEP".

By comparison, in the 1929 HOUND, Laura Lyons KNOWS Jack is married and has told her he's planning to leave his wife Beryl for her.  That's not in the book-- and I doubt the Hayes Office would have approved at all!  😄

I just noticed this weekend that the woman who played Mrs. Mortimer was James Cagney's mother in the film THE PUBLIC ENEMY.

Having watched all 14 Rathbone films twice in the last year (since getting the box set), and coming to feel there ISN'T a bad one in there, I'd like to add that Nigel Bruce's Watson is often responsible for helping Holmes solve mysteries, though at times unintentionally, because he'll make some comment which points Holmes in a direction that didn't occur to him.  Thus, however much Watson is played for humor, he becomes indispensible.

Now... regaring Watson "becoming" important in this film... I note you mentioned the Eille Norwood and Robert Rendel HOUNDs, both of which are currently NOT AVAILABLE anywhere-- though I recently read that the entire Eille Norwood series (the 40 out of 47 that are known to still exist) are currently planned to be RESTORED by the BFI !!  I can't wait.

But meanwhile... your comment suggests that when you made it, you hadn't seen the 1929 or 1937 HOUNDs, which I have-- and they've both become fast favorites of mine.

Someone mentioned that the 1929 HOUND is the very first time that the Holmes-Watson relationship was shown to be important in a Holmes film.  Meanwhile, in the 1937 HOUND, Watson is shown to be highly intelligent, though not without humor... while Holmes is portrayed as an eccentric thinker who comes up with things that would simply never occur to Watson.

Both films are far darker & spookier than the 1939 HOUND, and ironically, the 1929 HOUND actually seems more "modern" in style than many of the sound films from the early 30s!  The '29 film was directed by Richard Oswald, whose son, Gerd, directed nearly HALF of all the episodes of THE OUTER LIMITS.  I can see where he got it from.

I'm looking forward to listening to the rest of the audio commentaries as I go.  Take care!

[profh0011]

THE ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES
(20th Century-Fox / 1939)

Growing up, the Rathbone films were the earliest HOLMES stories I ever saw. But now, collecting DVDs, a whole new world has been opening up to me. In the last year, I not only saw the 1916 William Gillette film adaptation of his own play, but also the greatly-expanded 1922 remake of it with John Barrymore.

But I've also seen the 1932 Clive Brook film SHERLOCK HOLMES, which, it turns out, is a direct SEQUEL to the story in the stage play. And, whatta ya know? It suddenly became obvious to me that, if anything, the 1939 ADVENTURES film is actually a REMAKE of that!

It opens with Moriarty in the dock for previous crimes, but then sent to prison, after he threatens to murder the 3 people responsible for putting him there. Soon he breaks jail, murders the judge, and then hatches a scheme to frame Holmes for murdering the Scotland Yard inspector he was a rival of. Once Holmes has been arrested, he invites a whole gang of foreign criminals to run riot looting London, some of them "Chicago gangland style" as a DIVERSION for the REAL crime, robbing The Bank Of England.

So many have said, over and over, that the '39 film bears almost no resemblence to the 1899 stage play, and they're right. But from what I've described here, it should be obvious what it DOES resemble.

At least one reviewer compared the style of the '32 film to a Bulldog Drummond film, and I agree- right down to the annoying subplot of the hero putting off retirement and marriage to solve "one more" big case. Irene Adler and Violet Hunter I could see, but Alice from the play and the '32 film? NO WAY!


MY favorite Moriarty-- George Zucco!


What a clever, simple disguise...


The moment where Ida Lupino transitioned from light-hearted roles to "serious" ones.

[profh0011]

Well, this was a bit of a shock.  I just listened to the audio commentary for "ADVENTURES", which was by Richard Valley, the editor of SCARLET STREET magazine.  I decided to see if I might get in touch... and found out he PASSED AWAY back in 2007!!!

Just posted at the Bright Lights Film Journal site:



This is more than a bit late, but I'm shocked to learn, just now, that Richard Valley passed away back in 2007. I just now finished listening to his audio commentary on "THE ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES" (1939) on the MPI box set of the 14 Rathbone films, and was hoping to send him a reply. GEEZ.


Some months back, while re-filing a pile of movie mags, I happened to grab a copy of SCARLET STREET and re-read it cover-to-cover, being absolutely thrilled to be reminded, that it was, in my view, one of the very BEST-WRITTEN magazines of its kind I'd ever bought on a semi-regular basis. I'm considering unloading a TON of my collection to make room for new stuff, but SS was one of the magazines I've decided to hold onto.

My main point of wanting to get in touch, funny enough, was the general contention by so many, that "ADVENTURES" has next-to-nothing to do with the 1899 stage play. That's true. But thanks to my HOLMES DVD-buying project this year, in which I've acquired & watched many films from the silent era on up, I discovered the 1932 Clive Brook film, "SHERLOCK HOLMES", which is actually a direct SEQUEL to the stage play. And several elements of its plot are NEARLY-IDENTICAL to the '39 Rathbone film! And, they were BOTH done by Fox!! So the '39 film, I feel, is actually a VERY LOOSE remake of the Clive Brook film. How about that?  And nobody seems to have noticed this.

Meanwhile, Holmes chasing Moriarty around a tower before the latter falls to his death, is swiped from Arthur Wontner's "THE TRIUMPH OF SHERLOCK HOLMES" from 1935, while Watson getting the final line, "Elementary, my dear Holmes!" comes from Wontner's "THE SIGN OF FOUR" in 1932.

I first knew from SCARLET STREET that "ADVENTURES" was missing a lot, but never realized how much until I heard the commentary tonight. I kept assuming that Moriarty had somehow found out about the murder of Ann's father and recreated it for his scheme, but it turns out, the guy with the bolas hired by Moriarty was actually her father's killer. There's a similar link to how in 1935 "TRIUMPH" Moriarty is consulted to help a vengeful member of the Scowrers mob get revenge on Pinkerton man Birdie Edwards. In that light, it seems more likely Mateo came to Moriarty seeking help and Moriarty decided to take advantage of it as a diversion. What a HELL of a thing for Fox to leave out of the finished film! It's akin to the vandalism MGM performed against Dan Curtis' "NIGHT OF DARK SHADOWS".

I'm planning to post a long-winded review at the IMDB, once I get all the points I want to address assembled.

[LoneRanger04]

He also played an excellent Scrooge in the 1951 film version!