[Captain Audio]

Dug out my "the Complete Sherlock Holmes" story collection yesterday. Usually I have a hard time finding a book among all this clutter (aprox 2,000 hard covers), but Sherlock wasn't hard to find at all because it stood out as the thickest book in its stack.
I got this book along with the complete plays of William Shakespeare many years ago.

[SuperScrounge]

My dad has a CD-Rom of the Complete Sherlock Holmes.

It's just as thick as the other CD-Roms. 

[profh0011]

This week's film:  "SHERLOCK HOLMES" (1922), starring the legendary John Barrymore.

This is wild.  It's based on William Gillette's stage play, and tells the SAME story... but, in as completely-different a fashion as I could ever imagine.  The first 25 minutes is like a prologue to the play, then it focuses on things in different ways, and finally reaches its climax a whole scene or two before the play ended.  The entire major sub-plot about the Crown Prince and the letters is NEVER resolved when "THE END" comes onscreen!  Outragious.

While the 1916 film (thought lost for 94 years) is absolutely PRISTENE in its clarity, following the restoration, this film, though said to have been "restored", still looks like it needs to be.  But, no complaints.  It definitely watchable, and is a very FUN watch.  I do have the feeling some bits are missing, like in the scene where Moriarty goes to Holmes' flat to kill him.  There's a jump in there, and after, Moriarty says, "You've rejected my offer..."  Except, he never made one.  Also, the gas works scene seems to resolve far too quick.  I feel like I blinked and missed something.

According to Wikipedia, there've been 2 reconstructions of the film, one in the 80s, another in 2008, but, there are "about 26 minutes of footage still missing".  YIKES!  So I wasn't imagining things.

Still, NO regrets on buying this.

There's 2 actors I know who are in this.  Prince Alexis, who foolishly allowed his ascension to the throne to derail his romance, is played by a very young Reginald Denny, who I remember so well from Hitchcock's "REBECCA".  And Forman Wells, Moriarty's protoge who Holmes set on the path of right (in a new scene added to the story), is William Powell!

[profh0011]

At the IMDB, there's a whole pile of scathing, negative reviews of this film. Some focus on the directing, but most on the story. and most seem oblivious that it's an adaptation of the 1899 stage play.

As I said before, the entire first act was new, added on, showing the "future detective" while he was in college... and, apparently, knew Watson at the time. And while trying to figure out what his place in life might be, and how the world worked, one of the things that baffled him was the meaning of "love". He had a VERY brief encounter with a girl who helped him, and that stuck in his memory for years. Later, she turned out to be at the center of the crime plot. He also has a very early, utterly naive encounter with Moriarty, which convinced him of the path his life should take.

It struck me, this VERY WELL may have inspired a film I never liked... Spielberg's "YOUNG SHERLOCK HOLMES". Nobody at the IMDB mentioned that film, either!

I realize the Gillette film was STILL LOST at the time most of the reviews of the 1922 film were posted... but, still. In a way, the 1922 film could almost be compared to the 1943 "PHANTOM OF THE OPERA", in that, while allegedly a REMAKE of the earlier film, made so many changes to it, it's amazing it's still recognizable as the same story.

[The Australian Panther]

At the IMDB, there's a whole pile of scathing, negative reviews of this film 

Well, for mine, a a big negative social media pile-on can indicate something good and of interest.
If I was a lemming, I would turn around and not follow with the mob.

A print of the 1916  William Gillette Sherlock Holmes is obtainable on RareLust.
https://rarelust.com/
I haven't looked at it yet - it is listed as a 'High Definition' print, so presumably its a restored version.
From the same source you can find the two part,
Sherlock Holmes Incident at Victoria Falls (1992) [I think Telemovie?] This is a Curate's egg of a production or should I say, Dog's Breakfast?
Christopher Lee and Patrick McNee do their usual excellent job as Holmes and Watson, but the film, in my opinion, just uses the characters for an excuse to take the production crew and a group of actors for a holiday in Africa.
And of course, improbably, many of the Key penultimate scenes are played out with Victoria Falls visible in the background. Made to promote tourism on a grant from the government? Probably. 
Also involved in the story are, Lllly Langtry, Lord Roberts, Theodore Roosevelt, Gugliamo Marconi and [Spoiler - but not by much] Raffles.
The plot is dull and mostly obvious. Holmes uncharacteristically makes consistent mistakes and berates himself for doing so and Patrick McNee is obliged to play Watson as something of a buffoon. Which is not how Conan Doyle wrote him. That started with Nigel Bruce and both of them had to work with what they were given and I don't blame the actors. Martin Freeman, it occurs to me, plays Watson as someone with a short fuse who is always losing his cool and on the verge of walking out on Holmes.   
I think that if Lee had to say ' Quick Watson, there's not a moment to lose!' one more time and just manage to jump on one more train at the last minute, I would have punched somebody, and probably so would he. 
Most of the actors do a good job with what they are given.
Claude Akins does a very good Teddy Roosevelt and shows what he was capable of if he wasn't always cast as heavies. Actually he was good as an ape in 'Battle for the Planet of the Apes'. Which also wasn't one of the better films. 
For mine the most interesting actor was the little-known Alan Coates who has done very little work as an actor. IMDB knows little about him. A global search brings up nothing.
He looks like serious British Leading Man material. Here he plays hotel manager Stanley I. Bullard [ In a subplot]. For a while there I thought he was a younger Hugh Bonneville [Downton Abbey]
Glad I watched it tho.     

So, question,
Which film or TV Watson is closest to Doyle's original character?
       

[profh0011]

Just as Peter Cushing (with John Mills) did Holmes & Watson in semi-retirement in "THE MASKS OF DEATH" (1984) from Tyburn Films (a company that hired an awful lot of Hammer vets behind the cameras), so Christopher Lee (with Patrick Macnee) did Holmes & Watson in semi-retirement several years later, in a PAIR of TV films...

SHERLOCK HOLMES AND THE LEADING LADY
SHERLOCK HOLMES: INCIDENT AT VICTORIA FALLS

Curious thing about both of these:  like the earlier "QUATERMASS" with John Mills (also known as "THE QUATERMASS CONCLUSION"), the films were written in such a way as to allow them to be watched in 2 different formats:  as 2-part/4-hour "mini-series", or, as shorter "feature" versions (available that way on videotape).  They did this, by including completely EXTRANEOUS, un-necesary sub-plots, that could be included in the longer versions, but which are not important to the plot, so when they're removed for the shorter versions, you don't notice (unless you've see the longer versions).

At the same time, Lee also did a book-on-tape of "THE VALLEY OF FEAR", a story that Jeremy Brett failed to do (but which Clive Merrison, presumably, did in his radio series).  What amazed me, is that, like Basil Rathbone did in his 2nd set of book-on-LP readings in the 1960s, Lee did "VOICES"-- as in, ALL the voices.  And if you didn't know, you might never guess. DAMN, he had skills he rarely got a chance to use!



Last week I saw the 1916 William Gillette "SHERLOCK HOLMES" on DVD.  My GOD, it is simply the sharpest, clearest, cleanest silent film I've ever seen, and based on the documentary included with it, BY GOD, yes, it is an INCREDIBLE work of restoration. Gillette & his fellow actors, surprisingly, did much more "natural" actig than one would expect from a silent film, and even the director's work seemed decades ahead of its time.

This week, I saw the 1922 John Barrymore "SHERLOCK HOLMES" on DVD.  From reading about it, it was the work of a MASSIVE "reconstruction" and further "restoration" that stretched from 1970 to 2001, with the DVD being issued in 2009.  It still looks like it could USE a "restoration", as the picture has lots of specs and dirt, but I had NO trouble enjoying it.  On top of that, though, I've since read it STILL has about 26 minutes MISSING.  Whoa. 

The fascinating thing is HOW DIFFERENT is is from the 1916 film, yet recognizably tells THE SAME STORY.  The first 25 minutes act as a NEW prologue to the play's story, showing Holmes (and Watson) in college, Holmes being touched emotionally by a young woman who showed him kindness, and a tentative, NAIVE meeting with Moriarty as he tries to learn about the world, and decide what path his life should go in.  All this takes place BEFORE the orignal story of the play finally starts.

IMDB reviewers complained about Holmes falling in love, but this was in the 1899 play. I came away feeling that especially the new prologue may have inspired "YOUNG SHERLOCK HOLMES", but somehow, I found this film more palatable, despite its physical imperfections.

NEXT week I'm looking forward to the 1929 HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES, made in Germany, lost for decades, found in a church in Poland with Czech intertitles, restored to near-full length with the help of ANOTHER incomplete print with French intertitles.  I've seen a trailer-- it looks STUNNING!!!!!  And, apparently, several "new" sequences written for the film, later turned up VERBATIM in various OTHER films, including the Hammer "HOUND" and the Ian Richardson "HOUND".  This kind of thing always fascinates me, when one film adaptation is actually influenced by an EARLIER film adaptation, as much or more than the original source material.  I've been running into it all the time with Edgar Allan Poe adaptations-- movies that took whole sequences from COMIC-BOOKS, rather than Poe.

The 1929 "HOUND" is from the same outfit, Flicker Alley, that put out the 1916 "SHERLOCK HOLMES".  I am SO looking forward to getting my hands on it.

[profh0011]

Which film or TV Watson is closest to Doyle's original character?


Absurdly, I've read so few of the original stories, it's hard for me to say.  Judging from that famous short film of Arthur Conan Doyle speaking, HE seems to think that Watson is "dim-witted".  Hmm.

In any case, my favorites include...

Howard Marion Crawford
Andre Morell
Nigel Stock
James Mason
David Healy
David Burke
Edward Hardwicke

[crashryan]

I know no one will ever be satisfied with anyone else's opinion in the great Watson's Brain debate. I've read all the stories and books several times (admittedly, many of them quite a while ago) and the impression I have of the text Watson is that's he a stolid, upstanding 19th century Englishman. He's intelligent though not imaginative. He can be trusted to be where he needs to be and do what needs to be done with stiff upper lip firmly in place. He's no action hero, but he's ready for action, revolver at the ready, when called upon. Over time age slowed him down and he settled into a more comfortable life, but he was still willing to pitch in when Holmes needed him.

The truth is that this is a profile of a rather uninteresting character. In the stories that didn't matter. Since Watson was telling the story, and since he didn't have a big ego, he could go for long stretches without having to do anything. The focus was on Holmes and we, the reader, didn't expect Dr W to spend much time talking about himself.

A screen Watson has to be a completely different character. He's constantly on camera and he can't just sit there and read The Times. For Watson to work onscreen a writer must fill out details of Watson's personality, his attitudes, his behavior, that weren't necessary in the stories. Holmes changes from one film to another, yes. But since Doyle described his personality so thoroughly, portrayals of Holmes are more similar than portrayals of Watson, who is reinvented for each new project.

I don't have the obsessive drive to see every film and TV series on the subject and my viewing has been spotty. I know the Rathbone-Bruce films better than anything because they were the ones that filled TV screens and revival cinemas during my younger days. I love Nigel Bruce the actor but I hold him personally responsible for the Watson-as-boob tradition. In his day movies had to have comic relief characters, and that's how Bruce played Watson. He got sillier as the series progressed. I wonder if the "big hit" Holmes series had begun in the 1950s instead of the 1930s, whether Watson would have been played the same way.

When I think of Nigel Bruce's Watson I think of the classic catchphrase, "Holmes, you never cease to amaze me!" From Bruce's Watson this was an explosion of wide-eyed admiration, like a proud parent praising a child. I picture "my" Watson lowering his newspaper with the wisp of a smile and an approving nod, admitting almost grudgingly, "Holmes, you never cease to amaze me."

[profh0011]

Howard Marion Crawford has been said to be the "first" really great Watson on screen.  He was in the 39 TV episodes made in 1954-55 with Ronald Howard.  His Watson was intelligent, capable, tough, loyal, at times with a short temper and could also be counted on in a fight.  In one amusing incident, he was seen giving Holmes tips on how to punch somebody's lights out.  I believe more than once, Holmes's youthful exuberance and narrow focus led him to yell out, "HOLMES, this time you've gone TOO FAR!"

In an early episode, he's horrified at the idea of Holmes breaking into someone's house to investigate a crime.  In a later episode, he does so himself without batting an eye.



I've read that a 2nd season was in the planning stages, but, for whatever reason, never happened.  A real shame.  Since I upgraded my PBS videotapes to a DVD set (the FIRST tv series I did this with!), I've watched the entire series twice, and a few key episodes, more times.

A decade later, Crawford was the only actor aside from Christopher Lee to appear in all 5 of Harry Alan Towers' FU MANCHU films, as Dr. John Petrie.

[Captain Audio]

My 2 cents on Dr Watson's mental aptitude is this. No one even in the 19th century could become a British military surgeon if he was less than above average. Not that there weren't some butchers in the trade.
A Dr might have many wrong ideas, but that is because he was taught those wrong ideas at a medical school.

Watson was not a deep thinker, at least compared to Holmes, nobody equaled Holmes anyway. He took too much at face value, he mostly minded his own business and really wasn't that interested in a case till Holmes fired his imagination.

Only when Holmes asked his opinion did his lack of complex thinking show itself. Holmes was showing off his superior mind. He needed a combination foil and straight man for this.

[profh0011]

Up until last year, I'd never seen ALL 14 Rathbone-Bruce HOLMES films back-to-back (except one time recently when I watched them on Youtube).  Now, since getting the MPI box set (where the 12 Universals have all been thoroughly restored-- effectively making EVERY other package with any of them out there totally inferior and redundant), I've watched the set twice, and I think I can safely say I've enjoyed them all more than I ever did before.

I'd go so far as to offer the view that there ISN'T a bad film in the set!

Some of my favorite moments are those occasions when Nigel Bruce's Watson will say something, and Rathbone's Holmes picks up on it, and although Watson didn't have a clue, what he said allows Holmes to solve a mystery he might have taken much longer to figure out.  It's really a case of two good friends who do work better together than apart.



In the 1960s, Rathbone did 2 sets of "book on LP" readings of the original stories.  In the first 2, "The Speckled Band" and "The Final Problem" (my introduction to both), he read the stories in his own voice.  Since Watson is narrating them, this means Rathbone was doing Watson!

However, decades later, I got a complete set of them on cassette tape.  In the later readings, Rathbone did "voices".  For example, he had one voice for the narrator, one for Holmes... but when he did Watson, you'd SWEAR you were hearing Nigel Bruce!  I thought it was a wonderful and amazing tribute to his friend, who'd passed away long before he did them.

[The Australian Panther]

My 2 cents on Dr Watson's mental aptitude is this. No one even in the 19th century could become a British military surgeon if he was less than above average.

Exactly.
And Watson's medical skills are manifested on more than one occasion. 

The producers of SHERLOCK noted this and wrote Watson for Martin Freeman to portray him as returned from Afghanistan with some degree of post-traumatic stress disorder.

SHERLOCK is also one of the few adaptations of Holmesian material that includes Watson's wife, Mary.
Her existence, [she features briefly in the latter stories], is just ignored.

Here is a thought.
Given that Holmes was based on Dr Joseph Bell who was Conan Doyle's mentor and of whom he wrote,
' It is most certainly to you that I owe Sherlock Holmes and though in the stories I have the advantage of being able to place him in all sorts of dramatic positions, I do not think that his analytical work is in the least an exaggeration of some effects which I have seen you produce in the outpatient ward.
Is it possible that Watson's role and relationship with Holmes reflects Conan Doyle's estimate of himself next to Bell?
Watson is also clearly a literary device used to explain Holmes actions and more the story along.

Cheers!     

   

[paw broon]

I'm not a huge fan of any of the Holmes films.  They're ok.  I've watched some of them a few times, not only the Rathbone version.  I much prefer the original stories, some of the radio plays and certain of the comic adaptations, plus, of course Sherlock and the Jeremy Brett series.  There is a strange and interesting interpretation of Holmes in a 4 issues series of small graphic novels by Ian Edginton and I.N.J. Culbard of the 4 novels.
https://theslingsandarrows.com/sherlock-holmes-the-sign-of-the-four/
The adaptations of Sherlock in manga style are enjoyable, credited to Moffat, Gatiss and Jay.
Edginton is also responsible for Victorian Undead which, I'm certain, will offend Holmes purists.
https://sciencefiction.com/2019/02/06/comic-archive-victorian-undead-sherlock-holmes-vs-zombies-2010/
and despite my dislike of all those zombie/vampire shows on tv, I really enjoy the 2 collections - V Zombies and vs Dracula.  There is a short with Jekyll and Hyde but I can't lay my hands on it right now.

[The Australian Panther]

Once you get into alternative Holmes stories the subject is never-ending.
Just take a look at this lot
Further Adventures of Sherlock Holmes
https://www.fantasticfiction.com/series/further-adventures-of-sherlock-holmes/

Don't assume these are rubbish. It is a testament to Doyle's mastery of the principles of the short story that it is very difficult to write an unreadable Holmes story. Oh, it can be done, but mercifully, rarely. 

the writer Loren D Estleman has written
Sherlock Holmes vs Dracula, Dr Jeckel and Mr Homes and a volume of Short stories
'The Perils of Sherlock Holmes' 

One of the more curious items is the three Mycroft novels written by - of all people 'Kareem Abdul-Jabbar.
The series is apparently a bit of a radical departure - surprise - and has been adapted into - I think - at least two graphic novels by now - here is the first.
Mycroft Holmes and the Apocalypse Handbook  [England's Titan books]
https://www.publishersweekly.com/978-1-78585-300-5

That's as much as I want to say at the moment about Myroftt spin-off series.   
Some of the best and most interesting Sherlock versions in  comics are the French ones- more about those another time.
In fact, Prof, if he cloned himself, could start another blog thread on comic versions of Sherlock.   
Paw can probably tell us about any Italian ones, and ComicKraut any Deutsch ones.

Cheers! 

[Captain Audio]

Speaking of Dr Bell
Just yesterday my sister commented on what her heart doctor had told her about our family MD. He said he was "a marvelous doctor", not just good or even great but "Marvelous". In fact our family doctor has a reputation for diligent research and an investigative mind among all the medical professionals in the area.

I'm also reminded of the TV series "House" Gregory House is an investigator as much as anything else. His mind is constantly working on a medical mystery of some sort which often leads to his investigating the patient and their families and contacts. Not a likeable person at all, but he gets the job done. He seldom cares about the patient, just the challenge of the mystery to be solved.

[profh0011]

DER HUND VON BASKERVILLE (1929)

This was AMAZING.  Right from the start, I fell in love with the mostly-piano music score.  The opening scene in the story, unlike the novel, shows Sir Charles discussing the legend of the hound with his friends, the night he wound up dying under mysterious circumstances.  This was exactly like the 1968 BBC TV version with Peter Cushing.

The bulk of the movie, surprisingly, follows the novel pretty closely, although it does simplify things quite a bit.  For example, despite Jack's obvious intense jealousy, Beryl is never revealed to be his wife, but merely his ward. (In the 1939 Fox version with Basil Rathbone, she was Jack's sister.)  Also, while Charles was lured out to the moors by Laura Lyons, the actual reasons for it never come up, and we never find out that she was in fact Frankland's daughter. On the other hand, we see Jack MURDER Laura to keep her from talking, which inspired a similar turn of events in the 1983 Ian Richardson version.

The last act of the film does manage to deviate in a fun way from the original story, in that Holmes discovers a secret underground tunnel that connects Baskerville Hall with Stapleton'e house, which is how Jack was able to sneak in and steal Sir Henry's boot, it's where Jack kept the dog, it's where Jack made Beryl a prisoner near the end, and it's where Holmes nearly gets killed when Jack floods it with water.  (Shades of Chaney's "PHANTOM OF THE OPERA"!)

The directing, the lighting and the camera-work are all superb. Something I only found out days before seeing it, director Richard Oswald was the father of Gerd Oswald, who in the 1960s directed 2 episodes of STAR TREK and 14 episodes of THE OUTER LIMITS.  Wow!  I think that explains why "OL" looked the way it did so often-- it was the influence of German expressionism.

The restoration was done from 2 different prints-- one with Czech titles and a "home movie" version (NO KIDDING!) with French titles.  The differences are glaring-- mostly-clear and very poor quality-- but without the lesser sections, even more of the film would be missing than still is.  Chunks of the 2nd & 3rd reels are filled in with STILL PHOTOS, in the manner I've seen previously with "METROPOLIS" and "LOST HORIZON", so some key points in the story are there, but go by very quickly.  This includes Henry's arrival at the Hall, his first meetings with Barrymore, Jack & Beryl.  Fortunately, the bulk of the film-- and arguably all the best parts-- are still intact.

I immediately took an extreme liking to Carlyle Blackwell as Holmes.  George Seroff as Watson is a lot more light-hearted, but from what I've read, this was one of the very first Holmes films to ever make the Holmes-Watson relationship a big focus of the story.  There's a real joy in Watson when he finds Holmes hiding out on the moors, in a scene very similar to-- but in my view-- DONE BETTER than it was in the 1988 Jeremy Brett version!  "Your cigarette brand betrays you."

Betty Bird as Beryl is very pretty, while Franz Rasp as Jack is a DEMENTED lunatic on the level with "The Joker". Holmes must have had a lot of trouble holding back telling Watson right away who the murderer was. It was so obvious!

[profh0011]

Fascinating article about Anthony Edward Brett, alias "Eille Norwood", who did 45 SHERLOCK HOLMES shorts & 2 features from 1921-23, which were never seen in the US due to Samuel Goldwyn trying to sue the English film studio to prevent competition (GREEDY CAPITALIST BASTARD!).

I've seen 3 of the shorts so far, they're terrific.

https://www.ihearofsherlock.com/2014/05/1923s-sign-of-four-at-san-francisco.html

[crashryan]

I just viewed Eilie Norwood's Sign of Four, my first Norwood Holmes. I found it surprisingly good. Funny that Norwood's real name was Brett. I wonder if he is Jeremy's distant ancestor. My favorite scene was the police inquest, where Holmes feigns napping while the police inspector holds court. I'd never have thought one could put across "disdainful smartass" in a silent film, but Norwood certainly does it. I laughed aloud. Only the shoe-polish "Hindus" smacked of old-fashioned silent cliches. I liked the use of double exposures to illustrate Holmes' deductions. The London location shots were wonderful, a glimpse seen through the time machine window.

In the print I watched on YouTube, well-meaning fans had added a music-and-effects track. It was a nice idea, but the serial-style music, apparently culled from Fox Holmes movies, often clashed with the more subdued parts of the film (it was perfect, though, for the climactic speedboat chase). They also cut in snippets of spoken dialogue that sort of matched words spoken on screen. This was a disastrous choice and I quickly turned off the speakers and watched the movie "dry."

[profh0011]

I was flipping thru the DVD-- something I don't normally do-- and I re-watched a key scene, which I suddenly realized, I had mis-interpreted Monday night.

Stapleton was talking with Laura Lyons, but the inter-title mentioned "Beryl". I thought it was a mistake. NO IT WASN'T! What somehow slipped right by me the other night was a quite vital piece of dialogue:

"What are these tickets? You promised you would leave Beryl!"

OH MAN. This is the ONLY clue in the entire film that Beryl WAS Jack's WIFE!!

Unlike the novel (and at least 2 other film versions), where Laura believed Jack was planning to marry her, here, Laura actually KNEW Jack was married-- and was planning to divorce his wife. This is the only version where this is the case.

Ohhhh, I don't think the later Production Code would have liked THAT!


Ever since I really got to see so many other versions, has a peculiarity of the 1939 Fox version really stood out. In the Rathbone film, Beryl (Wendy Barrie) is Jack's SISTER. She somehow has NO knowledge of her heritage, or any inkling of Jack's murderous plans. So she's NOT involved with any deviousness toward Henry. Apparently this was done to get around the Production Code. But, as a result, this means, Henry would be marrying HIS OWN COUSIN. A distant cousin, of course, but still...


Isn't it sometimes hilarious, the kind of twisted results of late-1930s Hollywood CENSORSHIP ?

[profh0011]

I've got the 1923 SIGN OF FOUR bookmarked to watch.

What I can't figure is, this film is apparently NOT commercially available.  So HOW THE HELL did it get put up on Youtube?

[Captain Audio]

this means, Henry would be marrying HIS OWN COUSIN. A distant cousin, of course, but still...


Isn't it sometimes hilarious, the kind of twisted results of late-1930s Hollywood CENSORSHIP ?

Marriage of cousins was a very common practice among British nobility up through the mid 20th century. In fact it wasn't that uncommon among all classes anywhere in Europe at the time.

[profh0011]

The 1939 Fox "HOUND" is considered one of the "classic" versions, and it's one of my top faves, but there are some strange things about it, no doube a result of when it was made.

They left out the Laura Lyons sub-plot entirely, made Dr, Mortimer much older and married, and added the "seance" bit to try and make it spookier (but it's still nowhere near as sppoky as the 1937 German version... OR. Universal's "THE SCARLET CLAW").

They also left out another key bit, which is when Holmes tells Henry, he MUST follow Holmes' instructions, OR, he will be forever living in the shadow of death.  Instead, Holmes PRETENDS the case is over, and he's going back to London, leaving Henry no clue his life is in fact STILL in peril.  Oddly enough, this key bit of the story DOES turn up in the sequel, with Holmes giving this very same instructions to Ida Lupino's character!



I've now contacted 3 different organizations about possibly putting the Eille Norwood films-- and some others--out on DVD...

British Film Institute
(via their website)

FLICKER ALLEY, LLC
P O Box 931762
Los Angeles, CA 90093

Email: info@flickeralley.com
Phone: 323.851.1905


SHOUT FACTORY
1640 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Ste. 400
Los Angeles, CA 90025

info@shoutfactory.com


Hey, why not?  I know from experience, you NEVER know what ONE letter might lead to.

[Captain Audio]

Does anyone here recognize a Sherlock Holmes film that begins with the discovery of a human torso on a beach, the only identifiable mark being a seaman's tattoo?
Later a curse is read that includes the line "and none shall go whole to his grave".

[Andrew999]

Could that be The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Private_Life_of_Sherlock_Holmes

[Captain Audio]

Could that be The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Private_Life_of_Sherlock_Holmes

No. The film I spoke of is a much older B&W film of the 30's or 40's. Not sure if a Rathbone film or not.
I remember the film you speak of and its nothing like the film I spoke of.

This may be it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_House_of_Fear_(1945_film)