Le triomphe de Sherlock Holmes

This is the second of the early Holmes film experiments that I have seen. In The Sign of Four, they messed up the detective form by showing us the entire history before Holmes appears. Here, they do something similar. While Holmes interviews a woman about her recently dead husband, we have the major part of the film time occupied in a flashback illustrating her story. That story is a small film by itself. The outer story is a combat between Moriarty and a *retired* Holmes that ends with a chase up a medieval tower with what might have been exciting camera-work in its day. This story does respect Holmes as a detective, and the task he tackles is not something we already understand. I can see that as they made extra films, they tried different mixes of explicit storytelling and deduced and explained stories.

This is the fourth film of five with Arthur Wonter in the title role. A faithful adaptation of Conan Doyle's The Valley of Fear. Holmes(Wonter)and partner Dr. Watson(Ian Fleming)investigate a mysterious murder at the Birlstone Castle. The murder seems tied in with a secret society of coal-miners from America. Holme's arch-enemy Professor Moriarty(Lyn Harding)appears to have conspired with an American gangster(Ben Weldon)to kill a Pinkerton agent trying to break up the covert society. This may not be on par with other Sherlock Holmes movies, but still provides it chills and thrills. Note that Fleming is not the famed James Bond author. Other players include: Charles Mortimer, Roy Emerton, Jane Carr and Michael Shepley.

I don't have a problem with Arthur Wontner as Sherlock Holmes, Ian Fleming as Dr. Watson or Lyn Harding as Prof. Moriarty - they are quite good. It's the way this story is written that I was not crazy about - it is mainly in flashback form told by Ettie Douglas, the wife of the slain man John Douglas. The film is interesting in it's way but it's not the greatest Wontner/Holmes film I've seen either. I also agree that it's not like Sherlock Holmes to retire - completely out of character for him - and Holmes is suppose be in retirement in Sussex when this story begins and brings him back out of retirement. Very strange to add this if you ask me. At any rate, it's not a terrible Holmes film but it's not a grand film - still worth watching if you like Sherlock Holmes. 6/10

I am afraid that I am a complete sucker for the Arthur Wontner series of Sherlock Holmes films. These films aren't presented in a very good form, in fact the copies of each of these Wontner titles have awful soundracks, soft focus and very flat contrast, seemingly copied from the worst scource possible. It is a pity that we should be subjected to this third class sort of presentation, as I have seen them on British television in a much more acceptable form, so a liitle bit of effort could have produced the goods! I am quite ellated that one of the two missing Wontner films , 'THE SLEEPING CARDINAL', has been found alive and well in the states...I suppose it is a bit too much to expect that this will be be an improvement in picture quality.

While IMDb says that this was based on a Conan Doyle story, you'd have a hard time recognizing the original. That's because so many details were changed and the entire Moriarty plot line was ridiculous--having nothing to do with the original stories. For the Sherlock Holmes fans out there, Moriarty died at Whisteria Falls--and the whole angle about Holmes going into retirement is poppycock. What also is VERY problematic for me, and it's less because it violates the Holmes canon, is the way the story is told. About half the film is told in flashback!!! What a sloppy and boring way to tell a story! Overall, because of the many problems, this is among the worst of the Arthur Wontner films of Sherlock Holmes. There are some very, very good ones and some bad ones. This is a bad one--due less to the acting and more for the bizarre and convoluted storytelling.

Good camerawork helps this stylishly shot although slightly stagily performed version of Doyle's THE VALLEY OF FEAR. The principals are excellent in their roles, but the supporting actors tend to ham it up a bit. Wontner gives a witty performance as Holmes and Ian Fleming -- no, not that Ian Fleming -- is an intelligent Watson.