Ensofter Overrated and overhyped

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

Lollivan It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

Walter Sloane Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

lordreith The movie has little to do with the A. Conan Doyle story of the same name. Very cheaply made, its sets are so drab as to give the impression that the film is actually an expose of living conditions in the lower depths -- a proletarian Depression saga. The actors -- especially the three rather portly middle-aged stage actors cast as Holmes, Watson and Inspector Lestrade ("Lastrade" here) -- move gingerly around the various pieces of sad furniture, obviously fearful of breaking up the sets, one of which is supposed to be "221-A" (sic) Baker Street. (Perhaps the change in address was for legal reasons.)Again, for reasons of their own, the producers inserted a tedious scene involving some ancient English vaudevillians doing a "drunk" routine, so ancient it might have come from a medieval farce.However, the story, for what it is, does hold one's interest and moves along quickly, even though it made little sense. The pretty little ingénue playing the heroine has the disconcerting habit of displaying emotion two or three beats after the relevant action, and her neatly mustached boyfriend may have been one of the gimcrack chairs strewn around the set for all the life he shows. The gorgeous Anna May Wong apparently wandered in from another movie. She's on camera for only about 10 minutes, but her talent is so much greater than any other member of the cast that she makes every scene she graces memorable. Lord, how that lady could slink!Two possible "borrowings"-- 1. A literary device holding the story together -- a children's rhyme -- may have been borrowed by Agatha Christie for "Ten Little Indians", a book she wrote long after most prints of this movie had been converted to banjo picks. 2. A cinematic device -- a claustrophobic winding staircase -- may have been borrowed by Hitchcock for "Foreign Correspondent."

hte-trasme "A Study in Scarlet" was produced by the low-budget E. W. Hammons at the low-budget Tiffany Studios starring a former Watson (possibly cast because of his association with Holmes films), Reginald Owen, as Sherlock Holmes. The presence of Holmes and Watson is the only connection to the Arthur Conan Doyle story of the same name, and that, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. I have no problem with a Sherlock Holmes film straying from slavish fidelity to the creator of the character. However, this one seems to deviate from the original not as a result of the filmmakers' creativity being exercised in order to make something new, but often in ways that make Holmes into someone that resembles a generic detective protagonist more than the most recognizable of them all.It's a little odd to see a supposed Sherlock Holmes dart around wearing clothes clearly dated to the 1930s (the only appearance of the famous deerstalker is in cartoon form in the opening titles), but since the story doesn't depend on anything terribly time-period appropriate, the transposition to the contemporary setting doesn't have too much of an effect. A curiosity here is that we are repeated told that Sherlock Holmes lives at 221A Baker Street, not the traditional 221B, even though he still seems to be living upstairs. Whether that's a simple error on somebody's part or a nod to the liberties being taken with the original stories there is no way to tell.Owen, unfortunately, is rather stiff and unremarkable in is portrayal of Sherlock Holmes. Many point out that he doesn't look the part (and, traditionally, he doesn't) but that hasn't been a problem for countless other actors. If he had managed to make the role his own through his performance it wouldn't have been for him either. He has little presence and seems to think that if he bellows each line with enough conviction and self-satisfaction he'll sound as if he knows what he's talking about.Sadly the rest of the actors are rather wooden and unimpressive as well, including Anna May Wong. Warburton Gamble makes no impression as Watson, and some of the murder victims are laughably unconvincing in their hesitant screams for help at their dying moments. Everything is taken deadly seriously except for some overplayed comic relief involving characters at a pub, which only semi works.There is a good mystery story at the heart of this film about a circle of criminals whose members are being murdered one-by-one, but the execution (including the direction which, the exception of one clever shot inside Merrydew's office near the end, mainly doesn't go beyond static two- an three-shots) is too lackluster to serve it well. The scriptwriter deserves credit for a good concept and for a good method of developing the story through showing us going on in all quarters without completely explaining its significance, but nobody else seems to have been trying very hard.It's still entertaining most of the time, and fun for viewers who will eat up anything Holmesian, but it's far from the best executed film version of the detective's adventures.

MartinHafer This is a poor and bizarre Sherlock Holmes movie. It's poor because the story has very little to do with the original Conan Doyle story. Heck, they even included a bunch of characters that weren't in this tale! It's bizarre because Reginald Owen seemed a very odd choice for the lead--seeming much more suited to the role of Watson than Holmes. Much of this is just tradition--actors famous for playing this same role repeatedly were William Gillette, Arthur Wontner, Basil Rathbone and Jeremy Brett were all thin guys and bore some similarity to each other. Owen just looked nothing like them and this took some getting used to. This isn't a bad thing--just an odd thing.Also, I am really confused by the film because although it bears almost no similarity to "A Study in Scarlet", the film is very similar to Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None" (a.k.a. "The 10 Little Indians" and another title which I can't use because I doubt if IMDb would allow me to use the original title due to political correctness). However, Christie's novel did not appear until the late 1930s, so it appears that perhaps she lifted the plot from this 1933 film or at least was strongly inspired by it. I am really surprised there wasn't a lot of uproar about the similarities.If you ignore all these aspects, you still have a poor film because the film had such poor production values. There was no incidental music, lousy dialog, the acting was often VERY poor and the whole thing simply had no energy. As a result, instead of being engaging, the whole thing was mind-numbingly dull and I can't recommend you see it.

Hitchcoc I had never seen Reginald Owen in anything but a somewhat weak Christmas Carol. He plays a larger, more imposing Sherlock Holmes. Holmes' appearance is usually rather striking, so actors play on his idiosyncrasies. In this movie, he sort of blends in. The story has nothing to do with the story. It will probably never be produced as written because of it's religious issues. This is an attempt to apprehend the big cheese in a series of murders involving the "Scarlet Circle." Men are dying according to the same poem used in Christie's Ten Little Indians (And Then There Were None). Holmes is aware of what is going on, but can't really strike quickly. This results in deaths not being prevented. While there is a seriousness to this film, there is a lot of humor as well. The characters are rich and interesting and the acting is pretty good. See it for another angle on the Holmes canon.