Karry
Best movie of this year hands down!
Rijndri
Load of rubbish!!
Kaelan Mccaffrey
Like the great film, it's made with a great deal of visible affection both in front of and behind the camera.
TheLittleSongbird
Am a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes and get a lot of enjoyment out of Arthur Conan Doyle's stories. Also love Basil Rathbone's and especially Jeremy Brett's interpretations to death. So would naturally see any Sherlock Holmes adaptation that comes my way, regardless of its reception.Furthermore, interest in seeing early films based on Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories and wanting to see as many adaptations of any Sherlock Holmes stories as possible sparked my interest in seeing 'The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes', part of the series of film with Arthur Wontner. Would also see anything that has Holmes encountering his arch-nemesis Professor Moriaty. 'The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes', based on one of Conan Doyle's longer and best stories, turned out to be very much worthwhile. Not one of the best Sherlock Holmes adaptations certainly, the best of the Jeremy Brett adaptations and films of Basil Rathone fit under this category. It's also not among the worst, being much better than any of the Matt Frewer films (particularly 'The Sign of Four') and the abominable Peter Cook 'The Hound of the Baskervilles'.It's not perfect. The sound quality is less than great, while some of the pace could have been tighter, the over-reliance on the flashback structure bogs it down a bit, and some of the dialogue unnecessarily rambles a bit. The Holmes retiring aspect is agreed out of character. However, the period detail is handsome and evocative. The writing generally is thought-provoking, Holmes' deductions and crime solving are a huge part of the fun as well as very true in detail and spirit to Conan Doyle's writing, the mystery and suspense is generally intact and the story is intriguing and not hard to follow.Arthur Wontner may technically have been too old for Holmes but he did not look too old and his portrayal is on the money, handling the personality and mannerisms of the character spot on without over-doing or under-playing. Ian Fleming is a charming, loyal, intelligent and amusing Watson, with nice chemistry between him and Wontner, really liked his inferior attempts at deduction. The support is solid, with the best coming from Lyn Harding's sinister Moriaty.In summary, not quite triumphant but very worthwhile. 7/10 Bethany Cox
Leofwine_draca
The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes is a fairly watchable outing for the intrepid detective, predating Basil Rathbone by some 4 years. One of the most unfortunate things about this film is that it was shot on a low budget in the UK, which means that modern-day prints are pretty terrible looking: sound you can't hear half of, crackling all the while, fuzzy-looking picture. If you can put these flaws aside and view the film for what it was at the time it was made, I think you'll be impressed, as this is one of the most literate, engaging, well-scripted and loyal Holmes movies out there.It's also very static and stagy, which loses it points, but then this is to be expected in the mid-1930s; it wasn't until Rathbone's entrance as the famous detective that Holmes became an adventurer, a fighting hero. Here he's more inclined to sit back and examine a few clues, but then this is in the spirit of the book.The film does have some other flaws, mainly in the plotting. The inclusion of arch-villain Moriarty seems to be an instance of 'over egging the cake' because he really does feel extraneous to the story here. He adds an extra twenty minutes to the running time, which is why, I guess, they put him in. There's also a lengthy sub-plot set in America, which isn't very interesting – at least until the twist. In fact, the only thing that kept me watching during this mid section of the film was the presence of Roy Emerton, playing 'Boss' McGinty – this huge, scarred British character actor is absolutely fantastic, I couldn't take my eyes off him. What a scary, imposing presence he has – it's a shame he never made it bigger than he did.There's some more great casting in the central pairing of Arthur Wontner as Holmes and Ian Fleming (not the author) as Watson. These guys are exactly how you imagine them in the stories, and Wontner even closely resembles the original illustrations of Holmes in the Strand magazine. They're great actors to boot, with Fleming adding comedy (although not overdone) as Watson and Wontner ably catching Holmes' edgy, brainy appeal. I wish the mystery had given the duo a little more to do – a little more to get their teeth into, perhaps – but they really do make the film stand out. The same actors paired up for a half dozen or so Holmes outings and, on the strength of this, they're worth tracking down for fans of the big man.
Robert J. Maxwell
It's based on "The Valley of Fear," Conan-Doyle's last and least novella. Poor Conan-Doyle. He'd grown to dislike Sherlock Holmes. The character was a cash cow but had become Frankenstein's monster. And there is nothing more disgusting than a cow that is a monster except a mixed metaphor.Conan-Doyle had a much larger vision -- writing epic adventure stories. He did write some and a few were popular successes -- "The Lost World" -- but they didn't compare with Holmes. As time went by, Conan-Doyle put less effort into the Holmes stories. They lost their savour. In "The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes" with Arthur Wontner, we can see the result. This is a colorless Holmes -- no dope, no quirks, and some of the deductions are literally incredible.Wontner himself isn't that bad except when compared to Basil Rathbone or Jeremy Brett. Wontner simply isn't a commanding presence. It's too bad because more than any other Holmes he resembles the Sidney Paget illustrations that accompanied the original magazine stories.I suppose one of the ways that Conan-Doyle was able to satisfy his need to write exotic adventures was to insert flashbacks that took us to lands far away from 221b Baker Street. In "A Study in Scarlet" it was Mormons; here it's what seems to be the Wobblies in the Pennsylvania coal country. The back stories are frankly dull.The productions are adequate, no more than that. The set dressings don't look cheesy; they only look stagy. The performances fit into the same category. The most memorable figure is McGinty, the head honcho of the Scowrers, a giant of a man with a voice to match.
Michael O'Keefe
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.
