Matcollis This Movie Can Only Be Described With One Word.

Phonearl Good start, but then it gets ruined

Hayleigh Joseph This is ultimately a movie about the very bad things that can happen when we don't address our unease, when we just try to brush it off, whether that's to fit in or to preserve our self-image.

Scotty Burke It is interesting even when nothing much happens, which is for most of its 3-hour running time. Read full review

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 'Sherlock Holmes', especially one with such a great idea. Anything with one of literature's most iconic arch-enemies Moriaty is always worth the watch.'Sherlock Holmes' is very problematic and 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 very worst, although one of the lesser ones overall, being better than any of the Matt Frewer films (particularly 'The Sign of Four') and much better than the abominable Peter Cook 'The Hound of the Baskervilles'.Ernest Torrence is the best thing about 'Sherlock Holmes', being an effectively sinister Moriaty. Clive Brook is also pretty good and enigmatic as Holmes. There is a suitably spooky and creepy atmosphere in the film, and some scenes come off effectively. Especially the trial and the escape. There are some nice starkly beautifully and eerie shots and the direction has some inspired visual and atmosphere touches. However, the rest of the cast are not great, though Alan Mowbray is okay if not electric. Not just Miriam Jordan's dull Alice and Howard Leeds' grating Billy (who has too much screen time), but Reginald Owen is even stiffer as Watson than he was when he portrayed Holmes in 'A Study in Scarlet', Watson is very underused here which robs us of one of the most legendary partnerships to fully make impression and Owen does very little with what he has. Other than the visual and atmosphere touches, the direction struggles in some of the direction of the actors and giving the mystery consistent momentum. The script is talky and rambling, with some over-played and extraneous comedy that was merely padding. The pace tends to be on the dull side and the tension and suspense too often is lacking in the story, the mystery not fully coming to life and occasionally could have been clearer. Only Moriaty and Holmes are interesting of the characters.To conclude, alright but a long way from exceptional. 5/10 Bethany Cox

bkoganbing Clive Brook gets his second chance to essay the role of Baker Street's famous sleuth in a film simply entitled Sherlock Holmes. And Reginald Owen who had been Holmes in another film is very briefly seen as Doctor John Watson.That's because Watson is getting married and as such is now leaving the companionship of Holmes for one who can offer him something Holmes cannot. That's all right because Holmes himself is now keeping company with the lovely Miriam Jordan, daughter of Ivan Simpson one of London's most prominent bankers. Holmes in turn is breaking in a new assistant, the juvenile Howard Leeds.But before everyone's happily ever after ending is assured the great arch rival of Holmes, Professor Moriarty has escaped from prison and he vows vengeance on three people, Holmes, Alan Mowbray the Scotland Yard inspector who was teamed rather unwillingly with Holmes to bring Moriarty down, and the judge who sentenced him to death. It's the judge who goes first and Brook and Mowbray are in unwilling harness again.I've never seen a haughtier version of Holmes than Clive Brook in this film. But Brook really typified upper English class haughtiness and seemed always that way on screen. However Moriarty is played by the Scottish actor Ernest Torrence and he's a pretty even match for Brook in terms of intelligence and cunning the way Moriarty has come down to us. Torrence has brought in professional criminals from other countries including the USA where Chicago hit-man Stanley Fields is trying to set up a protection racket. Fields has a most interesting scene with pub owner Herbert Mundin giving him an offer he can't refuse, but does.Brook isn't quite up to either Arthur Wontner or Basil Rathbone as Holmes, but the film is all right. I fear Holmes purists will hold out for Jeremy Brett though.

JohnHowardReid The earliest talkie Sherlock Holmes at present available, "Conan Doyle's Master Detective Sherlock Holmes" (to give the movie its full title) will probably outrage Conan Doyle purists. (Although actually credited to William Gillette's stage adaptation, the script bears but two or three faint resemblances to that either). The film is really an original creation, using Doyle characters. It stars an unusually adventurous Clive Brook (in his third impersonation of the sleuth), supported by Ernest Torrence as an engrossingly charismatic, menacing Moriarty. So far, so good. But now we are introduced to the lovely Miriam Jordan (in her second of only seven films) who plays Holmes' fiancée! She has quite a sizable role too, especially compared to Dr Watson (Reginald Owen) who figures in only two scenes, his line-feeding duties being undertaken here by Howard Leeds (his first of only three movies) as Little Billy. There is no Lestrade, alas, but Alan Mowbray creditably fills in the Scotland Yard gap as Gore-King. Although the movie also accommodates no less than three extraneous comic scenes with Cockney publican, Herbert Mundin (whose role has obviously been built up by playwright Bayard Veiller, credited with additional dialogue), and thus occasionally seems too talky (even at 68 minutes), it does have some splendid Moriarty atmosphere (the trial) and action (the escape), most ably contrived by director William K. Howard.

jhboswell In this day and age, we have been exposed to some excellent, enthusiastic actors tackling the mighty Sherlock. In 1932, there was nothing to speak of. Sir Arthur had died a few years before, and fans knew there would be no more original stories.So, I think this is a pretty good "tour DE force." Sure, it's nowhere near any "real" Holmes story; and sure, it includes some pretty bizarre elements. But, given the times, it's worthwhile. There is some great acting, from underplaying of Holmes to really fun overplaying of the villains; a good pace to the story; and I was very happy with the production.Think B-gangster movie and you won't be disappointed. But, if you really want Sherlock, fast forward to Basil Rathbone!