NekoHomey
Purely Joyful Movie!
Brendon Jones
It’s fine. It's literally the definition of a fine movie. You’ve seen it before, you know every beat and outcome before the characters even do. Only question is how much escapism you’re looking for.
Sienna-Rose Mclaughlin
The movie really just wants to entertain people.
Rainey Dawn
This Arthur Wontner / Sherlock Holmes film is not all that bad but it's not the greatest Holmes film on the market. And I find it's not as good as the title suggests or sounds like it would be but it is still fun little ditty to watch! Here we have Sherlock and Doc Watson on a case of murder and a stolen horse named Silver Blaze. Sherlock suspects his old nemesis Professor Moriarty to be behind it all. But why does Moriarty want Silver Blaze badly enough to murder the stable boy? What are his diabolical plans this time? A pretty good morning murder mystery to watch with a cup of coffee! Not a bad way to wake up.7/10
JohnHowardReid
Wontner's last film in his series, Silver Blaze (1937) or Murder at the Baskervilles, I regard as his best. The ingenious script by Arthur Macrae (who also plays the young lead with considerable charisma), H. Fowler Mear and Wontner himself, not only adheres with reasonable fidelity to Conan Doyle's story, but also introduces a clever framing device which allows for a final demise of Professor Moriarty (who had clearly met his end in the previous entry; but there was no way a picturegoer's memory would stretch over two years, so why not?). And moreover, it was directed by Dickensian expert, Thomas Bentley. Dickens? Well, after all, there are significant caricatural or Dickensian qualities about Holmes, Watson, Moriarty and company, to say nothing of the way the heroine is so short-changed and has so little to do or say. Judy Gunn, in her final of twelve movies, plays so fleeting a role, she is way down the credits. But look at some of the other supporting characters here: D.J. Williams as Silas Brown has only the one scene – but what an impression he makes! Of course the support player everyone greets with delight is none other than Ronald Shiner. Although far away from his glory days as Britain's number one most popular star and biggest box office draw in the early 1950s, Shiner still shines even at this early stage (if you can call it early. He'd already made 16 films). Williams and Shiner are so Dickensian, it hurts! True, Bentley handles the action in a somewhat perfunctory fashion. He's no Yak Canutt certainly. But overall this Silver Blaze is a polished, pleasing production. And best of all, it enjoys the highest quality of the available Wontner DVDs, with a nice clear sound track and well-defined images.
Hitchcoc
To bring back Baskerville Hall as nothing more than a location, not use it as a significant part of the plot is a disappointment. The movie is really about a horse racing Sherlock Holmes episode called "Silver Blaze." Professor Moriarity has great interest in a horse, which will bring him an incredible amount of money. He hires some henchmen to do his bidding, but once again Sherlock interrupts his dealings. The movie wanders about, part the story of the horse, the other the mania of Moriarity. Holmes sort of poses for the camera and makes pronouncements. It's never quite clear how he solves the crime, but he does, of course. It's worth watching, just to see Arthur Wontner looking so much like those illustrations from the Strand. Watson is also a bit formidable. The rest of the cast is sort of thrown in there. The final scene isn't so final.
classicsoncall
Arthur Wontner and Ian Fleming reprise their Holmes and Watson roles, once again foiling a plot by the villainous Professor Moriarty (Lyn Harding) and his top henchman Moran (Arthur Goullet). This time around, the story involves a murder and the theft of a race horse in an effort to insure that a big time gambler doesn't lose his shirt if the opposition horse wins.Holmes achieves particular delight in putting down Scotland Yard Inspector Lestrade (John Turnbull), but in this film, Lestrade seems to realize what Holmes is doing. His look of exasperation is evident when Holmes utters the line quoted in the summary above. On the flip side, what's missing this time around is the philosophical debate between the detective and his nemesis Moriarty. They meet only at the end of the film when Moriarty is discovered and captured at his secret hideout. Quite honestly, I was expecting Moriarty to fall to an expected demise in the empty elevator shaft, as he did not once or twice, but three times going up against the sleuth (The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes, Sherlock Holmes and The Secret Weapon, and The Woman in Green).There are similar elements in this film that were also used in the prior year's "Charlie Chan at the Race Track" (champion horse with an altered appearance, use of a weapon at the end of the race, big time money resting on the outcome), but the stories diverge from there. They merge once again though as the case is solved by each film's ranking detective.I'd be a little critical of Sherlock Holmes' method in this one however. He relies on an old horseshoe belonging to Silver Blaze to make an exact match with a grassy outline in a moor a distance from the Baskerville Castle. Sure it fits, but so would just about any other horse shoe - sounds a lot like a ringer to me.
