Edgar Soberon Torchia "Sherlock Holmes and the Deadly Necklace" is, among the twenty- something films by Terence Fisher that I have seen, one of his less accomplished works. A bit better than the boring "Night of the Big Heat", this is a production with motivations I don't fully understand: for a start I do not know why they decided to make a Sherlock Holmes movie starring Christophe Lee in German (although there is an English language version, the official version is in German, which is the one I opted to watch), with Lee's real voice absent in all versions. Then I cannot reason why in 1962, with moneys coming from German, French and Italian production companies, they decided to shoot an adventure movie in black and white. The decision seems even more uninspired given the uneven quality of Richard Angst's cinematography, ranging from attractive expressionistic images (as the scene where Holmes saves his life using a police whistle) to flat compositions (as the Baker Street apartment). Maybe the budget was low, but they had several names in the cast that were not highly expensive, but neither cheap to hire. And thirdly there is not a well-defined concept of what they wanted to do: producers, composer, writer and director seem to point into different directions. The German producers probably assumed it as one of the many cheap detective movies they were making by the dozen, composer Martin Slavin opted for a playful score, writer Curt Siodmak kept loyal to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's three main creations (Holmes, his nemesis Moriarty and his mate Dr. Watson) and Fisher… well, he had to keep everything going. However it would be unfair to deny that there are a few hints that suggest the intention of making some kind of photo-novel or a black-ink-on-cheap-white-paper comic book, and that would explain why the filmmakers could not care less what language characters spoke, the anachronisms (the more obvious being ladies' hair styles), Slavin's jingling-jangling cues, extensive use of maquettes, and a few disheveled art direction and wardrobe decisions, starting with the key prop, a very ugly and cheap looking necklace that supposedly once adorned Queen Cleopatra's neck. I am also sure that Lee never wore an uglier costume in his entire long career than the horrendous checkered suit he wears in the countryside sequence. The actor does his best as Doyle's creation (obviously not imagining the estrangement that dubbing would produce, resulting in an involuntary Brechtian effect of rejection to his participation in the movie), so we tend to go for the villains, played with gusto by Hans Söhnker as Moriarty and Leon Askin as his chauffeur-assistant Charles. But what we see is what we get, so we better not complain. We are warned very early into the film that we are going to watch a rather sloppy product, when the same shot of a longshoreman working on dock is repeated twice within minutes. Compared to this, Fisher's next project starring Pat Boone is a masterpiece.

bensonmum2 On paper, Sherlock Holmes and the Deadly Necklace looks like a sure fired winner. Christopher Lee as Holmes, Thorley Walters (who I swear seemed to be channeling Nigel Bruce at times) as Watson, the capable Terence Fisher directing, and Curt Siodmak writing the screenplay, - what could go wrong? It might have been great had the people behind this German/Italian/French co-production not messed with the script and hired a German co-director. The end result is middling at best. Even though the movie may be enjoyable at times, it bears little resemblance to the real Sherlock Holmes. Lee has described it as a "mess". As he put it in an interview, "It was a hodge-podge of stories put together by the German producers which ruined it".In the movie, Holmes is once again hot on the trail of Moriarty. Holmes feels Moriarty is responsible for two recent murders related to a necklace believed to have once been the property of Cleopatra. Through disguise and trickery, Holmes will attempt to reclaim the necklace and put a stop to Moriarty's nefarious scheme.The best part of Sherlock Holmes and the Deadly Necklace is easily the cast. Lee and Walters are both as good as you might expect. However, I'm not sure what brainiac decided not to hire either man to dub their own voice, but it was a huge, distracting mistake. The supporting cast is populated by a few familiar faces including the lovely (but terribly underused) Senta Berger and Leon Askin (known to most people as General Burkhalter on "Hogan's Heroes"). But Hans Sohnker, unknown to me before watching Sherlock Holmes and the Deadly Necklace, as Moriarty is the real standout. He goes toe to toe with Lee and comes out looking quite good.If you're a fan of Sherlock Holmes, there may be some curiosity value to this movie. Or, if you're a Chirstopher Lee completist, it's worth checking out. Otherwise, skip it.

catuus The fact that a film is on DVD doesn't guarantee that its quality is very good. The fact that a film's quality is threadbare doesn't mean you shouldn't buy it. Although "The Deadly Necklace" is available separately, it's also available on a DVD with a second film. This review applies to both.The plots of these films are of little consequence. They are of interest only to people who collect Holmes films … anybody who merely wants a few of the better offerings would do well to purchase some of those made by Jeremy Brett … or, in a pinch, Basil Rathbone. There are a few other very good Holmes films featuring good actors on a one-shot basis – such as "Seven Per Cent Solution" or "Private Life of Sherlock Holmes". In any event, these films are considerably less estimable.Here we have a pair of films featuring some of the best actors to do Holmes, even if the results tend toward disappointing. This appears to be the only disc with these films on it (although "Deadly Necklace") appears by itself in the same version on other discs."(Sherlock Holmes and) the Deadly Necklace" dates from 1962, although it neither looks it nor sounds it. Some who have seen this may be surprised to learn that it was produce by Hammer Studios. Not that Hammer hasn't turned out some really schlock stuff, but where Christopher Lee was concerned, they usually did a better job. The print a direct transfer from a rather worn 1:1.33 copy in black-and white. The quality of the color suggests the original may have been in color, and the snipped ends of the film's aspect suggest it may originally have been 1:1.66 or more.The film is set in the early 20th Century – not improbable, since Holmes was still working then (and didn't actually die until 1957). However, the script is not adapted from any actual Doyle story. It involves an Egyptian necklace, and Professor Moriarty shows up as a world-famous archaeologist as well as the Prince of Crime. The plot is melodramatic and banal.The biggest defect of this film is that – for whatever unfathomable reason – Hammer filmed it in Germany. It was nonetheless filmed in English. It was then dubbed in German and then re-dubbed in English. So what you hear isn't Lee nor any of the other original actors, but a bunch of unknowns – not that, outside of Lee, I doubt anyone would know any of the other actors. This is too bad, since Lee (see his "Hound of the Baskervilles") makes a quite decent Holmes. As it is, his voice double is condescending and plain as bread pudding with no raisins nor cinnamon.The music for this film is primarily jazzy, in a possible attempt to be "period". Too bad nobody thought of ragtime. As it is, the music doesn't relate to what's happening on the screen, and often is at odds with the action.The other film is "(Sherlock Holmes and) the Speckled Band" from 1931, starring a young Raymond Massey. The quality of the picture and sound is fully up to that of the 1962 effort, and in fact a bit better. Massey makes a quite respectable Holmes, although he certainly doesn't own the rôle in the way Rathbone did and Brett does. The other thespians who take part in this production are unlikely to be of interest to modern readers. The acting – as is true of many films of this period – owes a lot to the post-Victorian stage and to silent films.There is very little else to be said of this film. The settings seem to be an odd combination of the 1890s (horse-drawn carriages) and the 1920s (electronic devices such as a primitive dictaphone). Taken altogether, it's an interesting curio and a sufficient inducement to buy the DVD with the pairing rather than a DVD with "Deadly Necklace" only.

classicsoncall An informant with a blade in his back leads Sherlock Holmes (Christopher Lee) and aide Doctor Watson (Thorley Walters) to the Hare and Eagle Pub, and on to the trail of the "Deadly Necklace", once belonging to Cleopatra, and now in the possession of Holmes' arch-enemy Professor Moriarty (Hans Sohnker). Along the way, Holmes is admonished by Inspector Cooper (Hans Nielsen) of Scotland Yard not to get involved in official business of the agency. I found this to be a rather tedious film, even with the neat diversions of Christopher Lee in various disguises in his portrayal of the Holmes character. He eventually rescues the Cleopatra necklace from a glass encased mummy's coffin guarded by a snake, and delivers it just in time to an auction house, much to the chagrin of Moriarty. There's a bit of the "Italian Job" flavor to the film in a sequence where Watson bumps into the car of Moriarty's chauffeur. It's a difficult film to follow, with a dead body or two along the way. Repeat viewings are probably in order, but I found the first take to be somewhat laborious, and not interesting enough to indulge in once again. View it if you're a serious Sherlock Holmes fan, otherwise you can let this one pass.