Robert J. Maxwell This modernized version of "The Speckled Band" isn't nearly as bad as it might be. True, the print is lousy, full of loud hums and crackles, and the villain, Grimsby Roylott, brings too many theatrical effects to a movie, and the writers gave Holmes the wrong address on Baker Street. But Raymond Massey as Holmes is cool. After all, it could have been Arthur WONTNER.Come to think of it, though, I said that Grimsby Roylott, the heavy, uses stage-bound techniques but that's not strictly the case. His performance is so over the top that, if the frame were other than it is, he could turn the entire production into a parody of "The Speckled Band." He's awesome in his malevolence. He resembles Edward Arnold, tall and hefty. He hardly ever blinks his eyes. He stares at the floor, hunched over, grimacing, cackling, as he contemplates his misdeeds. His port de bras is like Duke Mantee's and he wriggles his fingers in anticipation.There's nothing amiss with the dialog though, and the writers have added one or two features (eg., a mirror allowing Roylott to look downward from one room onto the bed of another) that are entirely in the spirit of the original story. The film is by no means an insult to Conan-Doyle.Some parts of the plot seem to have been chopped out of the print. For instance, in examining Dr. Roylott's room, Holmes examines the saucer of milk and makes some remarks about it, but it's never referred to again. It really needs a scene in which Holmes explains just how Roylott planned and executed the murder -- and why.As it is, the final scene is a little melancholy. Watson has just come from a wedding and invites Holmes to the reception. Holmes says "Not in my line." Watson observes cheerfully that marriage "come to all of us" sooner or later and leaves. Holmes is left alone at his desk, and says thoughtfully, "Not all of us, my dear Watson. Not all of us." It's the kind of touch that separates Sherlock Holmes from other detectives of the period.I haven't said much about the plot, reckoning that most people likely to look up this film are already familiar with the story. If they're not, there's no point in revealing too much of its snakish character.

jhboswell It is clear to see why Sherlock Holmes has been popular in film, with the care and quality given to this early film as an example. When this was produced, all the stories had been written, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was dead. Audiences of the day had perhaps seen a few screen versions--most likely the awful John Barrymore vehicle--but Holmes was already known all over the English-speaking world. So here, before the B movies of the '40's, we have a really fine production that is beautifully true to Sir Arthur's creation. Raymond Massey, a young Canadian actor in his first film outing, interprets the part solidly, and imaginatively. The pace is a little slow for modern tastes, but perhaps that is respect. An admirable effort.

canscene I saw this film in 1931at a time when most British movies creakedalong. As I recall, this was a cut above most of its contemporaries,with convincing performances b y Massey, Baddeley and Harding.Most impressive was the opening: camera ranged through thedark halls and passages of an old English manor in a sustaineddolly shot to the eerie sound of some kind of Indian windinstrument. The sequence ended with a jump cut to the face of ayoung woman, screaming in her death throes. Most alarming andimpressive. For me it ranks with one of he best shock openingsI've ever seen. Today, they'd probably play such a scene before themain title.An interesting footnote: In later life, Angela Baddeley, the heroine,was to play Mrs. Hudson, the cook, in the unforgettable Britishseries, Upstairs, Downstairs.

trevillian You find yourself comparing them to Basil and Nigel, but it is worth a watch, if you can find it. Wish he had done some more. I think with a few more episodes he might have caught on. It is a worthy addition to the assorted folks who have portrayed mr. Sherlock.