The Sleeping Cardinal

It's nice that this film exists, but as it stands it's a major disappointment. Director Leslie Hiscott and cinematographers Sydney Blythe and William Luff get some nice proto-noir compositions into the first and last reels, but in between it's a very claustrophobic movie that seems to take place entirely indoors, either in the home of Ronald Adair or in Sherlock Holmes' and Dr. Watson's digs at 221B Baker Street. We know the film is set in 1930 instead of the 1890's because Holmes deduces that Watson is having trouble with his car, but we never see any cars — or much action of any kind. It's just eight reels of dull, ill-paced talk (where was Alfred Hitchcock when they needed him? Actually working at a bigger, more prestigious British studio than Twickenham!), sloppily recorded by Baynham Honri, who for some reason gets an on-screen credit in type as big as the director's. And though I usually respect the critical judgments of the late William K. Everson — who said Arthur Wontner was one of the two best actors ever to play Holmes — he's never convinced me in the role. He's perfectly adequate in the scenes showing Holmes as a cerebral "armchair detective" but utterly wrong for the neurotic man of action Sir Arthur Conan Doyle also intended Holmes to be. But then to me (to paraphrase the opening of the Conan Doyle Holmes story "A Scandal in Bohemia") Basil Rathbone (who looked uncannily like the Sidney Paget illustrations for the original Holmes stories and did both the cerebral and the active sides of the character consummately well) will always be THE Sherlock Holmes.

That may not be what the producer and director of "Sherlock Holmes Fatal Hour" had in mind, but that's what this picture is in essence. I tried to make allowances for a 1931 movie, as I imagine fluid, mobile camera-work came shortly thereafter, and one can excuse the lack of camera movement or location shots.

That said, I did not feel as confined as some other reviewers, or as bored, either. That is because I thoroughly enjoyed the performance of Arthur Wontner as Holmes. I must confess I, too, kept comparing his with Basil Rathbone's, who I always thought owned the role. Having seen Wontner as Holmes I now have doubts who I prefer, as Wontner brings an extra measure of dignity and mental acuity to the role.

The plot is pretty straightforward, about a civil servant/card cheat blackmailed by Prof. Moriarty into a dishonest venture. No twists, no surprises, just actors doing their job in an interesting story. I did think Ian Fleming as Watson overacted and seemed ill at ease in his role. Very worth a look, if only to compare Wontner to Basil Rathbone - and you may be in for a surprise on that score.

Although Arthur Wontner and Ian Fleming make a fine pair of leads as Sherlock Holmes and Dr. John Watson in The Cardinal Speaks the film itself is kind of slow going in comparison to the classic Basil Rathbone-Nigel Bruce series from the USA. In addition a lot of this film seems to have been lost including a pair of attempts on the life of Holmes that are mentioned in passing.

The Adairs, brother and sister heiresses are in a bit of a jackpot. The inheritance is gone and the brother has resorted to some card cheating to keep up the cash flow as his job in the foreign office is not enough income. His sister comes to Dr. Watson an old friend of their father and with that comes Sherlock Holmes.

It turns out the young heir is being drawn into a counterfeiting scheme involving Bank of England notes, a scheme from the fertile brain of the arch enemy of Sherlock Holmes, Professor Moriarty. He gets his instructions from a painting of Cardinal Richelieu in a museum which talks to him, hence the original title.

The Cardinal Speaks moves along quite sluggishly and I think there's too much out of the original film to make it quite coherent. You have to fill too many spots.

As one who liked the Basil Rathbone Holmes films for the most part I was used to kindly, motherly Mary Gordon as housekeeper Mrs. Hudson. Seeing cockney Minnie Rayner was certainly different and maybe more of what Arthur Conan Doyle had in mind.

Holmes fans will like this, but a bit slow for the rest of us. This was the first time Arthur Wontner played Holmes and his other three films were better.

Creaky and confined early talkie from the UK that is the first of five in this Sherlock Holmes series.

A few of the impressionistic scenes are impressive and lend what little atmosphere is available in the technological and limited restraints of the period. There are some interesting and odd little flourishes and we have some pre-code dialog like "oh my God" and "go to Hell" that would become no-no's in the years ahead.

While the dated delivery is the damper in this otherwise OK presentation and it looks theatrical, but is somewhat enhanced by the creepy characters and some dark and mysterious images. Holmes, Watson, Moriarty, La Strade, and Mrs. Hudson are all respectful renditions. The "game" afoot is complex and Sherlock's deductions are sound.

This long lost film is a welcome find for aficionados and an example of sound movies finding their way, and an artifact worth a view for its time and place. The biggest fault is not its confinement but its soggy and slow delivery of almost all of the dialog where it feels like they were not sure that the on set concealed microphone would catch every word.

This archaic attempt to bring Sherlock Holmes to the cinema screen is painfully slow-moving and will be hard-going for all but the most dedicated early-talkie buffs, but Arthur Wontner and Ian Fleming (no relation) are agreeable as Holmes and Watson, respectively. The best scene of the film involves a talking painting! ** out of 4.