I've read some of the reviews regarding this film and there seems to be a grave misunderstanding regarding this film.
Many list it as the third in the "series" of Sherlock Holmes films starring Basil Rathbone, but that's quite inaccurate.
This film was not the 3rd in a series, following "The Hound of the Baskervilles" and "The Adventure of Sherlock Holmes.
"The Hound of the Baskervilles" and "The Adventure of Sherlock Holmes were a series aborted by 20th Century Fox because of the start of WWII.
With the start of WWII, 20th Century Fox decided these films, set in Victorian times, were far too elaborate and expensive to continue during war times. Thus, the entire series was dropped.
After this, Rathbone and Bruce continued doing Sherlock Holmes on the BBC as a series of radio productions. (this included Mary Gordon who always played Mrs. Hudson) With the success of the BBC radio serial, Universal pictures in 1942, picked up Rathbone and Bruce to play Holmes and Watson. However, because it was still during WWII, Universal decided to set their Holmes in what was modern times. Universal did this for extremely practical reasons which had nothing to do with artistic "interpretation." This was done as a cost cutting feature as the same sets and supporting actors (as any keen eye would notice) were then used in other films and vice versa. (The other films usually featuring Bela Lugosi, Lon Chaney, Jr. or Boris Karloff) Such a cost cutting feature would not have been possible had Universal set the films in Victorian, London.
Thus, "The Voice of Terror," although the third time for the team of Rathbone and Bruce, was the first film in the Sherlock Holmes series, for Universal pictures.
It is a grave misunderstanding to confuse the two series (the first by 20th Century Fox and the second by Universal). The first were made in the 30s in pre-war Hollywood with much larger budgets. The second were made during the war with the rationing and most understandable budget problems that accompanied such pictures of the day.
Which brings us to the subject of the Voice of Terror. It happens to be my favorite of the Universal Sherlock Holmes movies, despite it's short comings. Rathbone is still at the top of his game and doesn't have the "bored to death with Holmes" appearance he had by the time of his last Holmes film, "Dressed to Kill." Despite reusing the train crash from "The Invisible Man" the film has the tension and mystery intended to give audiences who still saw the Nazis as a real nightmare, instead of the pantomime joke they have become today.
Full of British patriotism and the stalwart attitude the British still display when their home is attacked as the recent London attacks prove. Thus, the "Voice of Terror" is not really as much archaic hokum as the modern, casual viewer might assume. Instead, the same attitudes in display today, remind us that the more times change, even with "Voice of Terror," the more they remain the same.
Thus, enjoy "The Voice of Terror" even though it is only VERY LOOSELY based on the Conan Doyle great detective. The film is still a lot of fun, and people forever when thinking of Holmes and Watson cannot fail to evoke the mental memory of Rathbone and Bruce.
Worth the Watch.
