The Sleeping Cardinal

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.

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.

SHERLOCK HOLMES' FATAL HOUR (1931) shows its age as a creaky early talkie, and the mystery isn't particularly thrilling. But Arthur Wontner is fantastic in the role of Sherlock Holmes and it's a real treat to see him play the sleuth here (for the first of several times).

Holmes is up against his arch-rival, the elusive Prof. Moriarty, the brain behind a vast criminal organization. It's true that there's very little action in this film, but listening to Wontner (as Holmes) explain his deductions and seeing him face off against his nemesis is fun stuff. The subplot about the card cheat gets tedious and it's a little annoying how Watson and Lestrade can never keep up with even the simplest jumps in Holmes's logic ("No one could've shot into this window from street level. And why are you blabbering about trees?"), but it's an enjoyable flick for fans of Arthur Conan Doyle's detective.

Am a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes and get a lot of enjoyment out of Arthur Conan Doyle's stories. Also love Basil Rathbone's and especially Jeremy Brett's interpretations to death. So would naturally see any Sherlock Holmes adaptation that comes my way, regardless of its reception.

Furthermore, interest in seeing early films based on Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories and wanting to see as many adaptations of any Sherlock Holmes stories as possible sparked my interest in seeing 'The Sleeping Cardinal', part of (and the first?) of the series of film with Arthur Wontner. Would also see anything that has Holmes encountering his arch-nemesis Professor Moriaty.

'The Sleeping Cardinal' turned out to be very much worthwhile. Not one of the best Sherlock Holmes adaptations certainly, the best of the Jeremy Brett adaptations and films of Basil Rathone fit under this category. It's also not among the worst, being much better than any of the Matt Frewer films (particularly 'The Sign of Four') and the abominable Peter Cook 'The Hound of the Baskervilles'.

It's not perfect. The sound quality is less great, while some of the pace could have been tighter and some of the dialogue unnecessarily rambles a bit.

However, there are some starkly beautiful images on display and the period detail is handsome and evocative. The writing generally is thought-provoking, Holmes' deductions and crime solving are a huge part of the fun, the mystery and suspense is generally intact (the chemistry between Holmes and Moriaty thankfully do not underwhelm) and the story is intriguing and not hard to follow.

Arthur Wontner may technically have been too old for Holmes but he did not look too old and his portrayal is on the money, handling the personality and mannerisms of the character spot on without over-doing or under-playing. Ian Fleming is a charming, loyal, intelligent and amusing Watson, with nice chemistry between him and Wontner, really liked his failed attempts at deduction. Lestrade is not too much of an idiot thankfully. The support is solid, though only Norman McKinnell's creepy Moriaty and refreshingly sassy Minnie Raynor are truly memorable.

Overall, worthwhile. 7/10 Bethany Cox

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.