The Sleeping Cardinal

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

This is probably the picture with the first portrayal of the famous sleuth that would have absolutely satisfied his 'creator', Arthur Conan Doyle. Arthur Wontner (who would play Holmes in four more movies) is exactly the eccentric, clever, cool and slightly sarcastic type that Doyle's 'Holmes' was in the novels - maybe even more exactly than Basil Rathbone, who would later become the most famous and 'characteristical' Holmes, playing the role no less than 15 times, because Wontner lacks Rathbone's haughtiness, which of course makes him more sympathetic to the audience... And the way he speaks in riddles, until the others actually think he's got some mental problem - although he's just giving them (and us) clues to the solution of the mystery - is also 'typically' Holmes; just like his favorite expression: "Elementary, my dear Watson, elementary!"

The VERY clever and twisted story is also treated in a masterful way and makes this movie, complete with the great acting of ALL involved and the moments of suspense and drama, but also of pure British humor, a REAL enjoyment for any fan of the crime genre or of classic movies in general; it's true that it doesn't have to show the scary special effects that the films with Rathbone had 10 years later - but it's a REAL treat for even the most demanding film fan to watch Holmes, obsessed with the idea that his arch-enemy, the criminal mastermind Moriarty, is behind all this, untangle the seemingly incoherent stories of card sharks and diplomats, real and forged money, boot makers and park trees; and maybe even be able to follow the master sleuth's thoughts and deductions!

One of the VERY best adaptations ever of a Sherlock Holmes adventure, this movie can easily compete with most of the - today much more famous - films starring Rathbone.

Sherlock Holmes' Fatal Hour (1931)

** (out of 4)

British film was originally released under the title of THE SLEEPING CARDINAL but was renamed in the U.S. to put Holmes in the title. The film has a man shot dead in a bank yet no money was stolen and there appears to be no witnesses, no suspects and no real clues as to what happened. Holmes (Arthur Wontner) and Dr. Watson (Ian Fleming) are soon on the case and it might be Moriarty who has something to do with the killing. Based on the stories "The Empty House" and "The Final Problem", this Holmes effort was considered lost for many decades until a print finally turned up in the U.S. (with the American title) but the end results are pretty disappointing. I think the biggest sin any movie can make is being boring and sadly that's the case here because I really lost interest in the movie around the thirty-minute mark and hard to struggle to make it through to the end. There are some good things here but more on those later. I think the biggest problem is the screenplay that simply has way too much endless dialogue that just keeps going and going and going. It seems each scene could have been wrapped up with a few lines but instead everyone kept talking and sometimes the same things were being said over and over to the point where I really lost interest in what was going on. It also doesn't help that the majority of the actors are speaking very slowly and drawn out. Wontner would play Holmes in five different movies and I must admit that I enjoyed his performance. He gives a "thinking" performance as he takes his time to react to anything said to him and you can see the "thinking" going on with the character. Some might think this goes back to my complaint of things going too slowly but even thinking, Holmes moves faster than anyone else here. I also enjoyed (no not that) Fleming in the role of Watson as he plays it very serious without any humor. The rest of the performances weren't all that interesting to me. In the end, it's always a good thing when a lost film is discovered but as often is the case, the movie in question really doesn't turn out to be anything special.

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.