Sherlock Holmes' Fatal Hour

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.

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

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.

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.

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.