Sherlock Holmes' Fatal Hour

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.

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.

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.

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.