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 'A Study in Scarlet', especially one with such an appetising and great title. Also with interest as to how Reginald Owen, a bizarre casting choice on paper (but some initially weird casting choices have been known to come off surprisingly better than expected so that wasn't a concern), would fare as Holmes.
'A Study in Scarlet' is a very loose film adaptation, the names and title being the only resemblances. It is 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 very worst, although one of the lesser ones overall, being a little better than any of the Matt Frewer films (particularly 'The Sign of Four') and much better than the abominable Peter Cook 'The Hound of the Baskervilles'.
There are good things with 'A Study in Scarlet'. Anna May Wong really spices things up in a sensual performance, shame she didn't have more screen time. Alan Mowbray is a quick-witted and not too idiotic, if not quite electric, Lestrade and Alan Dinehart intrigues as Merrydew.
Nice shots here and there and the ending is a satisfying surprise if not ingenious. The set-up and frame-work is neat.
However, anybody who raised eyebrows at Owen's casting before watching are not going to find themselves converted seeing him in the role. It's not because he's wrong physically, he is also far too stiff and tends to overplay the role. Warburton Gamble is an insipid and forgettable Watson, having the opposite problem of being too much of a buffoon like Nigel Bruce but displaying little personality. The lacklustre at best chemistry between the two and the wanting performances of both actors makes this iconic partnering fall flat. June Clyde is both melodramatic and disengaged with some ridiculously delayed reactions.
Visually, 'A Study in Scarlet' is pretty lacking too, time and budget limitations seem to be evident here. There is nothing evocative or handsome about the production values, the sets being very drab and most of the way it's shot and edited is very primitive.
Moreover, too much of the script lacks flow and intrigue, just as insipid as Gamble's Watson and with comic relief that is overplayed and pointless. The direction is never more than pedestrian. Other than Owen and Gamble, the biggest faults are the story and pace. The pace tends to be dull, hurt by some very tedious padding that is not always necessary. The story lacks tension and suspense as well as not always easy to follow.
Overall, underwhelming. 4/10 Bethany Cox
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 'A Study in Scarlet', especially one with such an appetising and great title. Also with interest as to how Reginald Owen, a bizarre casting choice on paper (but some initially weird casting choices have been known to come off surprisingly better than expected so that wasn't a concern), would fare as Holmes.
'A Study in Scarlet' is a very loose film adaptation, the names and title being the only resemblances. It is 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 very worst, although one of the lesser ones overall, being a little better than any of the Matt Frewer films (particularly 'The Sign of Four') and much better than the abominable Peter Cook 'The Hound of the Baskervilles'.
There are good things with 'A Study in Scarlet'. Anna May Wong really spices things up in a sensual performance, shame she didn't have more screen time. Alan Mowbray is a quick-witted and not too idiotic, if not quite electric, Lestrade and Alan Dinehart intrigues as Merrydew.
Nice shots here and there and the ending is a satisfying surprise if not ingenious. The set-up and frame-work is neat.
However, anybody who raised eyebrows at Owen's casting before watching are not going to find themselves converted seeing him in the role. It's not because he's wrong physically, he is also far too stiff and tends to overplay the role. Warburton Gamble is an insipid and forgettable Watson, having the opposite problem of being too much of a buffoon like Nigel Bruce but displaying little personality. The lacklustre at best chemistry between the two and the wanting performances of both actors makes this iconic partnering fall flat. June Clyde is both melodramatic and disengaged with some ridiculously delayed reactions.
Visually, 'A Study in Scarlet' is pretty lacking too, time and budget limitations seem to be evident here. There is nothing evocative or handsome about the production values, the sets being very drab and most of the way it's shot and edited is very primitive.
Moreover, too much of the script lacks flow and intrigue, just as insipid as Gamble's Watson and with comic relief that is overplayed and pointless. The direction is never more than pedestrian. Other than Owen and Gamble, the biggest faults are the story and pace. The pace tends to be dull, hurt by some very tedious padding that is not always necessary. The story lacks tension and suspense as well as not always easy to follow.
Overall, underwhelming. 4/10 Bethany Cox