Silver Blaze (1941)

Pretty Good

Fresh and Exciting

There is, somehow, an interesting story here, as well as some good acting. There are also some good scenes

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Wontner's last film in his series, Silver Blaze (1937) or Murder at the Baskervilles, I regard as his best. The ingenious script by Arthur Macrae (who also plays the young lead with considerable charisma), H. Fowler Mear and Wontner himself, not only adheres with reasonable fidelity to Conan Doyle's story, but also introduces a clever framing device which allows for a final demise of Professor Moriarty (who had clearly met his end in the previous entry; but there was no way a picturegoer's memory would stretch over two years, so why not?). And moreover, it was directed by Dickensian expert, Thomas Bentley. Dickens? Well, after all, there are significant caricatural or Dickensian qualities about Holmes, Watson, Moriarty and company, to say nothing of the way the heroine is so short-changed and has so little to do or say. Judy Gunn, in her final of twelve movies, plays so fleeting a role, she is way down the credits. But look at some of the other supporting characters here: D.J. Williams as Silas Brown has only the one scene – but what an impression he makes! Of course the support player everyone greets with delight is none other than Ronald Shiner. Although far away from his glory days as Britain's number one most popular star and biggest box office draw in the early 1950s, Shiner still shines even at this early stage (if you can call it early. He'd already made 16 films). Williams and Shiner are so Dickensian, it hurts! True, Bentley handles the action in a somewhat perfunctory fashion. He's no Yak Canutt certainly. But overall this Silver Blaze is a polished, pleasing production. And best of all, it enjoys the highest quality of the available Wontner DVDs, with a nice clear sound track and well-defined images.

SILVER BLAZE was quite inappropriately retitled "MURDER AT THE BASKERVILLES" when it was released in the US in 1941. though it has nothing much to do with this great Sherlock Holmes story--other than adding the Henry Baskerville character for no apparent reason. Instead, the film is roughly Conan Doyle's "The Silver Blaze"--but with many changes--most notably the addition of Moriarty and Col. Sebastian Moran. Oddly, these characters (especially Moriarty) were included in many Holmes films even though in the books he was only a minor character (the same could be said of Inspector Lestrade). In reality, Moriarty appeared in just a few stories and was ultimately killed in a fight with Holmes mid-way through the series. Unfortunately, the addition of Moriarty didn't do much to bring excitement to the film and this master criminal seemed inexplicably involved in a very petty case that seems beneath his genius.I really don't want to describe the plot--others have done so and IMDb has a summary. Instead, it's important to talk about the overall effort. The film was made by a "poverty row" studio (Astor Films) and sure bears the earmarks of such a cheap film. Many of the outdoor scenes are clearly sets--and not very good ones. The acting is okay, but combined with a rather dull script and music, it just seems to have no life. Now I am not necessarily blaming those who played Holmes and Watson. Holmes was much closer to the books than the flamboyant character played by Basil Rathbone and Ian Fleming managed to play a decent Watson--not a total idiot like he was in many films (though not in the books). While their performances were decent, they cannot hold a candle to the Granada Television series of the 1980s--the Jeremy Brett series was just perfect and the scripts stayed extremely close to the brilliant original stories.So overall, this is a very watchable but jumbled film plot-wise. The acting is okay--not great but not bad, however the whole thing lacks energy. Worth seeing if you are a Holmes fan, but otherwise you'll probably find the whole thing a bit dull.

Just caught this as a restored version on TCM. I thought the most interesting (or comment-worthy) aspect of this film was the use of camera by director Thomas Bentley. Some interesting shots (low angle of Moriarty as he enters his new lair), tracking/dolly shots that tie aspects of the scenes together (dolly along the Baskerville terrace when Holmes arrives) and quick pans which bring characters together in scenes. Although I don't consider myself an expert on this period of production, I generally find many lower-budget films of this era were fairly static visually. It definitely improved my enjoyment of the film as a Holmes fan.

Wontner is not my favourite Holmes; to me he seems a bit nondescript altogether. The storyline of this movie of course is well-known and follows, if not exactly but pretty closely the story of the same name in the canon. There is just a whiff of EMPTY HOUSE in it, with Col. Moran using the famous air gun on Holmes. What's a bit odd is the inclusion of Sir Henry Baskerville (presumably because the story is set in Dartmoor) and what's even weirder is Baskerville's adult daughter who has a minor role in the story (but where's Beryl I wonder? Or maybe she isn't the mother....). Then of course we have the omnipresent and stereotypical Professor Moriarty (who was given the first name 'Robert' **ROFL**!!!) but I think he doesn't come across very convincingly. All in all watchable but average.