User Reviews

Creakiness and atmosphere this film has, but so unfortunately does the print I just viewed. Raymond Massey provides a laid back Sherlock Holmes, almost comically so in early scenes in his bathrobe, which he trades in for a laborer's garb to investigate the creepy mansion of Dr. Rylott (Lyn Harding). What wasn't clear to me was why Rylott would have wanted his stepdaughters dead. If as in the case of Helen (Angela Baddeley), he didn't want her to run off to get married, he would have accomplished the same thing by having her dispatched.

Other curiosities abound as well. After setting an early wedding date with Helen, the fiancée is no longer heard from for the rest of the picture. The presence of a band of gypsies at the time of Violet Stoner's death provides merely a diversion, and what could have been an interesting murder tool, a poisonous snake, is diluted by the fact that it was not a cobra, the musical renderings of the Indian man servant notwithstanding.

Athole Stewart competently portrays Holmes' aide Dr. Watson, though he takes some getting used to if Nigel Bruce is more your cup of tea. As Rylott, Lyn Harding is sufficiently menacing, a trait that would be put to good use as Holmes' nemesis Professor Moriarty in two later films - 1935's "The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes" and 1937's "Murder at the Baskervilles".

With repeated choppiness and an unsteady camera, it's surprising that the story line isn't more disrupted than it is. It's integrity is generally maintained, even if one stretches a bit to fill in the gaps. I guess that would be my main complaint with the film, as mentally bridging some of the jump cuts in the picture proved to be a real pain in the asp.

Dreadful movie, or just a dreadful print? You be the judge. Certainly the picture is close to unwatchable, the sound is even closer to unlistenable, the 50-minute surviving footage seems hacked with a buzzsaw, and I'm sure we would all like to see a full and remastered version some day, but you can still see that Raymond Massey is miscast as Sherlock Holmes, Athole Stewart is indifferent as Doctor Watson, and Angela Baddeley is shrill as the damsel-in-distress. I'll refrain from commenting on the direction under these circumstances, though at least some of those superimpositions are an ambitious technique for the time - if the only one evident. *1/2 out of 4.

Now this is unusual—the excellent character actor, Raymond Massey, as Sherlock Holmes. Unusual because in the 1930s, the British film industry made quite a few very good Holmes films starring Arthur Wontner—and at first I assumed this was yet another Wontner story. Athole Stewart (whoever he is—and I sure hope it's pronounced 'At-Hole') co-stars as Watson.

The first thing I noticed when the story began was how beautiful the black and white camera-work was. It had great depth and style—much more than a typical story of the day and very artistically done. The next thing I noticed was that Dr. Watson was bald—probably the only bald Watson ever in film. Now there is nothing wrong with this—it just took me by surprise. Third, and this one bothered me, this Holmes has a fancy modern office with a secretary!!! So, instead of his usual apartment at 221 Baker Street, this is more like a detective agency—complete with an intercom, typewriters and other office equipment. For a Holmes purist like myself, this is all complete heresy!! This final complaint is an odd one, as in other ways this is a very accurate and faithful rendition of one of Conan Doyle's stories. Aside from the modern trappings, the story itself is very close to the original and should make purists quite happy. The only odd thing about Massey's version of Holmes is that, for once, he is rather sarcastic and shows a somewhat dark sense of humor. Overall, not a great film but a reasonably good adaptation that should please fans of the stories.

SPOILER ALERT: The 'speckled band' used in the film was not actually a poisonous snake but a constrictor. But, considering how dangerous such a snake could be, I can understand the film makers making the switch! By the way, this film is in the public domain. However, the print I saw was quite choppy in places and the sound has seen better days, so be forewarned.

"THE SPECKLED BAND" (British & Dominions Film Corporation / UK / 1931)

Apparently the 3rd time this was filmed (after Georges Treville & Eille Norwood), this was the very 1st film with Raymond Massey! A real oddity, this was actually based on a 1910 stage play, and as a result, had several changes including several extra characters added, like Dr. Rylot's butler, his co-spirator house-keeper, and his Indian servant with the flute.

The strangest addition is Watson having had a computerized filing system installed in their HUGE Baker Street flat, with a trio of secretaries busy typing up details of crime cases for his files. Holmes himself has had a voice-recording machine added to this, and tells Watson "Every mistake you may have said has been recorded and will be held against you."

In this version of the classic story, Watson was a friend of Rylot's late wife, and a friend of his daughters, and gives testimony when the first of them is found dead. Holmes is intrigued by the case, but has to wait a full year until history gets around to repeating itself.

When he goes to the Stoke Moran mansion to investigate, he takes a job as one of the construction men needlessly ripping Helen's room apart. This is rather like how Basil Rathbone's Holmes was in disguise as a peddler in his version of "THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES", another case of his being in disguise that was NOT in the original story being adapted.

Holmes & Watson investigate Rylot's room before Helen's (a reverse of the short story), and when the intended crime is in progress, Holmes has Helen STAY in the room, on the bed, knowing that Rylot will only act if he SEES her there, via a hand-held mirror. This is the only version of the story I've seen where they SHOW Rylot and the snake BEFORE he inserts it into her bedroom.

Perhaps the most touching scene is the finale, where, after Watson invites Holmes to the wedding reception, Holmes aays, "Not in my line." "It comes to all of us!" After Watson leaves, Holmes says to himself... "Not all of us, Watson."

Someone online suggested this film looked and felt VERY much like the 1931 "FRANKENSTEIN" in style, and I agree. It's very slow, stodgy, primitive-seeming, and most of the acting is on a stage or silent film level. Except for Massey, who's relaxed, natural, energetic. Like Boris Karloff in Howard Hawks' "SCARFACE", he's by a wide margin the BEST actor in the film! And his career was only just getting started.

The sets are magnificent, and the main hall in Stoke Moran actually reminds me of the one in the 1958 "DRACULA"!

Now, the real tragedy here... is that over the years, this film has been CUT TO PIECES, at least 22 MINUTES is missing from it (including, it seems, MOST of the red-herring sub-plot about the gypsies), and the only available prints, the picture keep wobbling, jumping at almost constant cuts, and with terrible sound. OH, man, this makes the 1922 John Barrymore film look pristene by comparison. Most reviewers online express a strong wish that someone, somewhere might have a complete print of this, that would make it WORTH it for someone to perform a proper restoration on it. I know I'm one of them!

Knowing in advance of the terrible condition of the film, I went after a cheap (used) copy, seeing no sense in spending twice as much for "brand new". My copy arrived today, loose in the case, scratched all over the place... but, fortunately, it plays fine.

Now by comparison... whoever did this DVD, there's NO company listed anywhere. I suspect it was the "TCM Shop", since they were selling "manufactured on demand" NEW copies (but they said it was "not currently available" when I tried to order one direct from them). The packaging DAMN NEAR makes up for the wretched quality of the film print, as it's one of the NICEST-looking DVD boxes I've ever seen! This made me really glad I avoided getting it on a cheap "twofer" with the 1962 Chris Lee film, which apparently, was in nearly-as-bad shape on that disc. Especially since, only 2 MONTHS ago, that film has FINALLY been issued in WIDESCREEN. (Something to look forward to!)

This modernized version of "The Speckled Band" isn't nearly as bad as it might be. True, the print is lousy, full of loud hums and crackles, and the villain, Grimsby Roylott, brings too many theatrical effects to a movie, and the writers gave Holmes the wrong address on Baker Street. But Raymond Massey as Holmes is cool. After all, it could have been Arthur WONTNER.

Come to think of it, though, I said that Grimsby Roylott, the heavy, uses stage-bound techniques but that's not strictly the case. His performance is so over the top that, if the frame were other than it is, he could turn the entire production into a parody of "The Speckled Band." He's awesome in his malevolence. He resembles Edward Arnold, tall and hefty. He hardly ever blinks his eyes. He stares at the floor, hunched over, grimacing, cackling, as he contemplates his misdeeds. His port de bras is like Duke Mantee's and he wriggles his fingers in anticipation.

There's nothing amiss with the dialog though, and the writers have added one or two features (eg., a mirror allowing Roylott to look downward from one room onto the bed of another) that are entirely in the spirit of the original story. The film is by no means an insult to Conan-Doyle.

Some parts of the plot seem to have been chopped out of the print. For instance, in examining Dr. Roylott's room, Holmes examines the saucer of milk and makes some remarks about it, but it's never referred to again. It really needs a scene in which Holmes explains just how Roylott planned and executed the murder -- and why.

As it is, the final scene is a little melancholy. Watson has just come from a wedding and invites Holmes to the reception. Holmes says "Not in my line." Watson observes cheerfully that marriage "come to all of us" sooner or later and leaves. Holmes is left alone at his desk, and says thoughtfully, "Not all of us, my dear Watson. Not all of us." It's the kind of touch that separates Sherlock Holmes from other detectives of the period.

I haven't said much about the plot, reckoning that most people likely to look up this film are already familiar with the story. If they're not, there's no point in revealing too much of its snakish character.