A Study in Scarlet (1933) User Reviews

"...of abominable memory."

[theowinthrop · 6/10 · 1 October 2006]

Sherlock Holmes became such a quick fixture in motion pictures that it is possible to write studies on the various movies and actors centered on that character.

This particular film was an early Hollywood take on Holmes in the sound period. It is interesting to note that it came out only three years after Sir Arthur Conan Doyle died in 1930. By the time this had come out Hollywood had done silent and sound films about Holmes with William Gillette, John Barrymore, and (more recently) Clive Brooks. But the three best Holmes' of the sound period were still to come along: Arthur Wontner in Great Britain, Basil Rathbone in Hollywood, and Jeremy Brett (on television). Holmes in this version was Reginald Owen, best remembered for his "Ebenezer Scrooge" in the 1938 version of "A Christmas Carol". Owen was a very good character actor (villainous in films like "The Call Of The Wild", but funny as anything in "The Good Fairy"). He had played Watson already, so he was one of the few actors to essay both friends parts. But he seemed too laid back to be a good Holmes.

"A Study In Scarlet" appeared in December 1887 in "Beeton's Christmas Annual", a long forgotten magazine in Great Britain, which is only now recalled because of Conan Doyle's novella. If you are lucky enough to stumble onto the Beeton's of that month and year (and it is the original) than hold onto it - it's worth many thousands of dollars.

It's in two parts. The first half is "The Lauriston Gardens Mystery", wherein Dr. John H. Watson (our narrator) introduces us to his friend and roommate Sherlock Holmes, and then to the adventure (set in April 1881) where he first became aware that Holmes was a consulting detective, and was consulted by Scotland Yard's Detectives Tobias Gregson and "G." (no further name ever given) Lestrade (not "Lastrade" as the movie's cast of characters named him). Lestrade would be the best known of the detectives in the saga who would consult Holmes (and would be most memorably played by Dennis Hoey in the Rathbone films). Here he's played by Alan Mowbray - not badly but with little electricity.

The plot of the first portion of the novella is about the murder of two men, one by poison and one by a knife wound in the heart. Holmes traces the story back to the old west, where in the second half (entitled "The Country of the Saints") it is linked to the Mormons in Utah.

Most (if not all) was jettisoned, into a story about murder for insurance, centering around Anna May Wong and Alan Dinehart. Dinehart's character Thaddeus Merrydew, is based on a single line of writing in the four novels and fifty six short stories that were written by Conan Doyle. In "The Adventure of the Empty House", when reading a list of people with "M" in their name (he is searching for the biography of Colonel Sebastian Moran), he finds a reference to "Merrydew of abominable memory." That's it! No "Thaddeus Merrydew", just "Merrydew". Somebody concocting the script remembered that one reference. I may add, this was also the last time in movies there was any villain named Merrydew against Mr. Sherlock Holmes.

As an early talkie film about Holmes, it is worth seeing - but it is not among the best Holmes movies.

Nicely Atmospheric

[Hitchcoc · 6/10 · 16 October 2006]

I had never seen Reginald Owen in anything but a somewhat weak Christmas Carol. He plays a larger, more imposing Sherlock Holmes. Holmes' appearance is usually rather striking, so actors play on his idiosyncrasies. In this movie, he sort of blends in. The story has nothing to do with the story. It will probably never be produced as written because of it's religious issues. This is an attempt to apprehend the big cheese in a series of murders involving the "Scarlet Circle." Men are dying according to the same poem used in Christie's Ten Little Indians (And Then There Were None). Holmes is aware of what is going on, but can't really strike quickly. This results in deaths not being prevented. While there is a seriousness to this film, there is a lot of humor as well. The characters are rich and interesting and the acting is pretty good. See it for another angle on the Holmes canon.

Did Agatha Christie see this movie first?

[tom-2678 · 7/10 · 20 October 2007]

An interesting movie and a worthy part of the Sherlock Holmes tradition. The most interesting part for was the use of the count down notes as the members of the organization died. It even included a red herring note. If the viewer is paying attention, it is a clue to the actual murderer.

Agatha Christie, the well known English mystery writer who also has had many books made into movies, used a similar motif in her book, Ten Little Indians. The most fascinating part, though, is that this movie was made in 1933 and Ten Little Indians was published in 1939.

Christie may have borrowed from this movie for her plot.

Good for Its Era & Genre (Has No Real Similarity With the Story of the Same Name)

[Snow Leopard · 11 April 2005]

This early sound-era portrayal of Sherlock Holmes is good for its era and genre, with solid acting and an interesting story that is set in a believably mysterious atmosphere. An important note is that the story has no real similarity with the Arthur Conan Doyle story titled "A Study in Scarlet", but rather draws its characters and material from several different stories, plus at least one Agatha Christie novel. As long as you don't expect to see the original story, there is certainly enough to make this a feature worth seeing.

Reginald Owen is solid as Holmes, although he does not leave his mark on the role in the way that Basil Rathbone and Jeremy Brett did. Owen does have the unique distinction of having played both Holmes and Dr. Watson (having played the latter in "Sherlock Holmes" the year before "A Study in Scarlet").

The rest of the cast likewise play their characters in a straightforward fashion, allowing the story and atmosphere to get the main focus. The one who does stand out is Anna May Wong, who adds beauty and a mysterious presence, although unfortunately she does not get a lot of screen time.

The story itself has numerous turns, and keeps you guessing. The atmosphere might not always be Holmes-like, but it is quite suitable for the story, and it is aided by good use of the lighting and photography. Overall, if you can set aside the misleading (for Holmes fans) title, it is an entertaining mystery with some good touches.

A decent Holmes

[xredgarnetx · 6/10 · 30 December 2006]

As long as one understands this version of A STUDY IN SCARLET bears no resemblance to its source material, one can enjoy the performance of Reginald Owen -- best known for playing Scrooge -- as the inimitable Sherlock Holmes. The story as such involves a secret group of individuals who are being knocked off one at a time. A fortune is at stake! Holmes is called in and more or less immediately identifies the killer(s), but the movie stretches events out to feature length, and a bad movie it is not. Owen makes an acceptable Holmes, even though the story has been moved forward to the time in which the movie was made. Warburton Gamble's Dr. Watson leaves something to be desired, but most movie Watsons can be found lacking. Only Ian Fleming in 1935's TRIUMPH OF SHERLOCK HOLMES and the Dr. Watsons of the Jeremy Brett TV series come even close to the Watson of the Conan Doyle stories. Worth a look as a novelty.

worth a look for Anna May Wong

[kidboots · 6/10 · 14 September 2008]

There were a few Sherlock Holmes - Reginald Owen wasn't the best one. "A Study in Scarlet" boasts an impressive cast - even down to Hobart Cavanaugh in an uncredited bit as Innkeeper Thompson. The plot does seem to have more in common with Agatha Christie's book "And Then There Were None" but that wasn't published until 1939. Even though it was filmed at the California Tiffany studios it certainly had an authentic English feel to it. The amazing thing is how the cast (most of them American actors) came up with very creditable English accents. You didn't even get that in A productions let alone the cheaper films.

Reginald Owen had played Dr. Watson to Clive Brooks' Sherlock Holmes in the 1932 film of that name but in this film he played Sherlock Holmes.

A body is discovered in a railway carriage pulling into Victoria Station. A code containing the words scarlet and Limehouse is printed in the paper. He is the second member of a secret society (of which Alan Dinehart is the head) to die. They divide up the money but decide not to give any to the victim's widow, Mrs Murphy (Doris Lloyd). She then goes to Sherlock Holmes with a rhyme she found among her husband's things. After the meeting another member is shot through the heart. Sherlock Holmes talks to the widow Mrs. Pike. Played by Anna May Wong with a very creditable English accent. Even though she is given top billing she is not given much to do - she does look very exotic though. The members are killed off one by one - each one receiving a little poem before hand. It is clear that Thaddeus Merrydew is the master mind behind all the murders but the actual murderer was a surprise.

June Clyde plays the heroine Eileen Forrester. She made a little splash in early musicals ie "The Cuckoos" (1930), "Hit the Deck" (1930) then in 1932 she was named a Wampus Baby Star. That kept her career going until the end of the 30s. Allan Dinehart, that oily villain of so many 30s movies plays Thaddeus Merrydew. Billy Bevan, an old silent comic, has a part as a helpful patron at the inn.

Recommended.

Don't study it too hard

[hte-trasme · 5/10 · 5 November 2009]

"A Study in Scarlet" was produced by the low-budget E. W. Hammons at the low-budget Tiffany Studios starring a former Watson (possibly cast because of his association with Holmes films), Reginald Owen, as Sherlock Holmes. The presence of Holmes and Watson is the only connection to the Arthur Conan Doyle story of the same name, and that, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. I have no problem with a Sherlock Holmes film straying from slavish fidelity to the creator of the character. However, this one seems to deviate from the original not as a result of the filmmakers' creativity being exercised in order to make something new, but often in ways that make Holmes into someone that resembles a generic detective protagonist more than the most recognizable of them all.

It's a little odd to see a supposed Sherlock Holmes dart around wearing clothes clearly dated to the 1930s (the only appearance of the famous deerstalker is in cartoon form in the opening titles), but since the story doesn't depend on anything terribly time-period appropriate, the transposition to the contemporary setting doesn't have too much of an effect. A curiosity here is that we are repeated told that Sherlock Holmes lives at 221A Baker Street, not the traditional 221B, even though he still seems to be living upstairs. Whether that's a simple error on somebody's part or a nod to the liberties being taken with the original stories there is no way to tell.

Owen, unfortunately, is rather stiff and unremarkable in is portrayal of Sherlock Holmes. Many point out that he doesn't look the part (and, traditionally, he doesn't) but that hasn't been a problem for countless other actors. If he had managed to make the role his own through his performance it wouldn't have been for him either. He has little presence and seems to think that if he bellows each line with enough conviction and self-satisfaction he'll sound as if he knows what he's talking about.

Sadly the rest of the actors are rather wooden and unimpressive as well, including Anna May Wong. Warburton Gamble makes no impression as Watson, and some of the murder victims are laughably unconvincing in their hesitant screams for help at their dying moments. Everything is taken deadly seriously except for some overplayed comic relief involving characters at a pub, which only semi works.

There is a good mystery story at the heart of this film about a circle of criminals whose members are being murdered one-by-one, but the execution (including the direction which, the exception of one clever shot inside Merrydew's office near the end, mainly doesn't go beyond static two- an three-shots) is too lackluster to serve it well. The scriptwriter deserves credit for a good concept and for a good method of developing the story through showing us going on in all quarters without completely explaining its significance, but nobody else seems to have been trying very hard.

It's still entertaining most of the time, and fun for viewers who will eat up anything Holmesian, but it's far from the best executed film version of the detective's adventures.

Not Too Bad Of A Sherlock Holmes Film

[Rainey-Dawn · 7/10 · 13 July 2016]

I have admit I am with others on Reginald Owen's Sherlock Holmes... his acting is fine but he does not "fit" Holmes at all. He does not look or act like the Sherlock Holmes we have all come to know. It's not a horrible portrayal of Sherlock but it's not all that great either. This is simply not Reginald's style of character - he cannot capture Sherlock's personality.

The story of A Study in Scarlet is a good one! I realize it's not like the book but viewing the film as simply Hollywood entertainment then it's a pretty good story. I like this movie just not as well as other Sherlock Holmes films and it's mainly because of Reginald Owen is Sherlock - that might be shallow but it's just my personal taste in Sherlock Holmes.

7/10

"My interest is to bring the criminal to justice."

[classicsoncall · 5/10 · 26 October 2004]

A secret London society agrees to disperse the assets of it's deceased members to the remainder of the group. It doesn't take long for the victims to start dropping off one by one. Enter Sherlock Holmes (Reginald Owen), brought into the case by the wife of victim number two, upset that there isn't even the hint of an inheritance coming her way. Adding to the mystery, the group communicates via cryptic ads placed in a London newspaper.

"A Study in Scarlet" is a credible mystery that gives the viewer a few false leads, but is ultimately solved by Holmes in uncanny style. The title of the film originates from the name of the clandestine group - the Scarlet Ring. There is a familiarity to the plot as each of the victims receives a poetic message referencing the number of members still left alive, as in the Agatha Christie based "And Then There Were None", even though that film came a dozen years later in 1945.

I must say, after viewing Basil Rathbone in the title role as the Sherlock Holmes archetype, it takes a bit of getting used to Reginald Owen depicting the sleuth; he's got a little too much padding. Conversely, Warburton Gamble's Dr. Watson doesn't seem to have enough, a la Nigel Bruce's portrayal. That aside, "A Study in Scarlet" is worth the effort, particularly for it's dark and moody atmosphere, and Sherlock Holmes' deft use of the English language.

"SIX DEAD MEN"

[profh-1 · 6/10 · 16 November 2021]

KBS Productions paid for the title, but not the plot, of Doyle's 1st Holmes story. Instead, and I might never have known this if not for some helpful contributor to the IMDB, they adapted-- unofficially (and presumably, UNPAID!), Belgian author Stanislas-André Steeman's 1931 detective novel "Six Hommes Morts". I've looked around, and I haven't yet found any evidence that this novel, published in French, has ever been translated into English. However, I've just learned it has been adapted to film at least 4 times, with this being the 1st version. The others were "THE RIVERSIDE MURDERS" (UK / 1935), "LE DERNIER DES SIX" (France / 1941) and "L'inspecteur Wens: SIX HOMMES MORTS" (an episode of the 1975 French anthology TV series, "Les grands détectives")! Now I'm interested in tracking those down for comparison.

Physically, Reginald Owen reminds me a bit of a young Ray Milland (or, a bit, of stage actor William Gillette). He may not look like the traditional idea of Holmes, but thanks to the script, he certainly SEEMD like him, making all sorts of amazing observations that escape the notice of Inspector Lestrade and Dr. Watson (who's mainly here as the audience-identification character, for Holmes to explain the plot to). Owen fares better as Holmes than he did as Watson in Fox's "SHERLOCK HOLMES" only 6 months earlier, while Alan Morbray, who was Scotland Yard inspector Colonel Gore-King in that, returns here as Lestrade.

I've seen this movie at least 4 times now, and have enjoyed it more with each viewing. Part of it is the slowly-developing plot, part is seeing some of the wonderful character actors of the period who I've come to recognize from other films turning up. Among them are Anna May Wong (who once played Fu Manchu's daughter), Halliwell Hobbes (who was in several Rathbone HOLMES films), Olaf Hytten (ditto; he also played "Sheerluck Jones" in the insane comedy short "Lost In Limehouse", which came out only a month before this), and Billy Bevan (a policeman in "Dracula's Daughter", he serves a comic-relief role as a tavern customer, similar to Herbert Mundin in the earlier Clive Brook film).

Given the similarities to "The Five Orange Pips" by Doyle, "Six Dead Men" by Steeman, or "Ten Little Indians" by Agatha Christie, I have to wonder WHICH story Christie might have been borrowing from when she wrote HER novel several years after this!

I only wish someone could locate a complete print of this and do a proper restoration, as between the poor picture and sound quality, and all the words missing due to frequent cuts, this is in almost as bad shape as Raymond Massey's "THE SPECKLED BAND". The screenplay here would have made an excellent installment in the Universal HOLMES series with Rathbone; if it had been, it would have been fully restored by now, as those 12 films were!

weak early Holmes with terribly miscast Owen

[OldAle1 · 5/10 · 27 January 2009]

The copy of this I watched was from one of those 50-film box sets - I think it's "Mystery Classics". I had some hopes for it being a decent copy - all 3 of the Rathbone Holmes on the set are quite clear and presentable - but alas such was not the case, though it appears that the separately-available Alpha Video DVD isn't much or any better. This is scratchy, indistinct and fuzzy at times, with poor sound and lots of noticeable dialog dropout. So it's conceivable that a better print would make some difference in my feelings.

Not likely though. Overall this is one of, if not the, poorest Holmes films I've seen. A large part of the problem rests in the casting of Reginald Owen who is not only physically wrong - a jowly, double-chinned Holmes just doesn't work - but also just plain irritating and seemingly uninterested in the character. I'm sure the screenplay has a lot to do with things also, as it makes out Holmes to be more of a super-cop than anything else, and every time he explains (in even more exasperated tones than is usual for the character) his miraculous sleuthing it comes off as talking down to both his fellow police and Watson, and to us the audience. Of course, Holmes is supposed to be arrogant - but here it's a sort of flip arrogance - hard to explain exactly, but it just seems both perfunctory and unnecessary. And having Holmes shoot one of the bad guys in the back at the end -- that didn't work at all.

The plot has little to do with the novel from which it takes its name; here Holmes is on the trail of a murderer slowly killing off members of some secret society which is only revealed in nature at the end but which we can figure out very early on. The whole Mormon backstory and flashback nature of the novel is gone - apparently there were worries about alienating people at the time; this is after all a Hollywood, not a British production. Everything feels very by-the-numbers, the rest of the actors aren't really interesting either except for Anna May Wong as the femme fatale who brings at least a little eroticism and enthusiasm to her part.

A Holmes mystery with the feel of the canon

[briantaves · 9/10 · 5 September 2005]

By 1932, the California Tiffany studios had been hard-hit by the depression's increasing damper on the motion picture industry, and had most recently been taken over by the troika of Burt Kelly, Sam Bischoff and William Saal, producing under the achronym K.B.S.

One of the talented individuals attracted to K.B.S. during this turbulent period was Robert Florey, who had directed THE COCOANUTS, in which the Marx Brothers made their film debut, and co-authored the script of FRANKENSTEIN, then adapting and directing MURDERS IN THE RUE MORGUE.

A STUDY IN SCARLET was Florey's third project at Tiffany, and he was again scheduled to both write and direct--his preferred mode of working. While producer Bischoff had purchased the motion picture rights to the title of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's novel for only a small sum, Florey was told to compose a new scenario to co-star Anna May Wong opposite Sherlock Holmes.

A cause for the alteration of the original plot is that producers may have felt the title exceeded the worth of the actual story. Conan Doyle's original, written in 1887, was a vehicle for a denunciation of the contemporary Mormon practice of polygamy, which for American movie makers may have aroused concerns of censorship and regional distribution difficulties--just the type of difficulty a small, independent company like K.B.S. could not afford to risk. As well, half the narrative consisted of a lengthy confession, with Holmes only present in the prelude, which would have surely disappointed most filmgoers. While A Study in Scarlet was the first Holmes mystery Conan Doyle wrote, it had been filmed only twice before, with an English feature and an American short both appearing in 1914. Not until 1968 was the subject tackled again, this time by the BBC in a fifty-minute television presentation.

Given a week to come up with a narrative to fit the picture's title and Wong's presence, Florey collaborated with his friend Reginald Owen, who had been chosen to portray Holmes, and split the $1,000 script payment. They collaborated on the continuity in consultation with Art Director Ralph DeLacy in order to utilize as many standing sets as possible, economies always being especially important at a studio like Tiffany, even on as significant a project as A STUDY IN SCARLET.

At this point Florey left, having received the offer of a long-term contract from Warner Bros. on condition that he leave immediately to direct their comedic mystery GIRL MISSING. Bischoff allowed Florey to leave, with both agreeing that his replacement as director on A STUDY IN SCARLET should be Edwin L. Marin. Marin, age 33, previously had helmed only one movie on his own, a low budget item entitled THE DEATH KISS (1932). At K.B.S. he had just finished assisting Florey on THE MAN CALLED BACK and THOSE WE LOVE, "waiting for such a break."

Although the Florey-Owen script contained no similarities to the novel, their plot did demonstrate a familiarity with the world Conan Doyle created for Sherlock Holmes. Elements are present from other Holmes stories, especially The Sign of Four, "The Red-Headed League" and "The Five Orange Pips." There are many of the typical clues, devices, and mannerisms.

The title is incorporated to refer to a very exclusive organization called "the Scarlet Ring," a group of eccentric and highly ambiguous characters so suspicious of one another that they are afraid to even walk together. Upon the death of any member, his property is divided among the remaining survivors; suddenly they begin to die at an alarming pace under strange circumstances. This group of individuals were personified by an unusual group of actors, including J.M. Kerrigan, Halliwell Hobbes, Wyndham Standing, Tetsu Komai, and Cecil Reynolds.

Some critics have pointed out the movie's similarity to And Then There Were None / Ten Little Indians, with suspects killed one by one and their murder announced by a nursery rhyme. But if anything, the influence was the other way around, since Agatha Christie's novel was not published until 1939.

The script of A STUDY IN SCARLET was extremely polished and well-constructed, developing at just the right pace while carefully building the appropriate mood and environment. The movie breathes life into the classically eerie atmosphere of the British mystery, creating a pervasive feeling of fear in the fog-bound studio streets of the Limehouse section of London. Strange gatherings, arranged by secret codes, take place in abandoned, out-of-the-way buildings; dark and oppressive dead-end streets are places of isolation and terror; fog and shadows hide murderers and their victims.

Suspense is heightened by a number of devices. For instance, the killer is kept unseen, while at the same time menace is suggested by having the crimes viewed through the murderer's eyes using a subjective camera. The silhouette of a giant shadow appears on a wall as the victim stares at the audience and screams "It can't be you," followed by a close-up of a hand checking off the name of one more member of the Scarlet Ring who has been killed. The climax of this technique comes in a long-take with the still-unknown murderer visiting the crooked lawyer played by Alan Dinehart: the camera completely adopts the viewpoint of the killer as Dinehart opens the door and the unknown individual is offered a cigarette, puffs of smoke ascending in front of the lens.

The sense of locale was enhanced by the use of a nearly all-British cast, something unusual for a Hollywood-made Sherlock Holmes picture. Reginald Owen in particular was given the necessary latitude to offer a different interpretation of the Holmes personality. Owen portrays a much more human, less remote man, more akin to the personification offered by William Gillette in his stage play, to whom Owen even bore a certain physical resemblance.

By the time A STUDY IN SCARLET was released, in mid-1933, K.B.S. and World-Wide had folded, with Fox handling the distribution. The picture opened to an excellent critical reception.

Owen Makes A Decent If Not Memorable Holmes

[boblipton · 6/10 · 6 January 2024]

A man eceives a nursery rhyme and dies. Alan Dinehart assembles a group of people and discusses how the loot is to be split up following his death. A lady calls on Reginald Owen as Sherlock Holmes to complain about his death, and how she doesn't know how she will live. Soon, Alan Mowbray as Lestrade turns up in Baker Street because there is another murder with another nursery rhyme.

It doesn't sound like any Holmes adventure you've heard of, and that's because the producer bought only the right to the title from the Arthur Conan Doyle estate; the story would have been a lot more, so he hired Robert Florey to write a new screenplay, and let Owen write his own lines; Owen had played Watson in a couple of movies and figured that was a sort of apprenticeship. Surprisingly, given my lack of enthusiasm for the actor, he is all right in the role, Holmes as a pure thinking machine, lacking any of the tics or nervous energy that other performers put into the role. With a decent mystery, good supporting actors, including Anna May Wong, June Clyde, and Billy Bevan, it's a decent little Poverty Row mystery, even if it didn't break an house records.

Except for the presence of Anna May Wong, this picture has little to show for itself. A typical Poverty Row product of the 1930s, it holds few surprises.

[lordreith · 3/10 · 19 January 2012]

The movie has little to do with the A. Conan Doyle story of the same name. Very cheaply made, its sets are so drab as to give the impression that the film is actually an expose of living conditions in the lower depths -- a proletarian Depression saga. The actors -- especially the three rather portly middle-aged stage actors cast as Holmes, Watson and Inspector Lestrade ("Lastrade" here) -- move gingerly around the various pieces of sad furniture, obviously fearful of breaking up the sets, one of which is supposed to be "221-A" (sic) Baker Street. (Perhaps the change in address was for legal reasons.)

Again, for reasons of their own, the producers inserted a tedious scene involving some ancient English vaudevillians doing a "drunk" routine, so ancient it might have come from a medieval farce.

However, the story, for what it is, does hold one's interest and moves along quickly, even though it made little sense. The pretty little ingénue playing the heroine has the disconcerting habit of displaying emotion two or three beats after the relevant action, and her neatly mustached boyfriend may have been one of the gimcrack chairs strewn around the set for all the life he shows.

The gorgeous Anna May Wong apparently wandered in from another movie. She's on camera for only about 10 minutes, but her talent is so much greater than any other member of the cast that she makes every scene she graces memorable. Lord, how that lady could slink!

Two possible "borrowings"-- 1. A literary device holding the story together -- a children's rhyme -- may have been borrowed by Agatha Christie for "Ten Little Indians", a book she wrote long after most prints of this movie had been converted to banjo picks. 2. A cinematic device -- a claustrophobic winding staircase -- may have been borrowed by Hitchcock for "Foreign Correspondent."

Not Based on the Original Story of the Same Name

[schweinhundt1967 · 18 November 2003]

I first started reading the Holmes saga almost 40 years ago.Since then,my search has included all of the stories in the Canon,a great number of the pastiches,a vast number of the films,plays,and T.V. specials,and other works.So,while not considering myself a TRUE expert,nonetheless,I have a working knowledge of many of the adaptations.

There has yet,to my knowledge,to be a dramatisation of the original story of this name.And,it seems,for good reason.The plot involves the murder of 2 American tourists to London,both of whom being members of the Church of Latter Day Saints.The framework story then opens,and shows a fictionalized,and highly derogatory account of a Mormon totalitarian police state.Dissidents are terrrorized,nonconformists are murdered,and travelers are slaughtered so that new additions can be obtained for the harems of the Elders.

Understandably,given these details,one can understand as to why NO adaptation has yet,and probably never will be completed.Not only would it never play in Salt Lake City,but it would also alienate a major religious body.

Static scarlet

[TheLittleSongbird · 4/10 · 30 April 2018]

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

mind-numbingly dull

[planktonrules · 3/10 · 30 March 2008]

This is a poor and bizarre Sherlock Holmes movie. It's poor because the story has very little to do with the original Conan Doyle story. Heck, they even included a bunch of characters that weren't in this tale! It's bizarre because Reginald Owen seemed a very odd choice for the lead--seeming much more suited to the role of Watson than Holmes. Much of this is just tradition--actors famous for playing this same role repeatedly were William Gillette, Arthur Wontner, Basil Rathbone and Jeremy Brett were all thin guys and bore some similarity to each other. Owen just looked nothing like them and this took some getting used to. This isn't a bad thing--just an odd thing.

Also, I am really confused by the film because although it bears almost no similarity to "A Study in Scarlet", the film is very similar to Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None" (a.k.a. "The 10 Little Indians" and another title which I can't use because I doubt if IMDb would allow me to use the original title due to political correctness). However, Christie's novel did not appear until the late 1930s, so it appears that perhaps she lifted the plot from this 1933 film or at least was strongly inspired by it. I am really surprised there wasn't a lot of uproar about the similarities.

If you ignore all these aspects, you still have a poor film because the film had such poor production values. There was no incidental music, lousy dialog, the acting was often VERY poor and the whole thing simply had no energy. As a result, instead of being engaging, the whole thing was mind-numbingly dull and I can't recommend you see it.

Why did he want to kill himself? Did you ever meet his wife!

[sol-kay · 5/10 · 15 November 2008]

***SPOLIERS*** Lackluster Sherlock Homles mystery that has Sherlock not only showing the audience how good he is in going undercover-in disguise-but also for what seems like the first and last time in his career, as a brainy and elementary thinking sleuth, uses a firearm in gunning down and killing one the bad guys.

The movie "A Study in Scarlet" seems to be a precursor to the 1939 Agatha Christie murder mystery "Ten Little Indians" written some six years after the film was released in 1933 which is about the only reason for viewing it. The movie itself doesn't really hold its audience's attention with a number of unsavory characters lead by shyster London lawyer Thaddeus Merrydew, Alan Didehart. It's Merrydew & Co. who were all involved in smuggling a cache of jewels out of Pre-Communist China, circa the late 1920's, and are now dropping dead like flies on the streets of London because of it.

After a Mr. Murphy was found dead on a London bound train his wife Mrs. Annabelle Murphy, Doris Llyod, hired detective Sherlock Holmes, Reginald Owen, to see if her husband in fact was murdered not that he committed suicide like the London Police reported. Holmes soon discovers, through a number of cryptic messages in the local newspapers, that there's this group of people involved in an illegal jewelry smuggling operation that started back in China some eight years ago. The ringleader of this gang of Jewel thieves is top London criminal lawyer Thaddeus Merrydew who represents them. There's also the totally innocent Elleen Forrester, June Clyde, who's only connection with the Jewel or diamond smugglers is that her late father Col. Frrester, a member of the smuggling ring, left her his share of the profits, some 200,000 in Pound Sterling, in his will.

As the members of this jewel smuggling ring, called the "Scarlet Ring", start to be killed off it soon becomes apparent that Merrydew is somehow responsible for their deaths with the help one of the rings members! But the question is which one since almost all of the jewel smugglers end up dead by the time the movie is over. It's then that Merrydew and his partner, or partners, in crime screw up in them foolishly thinking that they pulled the wool over the great Sherlock Holmes eyes. Old Sherlock, we learn, had Merrydew and Co. pegged right from the start in not only deciphering the killer's secret coded messages in the newspapers but also, I kid you not, in Holmes uncovering his very unusual shoe size that the killer left at the scene of one of his murders!

***SPOILERS***Slow moving and hard to follow Sherlock Holmes film with only the appearance of the femme fatal in the movie Mrs Pyke, Anna May Wong, adding some hot Chinese mustard in it to spice the movie up a few notches. There's also the mysterious and what looks like opium pipe smoking Ah Yet, Tetsu Komai, as both Mrs. Pyke's and lawyers Merrydew's hit-man. Always puffing on his pipe and looking stoned out of his head you wondered why the two master criminals, Mrs. Pyke & Thaddeus Marrydew, would have anything to do with a strung-out weirdo like Ah Yet in the first place? Unless they were as strung out and smashed as he was by taking turns shearing his pipe!

Well directed by Edwin L. Marin, of all people!

[JohnHowardReid · 8/10 · 28 December 2017]

Reginald Owen graduated to the part of Holmes in A Study in Scarlet (1933). He also wrote the script (from an adaptation by Robert Florey) and was naturally anxious to fill it with plenty of roles for fellow actors. For comic relief, he repeated a device from the 1932 film. This time the besieged hotelier was played by Hobart Cavanaugh, his lone customer by Billy Bevan.

In major roles, the wonderful Anna May Wong shines as Mrs Pyke, while Alan Dinehart beamed with equal assurance as a crooked lawyer. Alan Mowbray essayed a quick-witted Lestrade, while Warburton Gamble did the honors as Dr Watson.

The rest of the players from Doris Lloyd's hesitating Widow Murphy to Tempe Pigott's briefly-glimpsed Mrs Hudson are equally fascinating.

Edwin L. Marin has directed with a surprisingly sure hand, and by the humble standards of Poverty Row, production values are mighty impressive. (Agatha Christie enjoyed the movie so much, she even borrowed one of its major devices).

(Available on a 5/10 Alpha DVD with warped but acceptable visuals, and extremely noisy sound. I recommend the 8/10 St Clair DVD instead).

Not as good as...

[MrMyth · 5/10 · 21 July 2002]

Not as good as the ones with Basil Rathbone or Jeremy Brett... Fascinating to see a film from 1933. Study the clothes and furnitures for example. Basil Rathbone, I miss you!

Good but not Great.

[GManfred · 30 June 2009]

I was intrigued by the thought of Reginald Owen playing Sherlock Holmes because I disliked him as Ebeneezer Scrooge in MGM's " A Christmas Carol" (1938). In that role he was very subdued and did not bring the character to life, although I have been spoiled in this regard by Alastair Sim; would the same happen here?

Happily, he was much better as Holmes, but once again I have been spoiled by Basil Rathbone and Arthur Wontner. Nevertheless, he was more than adequate but was done in by the leaden pace of the proceedings in A Study In Scarlet - it could have been so much better with a little tension and suspense and a few less dead spots, as the the storyline was excellent. I especially enjoy mysteries in which the murderer is unknown until the last scene.

A good entry in the Holmes series - unless you've seen the aforementioned Rathbone or Wontner in the title role.

Sherlock Holmes: Murder by Death

[lugonian · 4/10 · 6 May 2014]

A STUDY IN SCARLET (World Wide, 1933), directed by Edwin L. Marin, suggested by the book by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (credited as A. Conan Doyle), introduces Reginald Owen to the role as Sherlock Holmes for the first and only time. In fact, Owen's name isn't credited above the title, but actually the central figure being Sherlock Holmes in A STUDY IN SCARLET, almost as if Holmes is appearing as himself. Owen, seldom a leading man, best known as Ebenezer Scrooge in "A Christmas Carol" (MGM, 1938), may be an interesting choice as Holmes, considering a handful of actors having enacted this legendary sleuth in the past, William Gillette on stage; and/or Arthur Wontner in several British-made movies. Yet there's none more famous than Basil Rathbone (Holmes) with Nigel Bruce (Doctor Watson) in what developed into a popular film series for Universal a decade later. It's a little known factor that Owen happens to be the first actor to play Watson in one movie, 1932s SHERLOCK HOLMES (Fox) featuring Clive Brook, and Holmes in another. As often stated for A STUDY IN SCARLET, the plot actually doesn't follow Conan Doyle's first Holmes novel, but instead contains an original idea scripted by Robert Florey with continuity and dialogue credited by Reginald Owen himself.

The story opens at Victoria Station, London (with a light post and car indicating a modern setting for one brief scene), where two cleaning ladies, having difficulty opening the door to a compartment, get Mr. Partrudge, a porter, to look into the matter. Observing from the outside window, he and another porter find its passenger, James Murphy, dead. After a coded newspaper clipping "6, 9, 3, 7, 13, 7, Scarlet 23, 4, 7, Limehouse M," is shown on screen from the Daily Telegraph, the following segment shows a secret meeting presided by Thaddeus Merrydew (Alan Dinehart), a crooked lawyer and legal representative of a mysterious organization called The Scarlet Ring. In attendance are Jabez Wilson (J.M. Kerrigan), William Baker (Cecil Reynolds), Malcolm Dearing (Halliwell Hobbs), Captain Pike (Wyndham Standing), Ah Yet (Tetsu Komai), and Eileen Forrester (June Clyde), engaged to John Stanford (John Warburton), and daughter of one of the recently deceased members, where Merrydew, explains in the event of a member's death, the estate is left to the survivors and divided evenly. Three days later, Sherlock Holmes (Reginald Owen) and his assistant, Doctor Watson (Warburton Gamble) of 221-A Baker Street, are visited by Murphy's widow, Annabella Mary (Doris Lloyd), a pub owner, explaining how she's been cheated of her late husband's fortune left to the organization. Holmes, suspecting foul play in Murphy's murder, takes the case that allows him the opportunity to further investigate Merrydew, whom Holmes describes as "king of blackmailers," "the most dangerous crook" and "a slimy, venomous snake." During the investigation of a study in scarlet, more murders occur, all with little rhyme notes found as possible clues. With further assistance of Inspector Lestrade (Alan Mowbray), Holmes encounters another suspect, Mrs. Pyke (Anna May Wong), a Chinese widow with a mysterious past.

Slow moving and virtually score-less, A STUDY IN SCARLET offers several scenes worth noting. If the murdering notes ("Six little black boys playing with a dive. A bumble bee stung one, and there were five," "Five little black boys going in for law, one cut a chancery, and then there were four," "Four little black boys going out to tea, a red herring swallowed one, and then there were three," "Three little black boys walking in the zoo. The big bear hugged one, and then there were two," etc.) sound familiar, then look no further to what eventually became "And Then There Were None" (published 1939-40), a classic novel by Agatha Christie. Slight difference, Black Boys was changed to Little Indians. Could it be that Christie had seen this movie and lifted some material for her novel? Another interesting factor found in A STUDY IN SCARLET is how the camera becomes the subject matter with Merrydew looking directly and talking into it, without revealing the identity of that person. This visual style is most identified to 1940s film noir mysteries, notably LADY IN THE LAKE (MGM, 1946) and DARK PASSAGE (WB, 1947), though done earlier in A FAREWELL TO ARMS (Paramount, 1932), which makes one wonder which film and director originated that visual style.

With limited byplay between Holmes and Watson, this edition is very much Holmes indeed, crime solver. Though he does take time to disguise himself at one point, it's not much of a disguise. Other members in the cast include Leila Bennett (Daft Dolly, credited as Daffy Dolly); Hobart Cavanaugh (The Bartender); and Tempe Piggot (Mrs. Hudson, famously played by Mary Gordon in the Rathbone series).

Acceptable adaptation that's become a curio to film buffs. Frequently presented on television starting in the late 1970s, A STUDY IN SCARLET, available on video and DVD formats, often played on Arts and Entertainment Cable television before turning up on Turner Classic Movies (TCM premiere: June 5, 2008). For anyone interested in learning more about Doyle's actual "A Study in Scarlet" novel, read the book. (**)

A Study In Somnolence.

[rmax304823 · 4/10 · 27 November 2011]

This is a K.B.S. Production filmed at the California Tiffany Studios and is now in the public domain. From this you may deduce that it's pretty shoddy.

You'll find nothing in here from Conan-Doyle's first Sherlock Holmes story, "A Study in Scarlet." It's just a second-feature detective story taken out of some desk drawer, dusted off, and dropped in somebody's lap. Well, that's not entirely true, I guess. The Holmes character does get to pull off one of his amazing feats of deduction, something like what he does in the original story at the murder scene, having to do with square-toed boots, a limp, and a trichinopoly cigar. And there are oddments from other stories jammed in here and there. A minor character is named Jabez Wilson. There was a Jabez Wilson in one of the stories, maybe "The Red Headed League." But that's about it. They even got Holmes' and Watson's address wrong. (221a, Baker Street.) There is a secret society, here, the Scarlet Ring, engaged in the disposal of some stolen goods worth a million pounds, which was a lot of scratch in 1933. Somebody is killing off the members one by one.

Reginald Owen plays Holmes stiffly and with deliberation. He makes plastic seem genuine. He speaks his lines slowly, thoughtfully, as if on a stage and hoping that the groundlings in the rear seats will follow him. That's not Sherlock Holmes. That's some professor of classics laying out the details of the Peloponnesian War. Watson is dispensable. Lestrade is Alan Mowbray, Hollywood's Brit in residence. Anna May Wong slinks around and exudes a particularly debauched sort of sexuality.

I had a hell of a time keeping awake.

Who's the bloke who killed Mrs. Murphy's husband?

[bkoganbing · 4/10 · 15 January 2012]

A Study In Scarlet finds character actor Reginald Owen, much better known as Scrooge in MGM's A Christmas Carol, taking a turn as Sherlock Holmes. Owen had previously played Dr. Watson in another film so he became the only actor in cinema history to be both Holmes and Watson on the big screen.

Holmes is hired by Doris Lloyd as Mrs. Murphy whose husband at the beginning of the film met with a mysterious death in a locked train cabin. He was a member of a mysterious fraternal order of some kind whose members assets are split among the other members upon their demise. Alan Dinehart is attorney for this group and he's as slick a shyster as you would ever want to find. In fact Watson played by Warburton Gamble here says that Mrs. Murphy is in need of a probate lawyer more than a detective.

Watson is wrong because she does need the services of Sherlock Holmes. In fact the beautiful June Clyde whose place she's in because of her late father also needs his service and even more as it turns out as a few more members start dropping.

A Study In Scarlet is inferior Holmes, not because of Reginald Owen, but because of a really bad script that left several questions unanswered. Why is Clyde part of the group when her father's assets should have gone to the others? Why are all the killings starting at this particular point? And for the fact that there is criminal activity at work, this really is a contest of wills and belongs in probate court.

Still Owen is a fine Watson and Alan Mowbray is an interesting Inspector Lestrade. But Baker Street purists will not be happy.

A different story, a different Holmes

[binapiraeus · 8/10 · 24 February 2014]

"A Study in Scarlet", somewhat more than loosely based on Conan Doyle's very first 'Sherlock Holmes' novel published in 1887, stars this time Reginald Owen, one of Hollywood's most famous British character actors who during his long career played about everything from Ebenezer Scrooge to King Louis XV. - and even Dr. Watson, in the previous Sherlock Holmes adventure with Clive Brook in the title role. It was the only time Owen portrayed the master sleuth - unfortunately, for he did QUITE well in this role!

Definitely less haughty and pedantic and more sympathetic than Basil Rathbone (who, nevertheless, was admittedly the most 'true' impersonator of Doyle's original character), yet just as clever and quick-witted, Owen alias Holmes is being asked for help by the widow of a member of an obscure 'organization' who's been tricked out of the money her husband would have soon been to receive from the shady 'business transactions' of that organization. At the same time, a strange newspaper ad, obviously written in a kind of code, intrigues Holmes - and it all finally leads him to one of his 'favorite' enemies, lawyer-blackmailer Merrydew...

A very nice, entertaining crime story, with much love for every detail and a perfectly recreated atmosphere of England in the 1880s, from the shady back streets of London to the quiet countryside, where Holmes (that is, Owen) delivers a hilarious impersonation of a wealthy elderly gentleman - just about like the disguises Chester Morris impressed us with many times as 'Boston Blackie'! Some genuinely English 'characters' complete the picture, a whole 'epidemic' of murders and murder attempts provides the adequate suspense... Not to be missed by fans of Sherlock Holmes in particular, and fans of classic crime in general!