binapiraeus "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!

GManfred 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.

MartinHafer 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.

xredgarnetx 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.