"The Valley of Fear" is an interesting part of the Sherlock Holmes canon. Most with casual interest in the great detective don't know much about this story. It concerns a brotherhood of evil that runs a town and its people. The implication is that they are drunk with power and may go beyond their current climes. In the movie, Professor Moriarity is furious that Holmes has gotten in his way on numerous occasions, "inconveniencing" him. He is the evil equal of Holmes and usually gets what he wants. This film has a nice mix of a flashback, which takes place in America. There is revenge and spying and romance. There is secrecy and surprise. For a fairly low budget film, this captures the spirit of the original pretty well. Holmes is really at the center of things for only a few moments. This is acceptable because much of his talent for solving crimes takes place between his ears. I would urge someone who enjoys some of the less often dramatized Holmes stories to enjoy this one. It's quite good.

TRIUMPH OF SHERLOCK HOLMES stars British thespian Arthur Wontner, today a forgotten interpreter of Holmes who would soon be overshadowed by the glossy American productions starring the illustrious Basil Rathbone, for some people the greatest Holmes ever. Wontner is actually a terrific Holmes, and looks remarkably like the first illustrations of Holmes. Wontner also prepared the dialog for the movie, and sticks relatively close to the source material, in this case THE VALLEY OF FEAR. Ian Fleming's Dr. Watson is a lot closer to the Watson of the stories, a retired Army officer and dapper fellow with an eye for the ladies. Wontner and Fleming have a palpable chemistry and affectionate interplay that reminds me more of the Holmes and Watson of the original stories than most other cinematic Holmes and Watsons. If you don't know the plot of VALLEY, and I admittedly had forgotten, you will be kept guessing right up to the very end the identity of the killer. A word on Lyn Harding as Holmes' archfoe Moriarty: He is as good a Moriarty as I have ever seen on screen. What keeps me from giving this film an extra point is its primitiveness. By 1935, most films looked and sounded a lot better than this. Also, this is a "modern" Holmes adaptation; that is to say, Holmes has been moved forward in time to the present day, in this case 1935, which may save on costumes and sets, but slightly impairs the atmosphere. See it for its historical value, and also to see someone other than Rathbone tearing it up as the world's greatest detective.

I am afraid that I am a complete sucker for the Arthur Wontner series of Sherlock Holmes films. These films aren't presented in a very good form, in fact the copies of each of these Wontner titles have awful soundracks, soft focus and very flat contrast, seemingly copied from the worst scource possible. It is a pity that we should be subjected to this third class sort of presentation, as I have seen them on British television in a much more acceptable form, so a liitle bit of effort could have produced the goods! I am quite ellated that one of the two missing Wontner films , 'THE SLEEPING CARDINAL', has been found alive and well in the states...I suppose it is a bit too much to expect that this will be be an improvement in picture quality.