“The Scarlet Pimpernel” (1934)

The Scarlet Pimpernel

Brief Description:

London fop Percy Blakeney is also secretly the Scarlet Pimpernel who, in a variety of disguises, makes repeated daring trips to France to save aristocrats from Madame Guillotine. His unknowing wife is also French, and she finds that her brother has been arrested by the Republic to try and get her to find out who “that elusive Pimpernel” really is.

(from Archive)

Date: 1934

Genre: British action adventure romance historical fiction 

Running time: 1 hour 28 minutes

Cast: 

Leslie Howard (Sir Percy Blakeney)

Merle Oberon (Lady Marguerite Blakeney)

Raymond Massey (Chauvelin)

Nigel Bruce (Prince of Wales)

Bramwell Fletcher (Priest)

Anthony Bushell (Sir Andrew Ffoulkes)

Joan Gardner (Suzanne de Tournay)

Walter Rilla (Armand St.-Just)

Mabel Terry-Lewis (Countess de Tournay)

O.B. Clarence (Count de Tournay)

Ernest Milton (Robespierre)

Edmund Breon (Colonel Winterbottom)

Melville Cooper (Romney)

Gibb McLaughlin (The Barber)

Morland Graham (Treadle)

John Turnbull (Jellyband)

Gertrude Musgrove (Sally)

Allan Jeayes (Lord Grenville)

A. Bromley Davenport (Brogard)

William Freshman Lord Hastings)

Hindle Edgar (Lord Wilmot)

Director: Harold Young

Production company: London Films

Based on: the 1905 play by Baroness Emmuska Orczy & Montagu Barstow and The Scarlet Pimpernel (1908) by Orczy

Wikipedia page

Watch on Archive

Setting/Aesthetic/Feel: 4/5

Okay, so in looks, this is the quintessential Scarlet Pimpernel feel. So 1790s France and England. In setting… well, it’s rather hard not to notice that these Parisians have strong British accents, with the exception of Chauvelin, Armand, and Marguerite (they have good fake French accents, yet they still manage to mispronounce things, haha!). It’s quite amusing and hardly bugs me because the rest of the film completely makes up for it. 

Oh, and the opening music is SO GOOD! It sets the tone perfectly.

Characters: 5/5

LESLIE HOWARD IS A PERFECT SCARLET PIMPERNEL. 

Okay, so he isn’t as big as Percy should be. That’s the only flaw. Otherwise, he captures the attitude of Percy SO well, both as “the biggest fool in Europe” and the “cleverest man in Europe.” 

Merle Oberon is an excellent Marguerite. Pretty, clever, expressive… 

Sir Andrew is PERFECTION and Chauvelin is so accurate in looks in personality. Even the minor characters like the Comtesse and Suzanne are very accurate! Of course none of them is 100% accurate but they capture the personalities so well. This is a splendid portrayal. 

Plot: 5/5

The plot follows the book pretty faithfully until the end. It leaves out some bits, but it carries out the general plot of the book—the escape, the society scenes, the ball, the sudden realization of who the Scarlet Pimpernel is… mixed with extra scenes that are different from the book’s but serve similar purposes. The ending is completely different from the book but very good and so exciting!! Oh and I love the bit where Percy quotes Shakespeare’s speech on England… 

Romance: 5/5

Percy & Marguerite are the cutest. <3 I love his lines about the Pimpernel being madly in love with his wife (that scene is EVERYTHING) and then his declaration to the old soldier that “he’s in love, with his wife.” Such a sweet scene there too.

Content: 3/5 (medium)

Marguerite has a very low dress for the ball and subsequent scene at home, but given the black & white of the film, it’s not very noticeable. A kiss or two between Percy & Marguerite. Lots of language (mostly “demmed,” but a few uses of d**n, also lots of “Gad”).  

Violence: 5/5 (low)

The guillotine and fighting are all off-screen. 

Overall: 5/5

The classic Scarlet Pimpernel film. I love it so much. <33 

“Sherlock Holmes & the Deadly Necklace” (1962)

Sherlock Holmes & the Deadly Necklace

Also known as Sherlock Holmes und das Halsband des Todes

Brief Description:

Sherlock Holmes and Watson do battle with their nemesis, Professor Moriarity, over an ancient necklace attributed to Cleopatra.

(from IMDb)

Date: 1962

Genre: British crime drama mystery 

Running time: 1 hour 25 min

Cast: 

Christopher Lee (Sherlock Holmes)

Thorley Walters (Dr. Watson)

Senta Berger (Ellen Blackburn)

Hans Söhnker (Prof. Moriarty)

Hans Nielsen (Inspector Cooper)

Ivan Desny (Paul King)

Leon Askin (Charles)

Wolfgang Lukschy (Peter Blackburn)

Edith Schultze-Westrum (Mrs. Hudson)

Bernard Lajarrige (Inspector French)

Director: Terence Fisher

Production company: Constantin Film

Based on: The Valley of Fear by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Wikipedia page

(IMDb page)

Watch on Dailymotion

(watched on Tubi)

Setting/Aesthetic/Feel: 3/5

The film seems to be a hodgepodge of settings. 221B Baker Street is victorian and accurate to the books; but the cars are 1920s and Ellen Blackburn feels so 1960s that she jars me every time I look at her. I mean, her hair and makeup is SO not 1890s or even 1920s England. The Egyptian archaeology, though, is accurate to the 1890s. Overall, I don’t mind the anachronistic cars but Ellen Blackburn really bugs me. 

Characters: 5/5

I’ve mentioned before that Ronald Howard, Basil Rathbone, and Arthur Wontner were excellent; I don’t retract that. I think they all did a different side of Holmes. Howard, for instance, shows the human, friendly, humorous, deliberate, eccentric Holmes that Watson knows as a friend; Rathbone, on the other hand, focusses on Holmes as the brilliant detective he is on cases; while Wontner is the cool, incisive, dry, very intellectual Holmes most people saw. As for Lee, he says it himself: “I tried to play him really as he was written, as a very intolerant, argumentative, difficult man.” Even physically, the four men represent a different side of Holmes, and I think they were all equally fantastic. 

Thorley Walters reminded me a lot of Nigel Bruce, in that he played stupid comedic sidekick instead of a real Watson. In my opinion, Ian Fleming was the best of the four. Howard Marion-Crawford was second best because he matches Ronald Howard’s energy so well. But Walters isn’t all that bad, all things considered. 

Finally, Hans Söhnker was a great Moriarty. He played the polite, intellectual professor and the terrifying master criminal equally well. And Hans Nielsen/Inspector Cooper was a satisfactorily stupid Scotland Yard detective. 

As for Peter Blackburn, he was nothing like Douglas from Valley of Fear, nor were Ellen and Paul anything like Barker and Mrs. Douglas. They were not very interesting characters at all and I liked none of them. 

Plot: 5/5

This is an involved and long film, unlike the Howard/Rathbone/Wontner films. The story begins with a drowned man and ends with the downfall of Moriarty. There’s lots of things pulled from various Sherlock books, such as Holmes disguising himself as a sailor, Jenkins giving underground information, the argument about professor Moriarty with the inspector, and Holmes’ claim that he lacks imagination, as well as the usual 221B Baker Street conversations where Holmes slowly spells out the beginning of the investigation to Watson. I could have done without the visit to the pub; but the section taken from Valley of Fear is quite fun, if very different from the book. The car accident and Holmes’ sneaking into the professor’s study is very enjoyable, and I love Homes & Moriarty’s nighttime conversation where the professor tries to convince Holmes to join him. Lee is such a fantastic Holmes—did I mention that?! And Walters as Watson really adds a lot of comedic factor. Finally, the sewer escapade and retrieval of the necklace is AWESOME and the ending is super cool. I’ve watched this film many times now and I really enjoy it so much despite its flaws. It has some excellent humorous one-liners—like really excellent. Also, the whole thing about the Times was EXCELLENT. Such a great thread and really woven through the film.

Romance: 2/5

Ellen & Paul’s romance is bleh.  

Content: 2/5 (high)

Drinking, smoking; language (d**n); in the pub a woman in a low-necked dress flirts with Watson & physically fawns over him in spite of his claim that he’s married; Ellen & Paul are in love & touching/kissing despite her being married; one shot where Ellen is in an EXCESSIVELY low-necked nightgown. Also a scene where a man licks the blood off his wound which I find really gross. 

Violence: 4/5 (low)

Lots of fighting & killing but most of it off-screen.

Overall: 4.5/5

Yes, there are flaws to this production and it’s not the best film. But Christopher Lee and Hans Söhnker make it a fantastic addition to the classic Holmes films and I personally really love it. 

Favourite Quotes:

Cooper: I think it might interest you to learn that Professor Moriarty happens to be on the list this year of those to be knighted. Would you accuse Sir James Moriarty of murder, Mr. Holmes?

Sherlock: It would give me the very greatest pleasure, Inspector, to see the knight hanged. 

Sherlock: *reading from newspaper* ‘Two English engineers, named Harrisson and Samuels, have been arrested. A third, Peter Blackburn, has disappeared at the same time as a casket of gold and precious stones containing a golden necklace which belonged to Cleopatra herself.’ Watson, we have to prevent another murder!

Watson: Holmes, I just don’t know what you’re talking about.

Sherlock: Be careful, Watson, don’t spoil the footprints. Leave that to the Inspector. 

Sherlock: My dear Inspector, Blackburn had a secret. Moriarty wanted it, and when he’d gotten it, he had him murdered. 

Cooper: Do you know the secret, Holmes?

Sherlock: Naturally, I read the Times. 

Moriarty: *proposing a partnership* Let’s say £6000 per annum and, naturally, a share of the profits.

Sherlock: In my opinion, murder is not profitable. 

“The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes” (1935)

The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes

Brief Description:

Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson come out of retirement to investigate a mysterious murder. They find that an American criminal organisation called The Scowrers has asked evil mastermind Professor Moriarty to wreak vengeance on John Douglas, the informant who sent them to prison.

(from Wikipedia)

Date: 1935

Genre: British mystery crime drama 

Running time: 1 hour 18 minutes

Cast: 

Arthur Wontner (Holmes)

Lyn Harding (Moriarty)

Leslie Perrins (Douglas)

Jane Carr (Ettie)

Ian Fleming (Watson)

Charles Mortimer (Lestrade)

Minnie Rayner (Mrs. Hudson)

Michael Shepley (Barker)

Ben Welden (Balding)

Roy Emerton (McGinty)

Conway Dixon (Ames)

Wilfrid Caithness (Moran)

Edmund D’Alby (Marvin)

Ernest Lynds (Shafter)

Director: Leslie S. Hiscott

Production company: Julius Hagen

Based on: The Valley of Fear by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle

Wikipedia page

Watch on Archive

(watched on Tubi)

Setting/Aesthetic/Feel: 3/5

So dark you could hardly see anything. But it was a cool castle. 

Characters: 4/5

Wontner made a pretty great Sherlock, honestly. Cool, incisive, dry, very intellectual. Very similar to Sherlock in the novels, in my opinion, and definitely to be ranked along with Ronald Howard and Basil Rathbone. Fleming was also a very accurate Watson—very similar to the books, quite more so than Marian Crawford or Nigel Bruce. Perrins was not super accurate as Douglas, but he captured the dashing part of Douglas for sure, while Carr made a very interesting Ettie (in the movie, presented as a mixture of the German Ettie and Douglas’s new American wife) and I really liked how stereotypically American she was in a very British cast! A very interesting touch. The other characters were all different from the book but good interpretations, and overall it was a good cast of characters. 

Plot: 4/5

This story mixes the retirement of Sherlock Holmes with the plot of The Valley of Fear, slightly changed—but not too much! I really enjoyed this pretty accurate take on the story. I also really liked how they added bits from The Final Problem and The Boscombe Valley to add to Moriarty, Holmes, and Watson. Of course, it is very silly to propose that it took until Holmes’ retirement for Watson to need to hear more about Moriarty, etc, but in the end it’s not so very far-fetched and it finished up quite well. 

Romance: 3/5 

Douglas + Ettie were kinda cute. Balding made for an interesting rival, to say the least.

Content: 4/5 (low)

Couple uses of de**l; drinking. 

Violence: 4/5 (low)

The book itself is very violent, and some of that violence is presented in the film; but it’s rather off-screen and nongraphical, in typical 1930s fashion. 

Overall: 4/5

A very good adaptation of The Valley of Fear. And I want to see more of Arthur Wontner as Sherlock Holmes. 

“Behind Green Lights” (1946)

 Behind Green Lights

Brief Description:

A bullet-ridden corpse dumped in front of a police station leads police lieutenant Sam Carson on a mystery involving blackmail, corruption, and a mayoral campaign.

(from Tubi + IMDb)

Date: 1946

Genre: American crime drama mystery film

Running time: 1 hour 1 minute

Cast: 

Carole Landis (Janet Bradley)

William Gargan (Lt. Sam Carson)

Don Beddoe (Dr. Yager)

Richard Crane (Johnny Williams)

Mary Anderson (Nora Bard)

John Ireland (Det. Oppenheimer)

Charles Russell (Arthur Templeton)

Roy Roberts (Max Calvert)

Mabel Paige (Flossie)

Stanley Prager (Ruzinsky)

Charles Tannen (Ames)

full cast list here

Director: Otto Brower

Production company: 20th Century Fox

Wikipedia page

Watch on Archive

*watched on Tubi*

Setting/Aesthetic/Feel: 5/5

A good 1940s aesthetic. The police station setting was unique and very enjoyable! A huge building though, apparently. ;P 

Characters: 5/5

Lt. Carson was a really cool character—witty, hardworking, a good officer, upright but very human. Janet barely figured but she was a very strong and independent young woman, unlike the usual flighty, fainting ’40s heroines. Ames was fun and I really liked Johnny (who incidentally is quite handsome). Nora wasn’t my fav and neither was Arthur… but they were okay, I guess—but Bard was icky. Calvert, too, was straight-up slimy, and I didn’t like Yager. Flossie and Wintergreen were great comedic reliefs, as was the boxer. 

Plot: 4.5/5

The plot reminded me a little of various Sherlock Holmes stories with the battered wife seeking divorce and the political blackmail with a young woman attempting to retrieve the questionable items. The mystery was very twisted and slowly revealed—which I loved—and the baddie was so unexpected (also a relief, haha). I enjoyed the political aspect of the plot but most of all, I appreciated seeing Carson’s struggle between doing the right thing and doing the most profitable thing. The tiny backstory about the former LT was a great addition. Also, while there was some really good suspense & action, it wasn’t a thriller, and I really liked that. ;P

The only thing I disliked was the whole addition of the Bard-Nora-Templeton triangle. Bard being an abusive husband, Nora leaves, falls in love with her lawyer, and seeks divorce, but Bard won’t grant it. The whole thing was just messy and I’d have appreciated the film much more without that. 

Romance: 5/5

The thread of romance between hero and heroine is tiny and only comes out at the end, but it’s adorable. 

Theme/Message/Topics: 5/5

As I mentioned above, there’s a strong theme of doing the right thing vs. doing the corrupted thing that’ll bring profit and popularity. Excellent. 

Content: 4/5 (low)

Possibly some language? Otherwise, only a kiss or two between Nora & Arthur.

Violence: 5/5 (low)

Off-screen violence; one scene where a man dies of poison. 

Overall: 4.5/5

One of my favourite 1940s police mysteries!