Watch The Speckled Band For Free

A Disappointing Continuation

It's entirely possible that sending the audience out feeling lousy was intentional

An old-fashioned movie made with new-fashioned finesse.

It is a whirlwind of delight --- attractive actors, stunning couture, spectacular sets and outrageous parties. It's a feast for the eyes. But what really makes this dramedy work is the acting.

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 'The Speckled Bamd', especially that it was an early film version, to see Raymond Massey in an early role and with such a great story to work from.'The Speckled Band' is one of Conan Doyle's most famous stories and also one of his best. It has a clever and intriguing mystery, one of Conan Doyle's most colourful antagonists and an ingenious final solution. As said by me many times, there are better Sherlock Holmes-related films/adaptations certainly than 1931's 'The Speckled Band', the best of the Jeremy Brett adaptations and films of Basil Rathone fit under this category. It's not one of the worst either, it is better than all the Matt Frewer films (particularly 'The Sign of Four') and also much better than the abominable Peter Cook 'The Hound of the Baskervilles'.How does 'The Speckled Band' fare? Not too badly, though it could have been much more. Not great, not terrible. More an uneven film, sadly also available via a pretty dreadful print that looks cheap, has a choppy feel and very primitive in sound. 'The Speckled Band' won't be for everybody. As has been said in previous reviews, it has a tendency to drag and can be stagy and talky, almost like a filmed stage play of the time. Not all the acting works. Athole Stewart is a somewhat dull Watson, instead of any loyalty and dignity or blustering and bumbling (much prefer Watson portrayed as the former) he is rather vanilla, although his sensibility, helpfulness and resourcefulness are intact. Angela Baddely is rather histrionic Helen, adopting an acting style that is reminiscent of very early silent melodrama. On the other hand, Raymond Massey is very good as Holmes. Not definitive certainly, but indicative that he should have done more Sherlock Holmes films. Lyn Harding's performance will divide, and has divided, viewers. It is a very theatrical performance yes but also an imposing and menacing one, that Rylott is far from the most subtle of characters in the first place is likely to account for the theatricality. Apart from the print hindering it, there is a real sense of sinister atmosphere to the visuals. They are starkly beautiful and suitably noir-ish, complete with handsome and evocative costume and production design.Dialogue may be talky but it is very literate and thought-provoking too, and has enough of Conan Doyle's style. The film quite faithfully adapts the source material, and keeps the mystery's cleverness and intrigue as well as the denouement's ingenuity. In conclusion, interesting and not bad at all though not mind-blowing. 6/10 Bethany Cox

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.

Originally released in 7 reels at 66 minutes, the film survives only in a somewhat worn 5-reel cutdown that originally ran around 48 minutes, but now clocks in at just over 42. Credit and end titles have been added from another source. Here we now have virtually a straight version of the 1910 stage play by Arthur Conan Doyle. Originally, there were some modern 1931 asides in this movie, but, aside from an incongruous scene in the master detective's Baker Street office, these have now disappeared (which could well be an advantage). We are left with the compelling story of the speckled band itself, which Doyle himself regarded as the best Holmes adventure he ever wrote. If nothing else, the movie has atmosphere (though it's a shame the gypsies have been all but eliminated in this cutdown), thanks to its wonderfully cavernous, gloomy sets and Freddie Young's noirish lighting. The stage play's Lyn Harding gives a typically over-the-top performance as the villain, while Raymond Massey plays Holmes virtually straight with few of the characteristic mannerisms (except his passion for disguise), and Athole Stewart is every inch the sensible, cultivated, resourceful, helpful Watson that Doyle created, rather than the slapstick fall-guy epitomized by Nigel Bruce.

It is clear to see why Sherlock Holmes has been popular in film, with the care and quality given to this early film as an example. When this was produced, all the stories had been written, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was dead. Audiences of the day had perhaps seen a few screen versions--most likely the awful John Barrymore vehicle--but Holmes was already known all over the English-speaking world. So here, before the B movies of the '40's, we have a really fine production that is beautifully true to Sir Arthur's creation. Raymond Massey, a young Canadian actor in his first film outing, interprets the part solidly, and imaginatively. The pace is a little slow for modern tastes, but perhaps that is respect. An admirable effort.