Good movie, but best of all time? Hardly . . .

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

Let me be very fair here, this is not the best movie in my opinion. But, this movie is fun, it has purpose and is very enjoyable to watch.

The movie turns out to be a little better than the average. Starting from a romantic formula often seen in the cinema, it ends in the most predictable (and somewhat bland) way.

Before I move forward, I have to mention that this story was not a genuine Arthur Canon Doyle story but rather based on Sherlock Holmes, a character created by him so the major gaps and flaws in the story are not to be subtracted from his credit. Story was grossly incoherent, illogical and hastily sewn together emphasizing on minor events rather than the grand theft itself. Lets see how and I warn you, this is going to be real spoiler if you haven't seen the movie. Story is simple. Moriarty wants engage Sherlock Holmes in a false murder threat to divert his attention from his plan to steal crown jewels. Problem starts right away. Sherlock Holmes is a private detective not the secret service or something and apparently there was no threat so why the crown treasurer wishes Holmes to be present in the delivery of an emerald? It doesn't make sense at all so even Moriarty's assumption that Holmes would be there is illogical... Of course Holmes would be there for story's sake otherwise there would be no story but the whole thing was built up on mud! Homes got involved with the murder threat of the lady and murder of his brother. There is minimal problem with that. Moriarty manages to keep Holmes away from the Tower. In the tower, a fake theft attempt was done so Moriarty can stay inside the tower. Watson goes back to Holmes. that takes at least 30 minutes. There they find out that Moriarty was up to something. It takes lets say 15 minutes. They go to Moriarty's house. It takes 30 minutes. They go inside and find out about his plans (15 minutes). They rush to the tower (another 30 minutes). That's roughly 2 hours and yet we see Moriarty was in the tower holding the same crown he had in his hands 2 hours ago!!! Seriously??? If it was for real, Moriarty would have won, gone with the jewels long before Holmes even finds out about his plan for the crown jewels. Not only the whole story was based on arrogant and stupid idea of Holmes being essential for the security of the crown on top of all British security agencies of the period, Holmes in no way could stop Moriarty if it was for real. Holmes was pictured as plain stupid, something like Inspector Gadget who managed to stop Moriarty by the wish of the writer rather than his intelligence. Some may say it is an old movie and stories were simple and somehow stupid in those early years of sound movies. I would say bullshit! We had masterpieces like Dr Mabuse years before these series. That was not what I expected from a highly acclaimed detective series.boring stupid illogical movie. 2/10

Another excellent outing for Rathbone and Bruce as Holmes and Watson. This time Holmes faces his most well known nemesis Moriarty. The film begins with Moriarty being found innocent of murder, with Holmes bursting into the courtroom just a few seconds too late. After the courtroom scene we see Holmes and Moriarty talking together like real competitors, without the hate you'd find between most enemies. They certainly have admiration for each other, and this admiration makes the film so enjoyable. Despite the fact that people's lives and reputations are at risk, you can easily tell they enjoy competing with each other. Moriarty then sends Holmes on a number of wild goose chases to conceal his real crime. I did like seeing Moriarty by himself and his love for plants. His clearly showed him as having a limited connection with humans. A simple act of not watering his plants also showed his talents are similar to Holmes'. Unfortunately, telling the audience that the mysteries are wild goose chases means we are waiting for Holmes to catch up with us. Like the previous effort the setting becomes a character in itself. The occupied streets of London are just as cold, dark, and sinister as the moors. This kind of makes the murders even more devilish. Watson is used more for comedic relief, which is annoying at times, as he ends up getting blamed for things that go wrong. Rathbone is at the centre stage here and he holds it well. He is always calm, but adds a sense of urgency when needed to heighten our excitement. His disguise was once again brilliant, and I didn't guess it this time. A great stylish offering.

The second pairing of Rathbone and Bruce as Holmes and Watson, released a few months after the success of "The Hound of the Baskervilles," is a good-looking film that has the venerable detective matching wits with Professor Moriarity, as the latter schemes a jewel heist. Lupino, although British born, usually played Americans. Hence, it's a little odd seeing her sporting an English accent here. The foggy London atmosphere is a big plus, but the plot is less than compelling. This is based on a play by William Gillette, a Holmes aficionado, rather than a story by Conan Doyle. Unlike the best of Conan Doyle, the plot lacks a mystery to really draw the viewer in.

Big budget TCF excelled at historical dramas, so I guess it's not surprising that their recreation of a fog-bound 19th century London remains impressive, along with a couple nice touches (the creepy oboe dirge, the "strangled" stature). This is an entertaining version of Holmes as he seeks to save Ann's (Lupino) life and possibly the crown jewels from arch- criminal Moriarty. But the movie differs importantly from the better-known Universal entries. Having just seen the Roy William Neill's later Universal series with Rathbone and Bruce, I can't help but make comparisons. There's much less "comic relief" in this film, specifically no buffoonish Inspector Lestrade, and while Watson bumbles comically at times, it's more a character quality than an extended laugh-getter. But, most notable is the way Holmes is portrayed in each version. Spoiler coming up—unlike the Universal series, Holmes is actually outwitted here by the nefariously clever Moriarty (Zucco). I kept expecting Holmes to see through Moriarty's ruse and turn up in disguise to thwart the stealing of the crown jewels, which likely would have been Neill's approach (the unerring Holmes). But Holmes doesn't. Instead, he's fooled by Moriarty's diversion with Ann, and had Moriarty not dallied in the jewel cage, his "crime of the century" would have succeeded and trumped Holmes at the same time. Unlike Universal's version, this is a Holmes who can be outwitted, and I like the way the screenplay reveals how Moriarty exploits Holmes' weak spot, viz. his "restless" mind.Nonetheless, director Werker's stylistic approach here is much more routine than Neill's emphasis on colorful characters and imaginative touches. Looks to me like TCF treated the film as just another well-produced feature, whereas Neill had a personal attachment to his Holmes features, both producing and directing the series for Universal. He had something of a formula, but it's one that worked well and usually managed something distinctively memorable (the "hopping" boy in …Pearl, the human chessboard in …Faces Death, etc.). TCF's Holmes probably comes closer to the original, but I confess a sneaking preference for Universal's more contrived programmers. Still and all, this film is made memorable by its depiction of a fallible Holmes, even if he does triumph in the end.