As a fan of detective stories, I’ve written before – in this space, even – about my feelings regarding the character of Sherlock Holmes.
Regarded by many as the quintessential deductionist, Holmes has earned worldwide glory through exposure books, films, and television series. He’s one of those characters that – for reasons I’ve never quite understood – comes and goes: he’ll fall out of popularity for some time only to come back into our collective consciousness again, perhaps even stronger and more admired than when he left. Because he’s a fictional creation that’s stood the test of time, producers are apt to tap that well again and again, perhaps gifting him with some new talent or new quirk in order to lend the man an air of freshness … and, yet, all that truly matters most is the investigator’s singular ability to get to the bottom of any affair that requires his urgent attention.
For me, however, I have to admit that I’m rarely enamored with his stories as are so many. While it might be a minor quibble to some, my issue is that going back to the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle far too many clues are hidden from the viewer’s eye – meaning I’m unable to follow along closely and perhaps even solve the case vicariously with the master – and, consequently, I think it’s a bit of a narrative ‘cheat.’ Knowing I’m in the minority, I choose not to make a big deal out of the man’s adventures, but I do give them a spin from time-to-time for no better reason than – as I said – I enjoy a good mystery.
Thankfully, the kind people at Severin Films gifted me a copy of 1962’s Sherlock Holmes And The Deadly Necklace, a German production fraught with some production controversy (as I understand from reading) directed by Terence Fisher from a script rather loosely based on Doyle’s material and penned by Curt Siodmak. If that doesn’t tickle your fancy, then how about this: the great Christopher Lee headlines the picture as the enigmatic resident of Baker Street, joined by the reliable Thorley Walters as his perennial sidekick, Dr. Watson.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Sherlock Holmes and Watson do battle with their nemesis, Professor Moriarity, over an ancient necklace attributed to Cleopatra.”
Once, I met a theatre critic, and – just for giggles – I asked him how he ultimately knew he was watching a bad theatrical experience as opposed to something worthwhile. He told me that for him the big giveaway was that he found himself focusing on something usually entirely unimportant – things like set design, props, costumes, or even lighting – that would alert him that the story as presented just wasn’t working. While these things are important (he assured me), they should never be so vivid or captivating that they overwhelmed the original tale.
Well …
Deadly Necklace – as a self-contained Holmesian investigation – is a hodge-podge that never quite rises to the level of interest required to compel an audience to stick with it. I’ve read that not only was the plot – a kinda/sorta back-and-forth between Sherlock Holmes (played by Christopher Lee) and his arch nemesis Professor Moriarty (Hans Söhnker) involving the discovery of Cleopatra’s tomb – hacked together from bits and pieces of the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle novel “The Valley Of Fear” but also it was constantly a work in progress as the Doyle estate kept rejecting scenes shot as they held approvals over the daily production. Suffice it to say, I’ve watched it twice now, and I still can’t make much sense of it.
Regarded by many as the quintessential deductionist, Holmes has earned worldwide glory through exposure books, films, and television series. He’s one of those characters that – for reasons I’ve never quite understood – comes and goes: he’ll fall out of popularity for some time only to come back into our collective consciousness again, perhaps even stronger and more admired than when he left. Because he’s a fictional creation that’s stood the test of time, producers are apt to tap that well again and again, perhaps gifting him with some new talent or new quirk in order to lend the man an air of freshness … and, yet, all that truly matters most is the investigator’s singular ability to get to the bottom of any affair that requires his urgent attention.
For me, however, I have to admit that I’m rarely enamored with his stories as are so many. While it might be a minor quibble to some, my issue is that going back to the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle far too many clues are hidden from the viewer’s eye – meaning I’m unable to follow along closely and perhaps even solve the case vicariously with the master – and, consequently, I think it’s a bit of a narrative ‘cheat.’ Knowing I’m in the minority, I choose not to make a big deal out of the man’s adventures, but I do give them a spin from time-to-time for no better reason than – as I said – I enjoy a good mystery.
Thankfully, the kind people at Severin Films gifted me a copy of 1962’s Sherlock Holmes And The Deadly Necklace, a German production fraught with some production controversy (as I understand from reading) directed by Terence Fisher from a script rather loosely based on Doyle’s material and penned by Curt Siodmak. If that doesn’t tickle your fancy, then how about this: the great Christopher Lee headlines the picture as the enigmatic resident of Baker Street, joined by the reliable Thorley Walters as his perennial sidekick, Dr. Watson.
(NOTE: The following review will contain minor spoilers necessary solely for the discussion of plot and/or characters. If you’re the type of reader who prefers a review entirely spoiler-free, then I’d encourage you to skip down to the last few paragraphs for the final assessment. If, however, you’re accepting of a few modest hints at ‘things to come,’ then read on …)
From the film’s IMDB.com page citation:
“Sherlock Holmes and Watson do battle with their nemesis, Professor Moriarity, over an ancient necklace attributed to Cleopatra.”
Once, I met a theatre critic, and – just for giggles – I asked him how he ultimately knew he was watching a bad theatrical experience as opposed to something worthwhile. He told me that for him the big giveaway was that he found himself focusing on something usually entirely unimportant – things like set design, props, costumes, or even lighting – that would alert him that the story as presented just wasn’t working. While these things are important (he assured me), they should never be so vivid or captivating that they overwhelmed the original tale.
Well …
Deadly Necklace – as a self-contained Holmesian investigation – is a hodge-podge that never quite rises to the level of interest required to compel an audience to stick with it. I’ve read that not only was the plot – a kinda/sorta back-and-forth between Sherlock Holmes (played by Christopher Lee) and his arch nemesis Professor Moriarty (Hans Söhnker) involving the discovery of Cleopatra’s tomb – hacked together from bits and pieces of the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle novel “The Valley Of Fear” but also it was constantly a work in progress as the Doyle estate kept rejecting scenes shot as they held approvals over the daily production. Suffice it to say, I’ve watched it twice now, and I still can’t make much sense of it.
What I can tell you is that the opening of Cleopatra’s burial vault has led to the discovery of riches, the greatest of which appears to be tied to an ornate necklace. As a known expert on such antiquities, Moriarty is naturally interested on getting his hands on this jewelry, and he’ll stop at nothing – yes, including murder – to do so. Of course, all of this draws Holmes, Watson, and even Scotland Yard into the caper, suggesting a somewhat loose ‘race against time’ structure that would see the necklace revealed to the public for its auction house event. Though there’s some great suggestion of heightened tension to all of this, the film is nearly void of any such anxiety.
Thankfully, Deadly Necklace does make solid use of the adversarial relationship between Holmes and Moriarty. (In fact, that’s really the only thriving undercurrent at work here to suggest any kind of dramatic beat.) Though they don’t share too many scenes together, Lee and Söhnker capture a sense of two men secretly locked in mortal combat – Lee is a composed and practical thinker while Söhnker’s mannerisms always hint at a measure of deviousness – and this effect truly should’ve been capitalized on more whenever possible. Also, I’d be remiss if I failed to point out that Lee and Walters also muster up some solid chemistry as the flick’s celebrated pair: though his Watson comes across a bit too clumsy at times, Walters still holds his own opposite the venerable Lee, and their scenes do help to keep the whole mystery from becoming entirely forgettable.
But like my friend the drama critic, I had an increasingly difficult time staying invested in the film, a development I owe to the fact that everything felt a bit too artificial, a bit too forced. No event flows freely from one moment to the next, and Fisher’s direction feels like it might’ve been usurped by elements beyond his control (mainly, whatever efforts the Conan Doyle estate were pushing behind the scenes). In fact, I found myself focusing on scene dressing here and there – would a study really have that many books, and who thought putting a chair over there was a good idea – further pulling me out of the organic experience and thrusting me into corners best left untended.
Sherlock Holmes And The Deadly Necklace (1962) was produced by Central Cinema Company Film (CCC), Omnia Deutsche Film Export, Criterion Productions, and Incei Film. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Severin Films. As for the technical specifications? Wow. Though I’m no trained video expert, I thought that this 1962 flick looked fabulous; sadly, the soundtrack is a bit inferior. (If one’s interested, then there’s some stuff out there in cyberspace about how German production of this era exclusively used dubbing after the fact, and you’re encouraged to read up on it if desired.) Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Well, aside from the usual extras there is a commentary track from film writers Kim Newman and Barry Forshaw: while it’s occasionally interesting, it truly veers into an incredible number of related topics … and, frankly, I found it a bit tiresome after a while. (While I’m no questioning eithers’ expertise, it just could’ve stayed on topic a bit more to my liking.)
Alas … only recommended for either Lee purists or Holmes aficionados.
Sadly, there just isn’t all that much within Sherlock Holmes And The Deadly Necklace (1962) to give it even a complimentary nod. The performances are all a bit predictable – though nice in a few spots – and the story feels unnecessarily spliced together in such a way that none of it feels all that interesting or consequential. Have you ever watched a movie and come away thinking “wouldn’t it have been great if X happened?” Well, Deadly Necklace might be one of those – an unusual assessment given it derived on Holmes subject matter – but that’s about the best that can be said. If it all should’ve been elementary, then this was a bit of a mess.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Severin Films provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Sherlock Holmes And The Deadly Necklace (1962) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
Thankfully, Deadly Necklace does make solid use of the adversarial relationship between Holmes and Moriarty. (In fact, that’s really the only thriving undercurrent at work here to suggest any kind of dramatic beat.) Though they don’t share too many scenes together, Lee and Söhnker capture a sense of two men secretly locked in mortal combat – Lee is a composed and practical thinker while Söhnker’s mannerisms always hint at a measure of deviousness – and this effect truly should’ve been capitalized on more whenever possible. Also, I’d be remiss if I failed to point out that Lee and Walters also muster up some solid chemistry as the flick’s celebrated pair: though his Watson comes across a bit too clumsy at times, Walters still holds his own opposite the venerable Lee, and their scenes do help to keep the whole mystery from becoming entirely forgettable.
But like my friend the drama critic, I had an increasingly difficult time staying invested in the film, a development I owe to the fact that everything felt a bit too artificial, a bit too forced. No event flows freely from one moment to the next, and Fisher’s direction feels like it might’ve been usurped by elements beyond his control (mainly, whatever efforts the Conan Doyle estate were pushing behind the scenes). In fact, I found myself focusing on scene dressing here and there – would a study really have that many books, and who thought putting a chair over there was a good idea – further pulling me out of the organic experience and thrusting me into corners best left untended.
Sherlock Holmes And The Deadly Necklace (1962) was produced by Central Cinema Company Film (CCC), Omnia Deutsche Film Export, Criterion Productions, and Incei Film. DVD distribution (for this particular release) has been coordinated by the fine folks at Severin Films. As for the technical specifications? Wow. Though I’m no trained video expert, I thought that this 1962 flick looked fabulous; sadly, the soundtrack is a bit inferior. (If one’s interested, then there’s some stuff out there in cyberspace about how German production of this era exclusively used dubbing after the fact, and you’re encouraged to read up on it if desired.) Lastly, if you’re looking for special features? Well, aside from the usual extras there is a commentary track from film writers Kim Newman and Barry Forshaw: while it’s occasionally interesting, it truly veers into an incredible number of related topics … and, frankly, I found it a bit tiresome after a while. (While I’m no questioning eithers’ expertise, it just could’ve stayed on topic a bit more to my liking.)
Alas … only recommended for either Lee purists or Holmes aficionados.
Sadly, there just isn’t all that much within Sherlock Holmes And The Deadly Necklace (1962) to give it even a complimentary nod. The performances are all a bit predictable – though nice in a few spots – and the story feels unnecessarily spliced together in such a way that none of it feels all that interesting or consequential. Have you ever watched a movie and come away thinking “wouldn’t it have been great if X happened?” Well, Deadly Necklace might be one of those – an unusual assessment given it derived on Holmes subject matter – but that’s about the best that can be said. If it all should’ve been elementary, then this was a bit of a mess.
In the interests of fairness, I’m pleased to disclose that the fine folks at Severin Films provided me with a complimentary Blu-ray of Sherlock Holmes And The Deadly Necklace (1962) by request for the expressed purpose of completing this review. Their contribution to me in no way, shape, or form influenced my opinion of it.
-- EZ
RSS Feed