Experiment #13 - "Terror by Night" (1946)

Teapots!

***

When you picture Sherlock Holmes a few images naturally spring to mind. It’s not hard to picture the detective, dressed in his Inverness cloak and deerstalker hat, rushing out into the foggy London night, a pipe clenched between his teeth and a magnifying glass to his eye in search of clues to solve a baffling mystery. As painfully stereotypical as this image may be, it feels right. So, there’s something decidedly not right about Sherlock Holmes singing and dancing. And yet, Sherlock Holmes musicals do exist.

Nick: While they may not be very popular, there have been a number of Sherlock Holmes musicals which have done their best to show that Holmes can sing and dance. By far, the most famous Sherlockian musical in Broadway history was 1965’s Baker Street. The show premiered on Broadway in 1965 and was written by Jerome Coopersmith with music and lyrics by Marian Grudeff and Raymond Jessel. The plot involved Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee, Professor Moriarty, and Irene Adler romancing Sherlock Holmes. The show was not a runaway success, but its soundtrack can still be found online, including one song sung by the great detective called “It’s So Simple.”

Cat: Which is...an interesting listening experience. Now let it be known, that I am definitely a fan of musicals and I like the way music expresses stuff a lot. And I have to say...it’s not really as bad as you’d imagine. The tune is actually really catchy. The song itself is Holmes rattling off some deductions about a new client, and it’s almost has a feeling of “so wrong, it’s right”. On one hand, some might find the idea of Sherlock Holmes singing to be extremely appalling - but on the other, if he had to sing and dance, this seems like it feels pretty accurate (especially given that this is a song from 1965). I’m honestly a bit conflicted here. It’s not as bad as I thought it would be. (And it’s now stuck in my head. Thanks, Nick.)

Nick: Sure thing Catharine. And, to be entirely honest, I actually quite like the song. When I first listened to it I thought that I would not, but it’s fun. It sounds very much like your typical song from a musical of the ‘60s, but it works. Now, Baker Street may have been the most famous legitimate Sherlock Holmes musical, but there were many others including one which adapted the works of Gilbert and Sullivan and had Holmes sing a version of “I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major General.” However, my personal favorite Sherlock Holmes musical technically has nothing to do with Holmes: My Fair Lady. Based, of course, on George Bernard Shaw’s play Pygmalion, the character of Professor Henry Higgins has a very Sherlockian vibe to him as is evidenced in some of his songs (particularly “Why Can’t the English” and “Why Can’t a Woman be More Like a Man”).

Cat: I’m actually not really familiar much at all with My Fair Lady, so I can’t comment on this too much, but after listening to “Why Can’t the English”, I guess I can see that a little bit? I’m not going to deny that I could see a similarity, but it’s nothing that jumps out at me on a first-listen.

Nick: Well, maybe with a bit more context the Sherlockian connection does become a little more apparent: Higgins knows dialects and accents like the back of his hand, is best friends with a military man recently back from India, lives an eccentric lifestyle, and is cruel to his long-suffering housekeeper. My Fair Lady also has an interesting Sherlockian connection: Young socialite Freddy Eynsford-Hill, who falls in love with Audrey Hepburn's Eliza Doolittle, is played by a young Jeremy Brett! Though Brett was an accomplished singer, his voice is dubbed in the film. All-the-same, Freddy's song, "On the Street Where You Live" is a genuine highlight.

Cat: Indeed it is, because Baby Jeremy Brett is pretty adorable. Can’t help but wonder why it was that they dubbed him over though. It would seem that Sherlock Holmes will appear in musicals, whether people like it or not. (And that’s not even counting the handfuls of serious and out-there fan-made “musicals” people have put together with clips of songs and various Sherlock Holmes media!)

Nick: Yes, some of those fan-made musicals can be pretty clever and fun. And, it’s a good point that Sherlock Holmes will appear in musicals whether people like it or not because, as we saw last time in Pursuit to Algiers, musicals will appear in Sherlock Holmes whether people like it or not...FOUR MUSICAL NUMBERS! Ugh...

   

Cat: Nick, some things you just have to let go...and a song lasting not even minute doesn’t count as a musical number!

As you can see this is still a touchy subject around these parts. Perhaps it would be for the best if we moved on with the subject of today’s review.

Vital Statistics:

Terror by Night (1946)

Major motion picture

Starring Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Dr. Watson), Alan Mowbray (Major Duncan Blek), Dennis Hoey (Inspector Lestrade), Renee Godfrey (Vivian Vedder), Frederick Worlock (Professor Kilbane)

60 minutes, black-and-white

Thoughts:

Nick: I don’t know about you Catharine, but I just think this one has a bit of a weird vibe. It’s not bad by any means, but it’s one of the more unusual entries, I think, in the Rathbone/Bruce series.

Cat: You too?! I was going to ask you the same thing. It’s hard to even put why it’s weird into words for me. I kind of think it’s because the movie starts off with Holmes and Watson already engaged in a ‘case’ that we just jump into. That made it feel a bit off from the beginning for me at least.

Nick: Yeah, it is a little in medias res one supposes. It’s also interesting that we start out meeting one of the film’s suspects first; Renee Godfrey’s Vivian Vedder who is buying a special coffin from a coffin-maker in London. Not to criticize the movie too harshly right off the bat, but it’s fairly obvious that the movie is trying so hard to make her out to be a femme fatale in the style of some of the earlier women antagonists, and it just never really comes off. (The scene isn’t helped by the obviously overacting coffin-maker’s assistant who seems to be utter awe at the sight of Godfrey as he stands with his mouth open, his tongue practically hanging out of his mouth.)

Cat: Yeah, I thought that was a little odd because then, once the action picks up on the train - the main setting of the movie - they don’t really do too much with her. So they don’t even successfully turn her into a femme fatale character. Her character seems to be quite literally for show and little else. Though there wasn’t much character development done with anyone else, so it’s not like that’s a problem for just her character.

The Client, The Femme Fatale, and The Detective

Nick: It is true. Her character delivers one bit of important information to Holmes and little else. As Catharine alluded to above, the majority of this movie does take place on a train where Holmes has been tasked with keeping a watchful eye on the priceless diamond, The Star of Rhodesia. I must take a moment to thank Catharine for pointing out that Rhodesia is the same kingdom where King Nikolas was from in Pursuit to Algiers which, I suppose, sets up some kind of internal continuity in the series. And, quite like Pursuit to Algiers, once on the train, Holmes and Watson are introduced to a number of odd characters who act as suspects and red herrings throughout the entire film.

Cat: So perhaps it’s just the involvement of Rhodesia that is what makes these movies so boring for you? Perhaps the country just has this dull-air that touches all that involves it? ...Or maybe it’s just a weird little coincidence and I get easily carried away. But like Nick said, it’s essentially the same type of a story, but this time it’s on a train. Although this film is already better than Pursuit to Algiers because, as we find out in the first few minutes, Inspector Lestrade happens to be on the same train so he can go on a fishing trip! Oh, Dennis Hoey, how I’ve missed you. I can’t express how much joy he brings me every time he’s on screen.

Nick: Having Dennis Hoey around does make any movie a little bit better. And, though he’s nothing like the canonical Lestrade, Hoey’s inspector is just a lot of fun. To this day, I always read Lestrade’s dialogue in a Cockney accent as a bit of an homage to Hoey. In the same way as Nigel Bruce, his bumbling and buffoonery is endearing and enjoyable. It’s also amusing that he’s trying to travel incognito but drops the guise as soon as the Star is stolen and the man carrying it is murdered (which is, in a nutshell, the plot of this movie).

Cat: Having Dennis Hoey around makes EVERYTHING better! Oddly enough, while it took some time for me to warm up to Nigel Bruce’s “buffoonery”, as you call it, I loved Dennis Hoey’s Lestrade from just about the moment I met him. He absolutely cracks me up. Watching him try to take over the investigation of the theft and murder was pleasantly amusing - especially since he’s the only one on the train who, legally speaking, should be in charge of such an investigation. (Now, if we’re speaking about capability, that’s something a bit different…) At least he tries to get to the bottom of things.

Nick: It is true; Lestrade is hardly capable of handling this investigation. But, since he is in charge, he insists on questioning everyone in the train car and employs Holmes and Watson to help. This leads to, what I think, is actually one of the film’s funnier running gags. Watson begins to question a couple who admit to a theft and, believing that he’s caught the culprit, excitedly reports it to Holmes and Lestrade only to discover that the theft in question was a teapot from a London hotel. The look of disappointment on Watson’s face coupled with Lestrade’s repeated, aggravated mumblings of “Teapots!” is really quite amusing.

Lestrade and his teapots

Cat: It truly is. Especially because Nigel Bruce and Dennis Hoey have this beautiful dynamic where they keep trying to prove themselves smarter or more capable around Holmes - very much like two small children stubbornly competing for affection and praise. (Poor Holmes.) So every time Watson messes up like that, Lestrade gets all high and mighty about it and vice versa. While perhaps not the most accurate characterizations, they certainly are true. Watching that play out makes all the questionings very entertaining. I think my personal favorite parts of this gag was when Watson also tried to question Professor Kilbane and only succeeds in aggravating him and getting himself sent out of his train compartment. Watson really does try to be helpful, but it so rarely turns out well.

Nick: Not only does Watson get himself sent out of the compartment, but Kilbane turns the tables on the good doctor and actually accuses him of the murder! All-the-while though, Holmes is beginning to believe that the theft of the Star of Rhodesia may have been committed by the late Professor Moriarty’s right-hand man, Colonel Sebastian Moran. As he comes closer to the truth, Watson’s friend - and fellow traveler - Major Duncan Bleek decides to throw his hat into the detecting ring and try to give the detectives a hand but, as it soon transpires, Bleek is actually Colonel Moran!

Cat: Yeah...I’m still trying to make sense of that twist. It comes out at the end of the film, though Holmes suspects it for a bit before that, but we never get any real explanation about the unspoken implications about that. You hear Watson and Bleek/Moran talk about their military past together, but once the reveal of Bleek’s true identity happens, you never get Watson’s opinions or feelings on the matter. I don’t think they even specifically mention what the motive here was supposed to be?

Colonel Sebastian Moran!

Nick: That is true. Moran is sort of just being evil for the sake of being evil. It is cool that Sebastian Moran turns up as the major villain in this movie though. So often he’s overlooked as a villain, but he has such a fascinating story in the canon. There’s even a neat anthology of short stories which are told by Moran as he acts as Moriarty’s sidekick as they go committing crimes all over London. It’s a lot of fun! There’s another nice canonical reference in this movie in that the coffin which Vivian brought aboard has a secret compartment allowing Moran to smuggle his confederate aboard the train. The secret-compartment-in-the-coffin trick is lifted from the story “The Disappearance of Lady Frances Carfax.”

Cat: Ooh, cool! But yeah, it feels a bit strange because you find out “whodunit” - but without any “whydunit”. That threw me a bit. But here’s how it works out: the train stops and picks up a few Scottish police officers (or as I like to call them “the real Scotland Yarders”) and Holmes gathers them, Watson, “Bleek”, and Lestrade to spell out how everything has occured in the dining car. Through this explanation, he tells everyone that Bleek is indeed Moran and after denying it for a moment, he admits it as true. Though, as I said earlier, we don’t get much of a reaction from Watson over this news, though he happened to be seated on a bench next to where Moran was standing. In a rare moment of sheer awesome-ness for Bruce’s Watson, he punches him and initiates a scuffle that ends with Holmes overpowering Moran in the dark and handing him off with his jacket pulled over his head to the Scottish officers, who exit the train with Moran in handcuffs….or so it would seem. Only once they’re gone does Holmes reveal that the police officers were really some of Moran’s comrades, who were hoping to take him with them, but they ended up getting Lestrade. While Lestrade takes control of that situation, Holmes puts the real Moran (who was stashed under a table in the fight) in handcuffs and everything seems to work itself out alright. Keep in mind though, this all happens in roughly seven minutes or so? It’s a bit of a rush.

Nick: Seven minutes is a very accurate estimate. Like a lot of these latter Rathbone films, they end really, really quickly and this one is no exception. However, this whole finale is actually pretty well-done and interesting and it throws in one last twist to keep the audience on their toes. I also really like the reference to the Scottish Inspector MacDonald who assists Holmes in the novel The Valley of Fear. Of course, this Inspector MacDonald is not all he seems to be.

Inspector MacDonald...or is it?

Cat: It definitely is, and I enjoyed it, but it felt very quick and almost as if there were multiple things that went unresolved. I would’ve really liked to see it stretch on for just a few more moments to wrap things up just a bit better. And on the note of Inspector MacDonald, I thought it very funny when Holmes informs Moran that he has been entirely thwarted that he says that he actually knows Inspector MacDonald, so his attempt was in vain practically from the beginning. That made me giggle a bit.

Nick: That is a pretty amusing bit. The other bit which made Catharine and I laugh was the random sarcophagus which can be found in the train’s baggage car. It’s just standing there as if it were a completely normal item to cart around. I like to think that it’s the mummy which the two archaeologists in Pursuit to Algiers dug up.

Cat: Wouldn’t be surprised, as there was apparently some unintentional continuity here. (Though we can’t keep straight the fact that there have been three Moriartys, who all have had on/mostly onscreen deaths...just saying...)

Nick: Well, they’re obviously three brothers named James…

Cat:  Oh, of course. No other possible explanation. (Though technically they have to still be siblings with a somewhat logical age gap that spans the typical Victorian era and the 40s. But it could still work. Maybe George Zucco was a cousin or something...or the other two Moriartys’ father! ….Or maybe we should quit while we’re ahead.)

Nick: Yeah. Not a bad idea...   

It’s time for Final Thoughts:

Nick: If it seems like we really have not had much to say about Terror by Night it’s because there isn’t much to say. It’s really one of the most straightforward films in the series with a simple plot and simple consequences of the plot. Really, when you sit back and think about it, this movie is comprised of going back and forth down one stretch of hallway questioning suspects. And, while something like Murder on the Orient Express springs to mind as an obvious similar story, that story had a more complex plot and a fascinating cast of characters which really held your interest, I don’t know if I can say the same for Terror by Night. It is, I think, a distinct step up from Pursuit to Algiers, but it just feels a bit dull and, even though it’s the shortest movie in the Rathbone/Bruce series (clocking in at just one hour), it actually, at times, feels longer. That is not to say, however, that this movie is all bad. The inclusion of Colonel Moran is a definite plus as are the references to Doyle and the complex finale. The scene where Moran attempts to kick Holmes from the train is also a neat one. It’s not especially suspenseful or exciting, but it’s a welcome breath of fresh air in the plot. So, overall, I think Terror by Night is pretty ho-hum. And you Catharine? Your thoughts?

Oh...yeah, Holmes was almost pushed off the train...

Cat: For the most part, I have to agree. While I didn’t think that Pursuit to Algiers was the painful bore-fest that you did, for some reason I can’t quite put my finger on, this did feel like a definite step up. I liked the scene where Holmes get pushed out of the train - a moment we glossed over, but it had me on the edge of my seat - and I definitely liked the ending. I thought it was cool that they used Moran as an actual character, because even with my limited knowledge, I know that’s not exactly frequently uttered name. It got a bit dull at times leading up to the ending, with the dead ends and the going in circles with the suspects on the train, but even still, it wasn’t awful. It just wasn’t particularly exciting. Even still, though I did really enjoy the ending, I still wish there had been just a bit more resolution - especially with the revelation that Watson must’ve had that he had served with the right-hand man of the Napoleon of Crime! And, even in the less exciting moments, there were the antics of Lestrade and Watson to keep me giggling and entertained (if not interested). I think that about sums it up for me, actually. Entertained, if not always interested.

Nick: That’s an excellent way of summing up this movie. Well, I guess the last bit of business would be to give it our deerstalker ratings. I’ll go for a 3 out of 5 with this one. Not bad, but this is one which I seldom find myself going back to. And you?

Cat: I think I have to go with a 4.0 at the most and a 3.5 at the worst. After the movie was over, I had felt decently enough satisfied with what I had seen, and I really did like that ending and the use of moran as the culprit of it all. I’m only really noticing some of these duller moments now that I look back on it and pick it apart. I would have liked a bit more from it, but with what I got, I really did like it alright enough!

Nick: Wow! A 4.0! That’s pretty high. I must say that if this movie ends up with a higher rating than Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, Seven Per-Cent Solution, or Murder by Decree, I’ll end up rather upset!

Cat: Nick, I will rate these movies as I please. And besides, if that’s all that I do that upsets you on this blog, I’ll be rather disappointed in myself. ;)

Nick's Rating

Catharine's Rating

Next Time: The Basil Rathbone era ends on a rather poignant note. (That’s a pun because the plot of Dressed to Kill involves musical boxes. Get it?)

Experiment #12 - "Pursuit to Algiers" (1945)

In which Nick sighs a good deal and Cat keeps track of each one. Sherlock Holmes shows off a previously hidden talent for shuffleboard (!), while Watson demonstrates that he can sing leaving Nick to only sigh more.

***

It’s been coming. From the beginning we’ve been dreading it. It’s been looming like some giant 2001: A Space Odyssey monolith. It’s been haunting us like a ghost. It’s Pursuit to Algiers.

Nick: I think from the start that I have made it clear that I have not been anticipating this one. I’ve called this one the worst of the Rathbone/Bruce series if not one of the worst Sherlock Holmes movies ever. In short, reaching this one was something of a milestone.

Cat: Ever since you first approached me about beginning this crazy project with you, all I’ve heard about this movie has been, “If we can get to/through Pursuit to Algiers, we’ll be fine.” And there was always an accompanying eye roll and groan. So I’ve been eagerly waiting for this for awhile: to see if it was as bad as you always made it out to be, and because at this point we’d be “in deep” with the blog. And so, here we are. Pursuit to Algiers.

Nick: Well, I think this one really does divide fans. Some find it strangely enjoyable while others find it unwatchable. I think I may have spoiled my thoughts about this one already, but how did Catharine take to this one? I suppose there’s only one way to find out. Let’s dive right in...pray for us.

Vital Statistics:

Pursuit to Algiers (1945)

Major motion picture

Starring Basil Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes), Nigel Bruce (Dr. Watson), Marjorie Riordan (Sheila Woodbury), Rosalind Ivan (Agatha Dunham), Martin Kosleck (Mirko), Leslie Vincent (Nikolas), Rex Evans (Gregor), Morton Lowry (Sanford)

65 minutes, black-and-white

Thoughts:

Nick: [Heavy, heavy sigh]

Cat: For the record, I kept count of how many times Nick groaned/sighed/rolled his eyes at what we were witnessing. It happened AT LEAST nine times. If you couldn’t guess what crowd Nick is in for this movie, there you have it. Surprisingly, after all the negative lead up to this...I can’t say I feel the same way. (Nick is very, very, thoroughly disappointed in me. I’m sure he’s looking for a replacement co-blogger as I type.)

Nick: I should probably admit that my opinions on this movie have been a little strong. But, let’s go through this thing. So, we begin in London. Holmes and Watson are preparing to go on holiday in Scotland when they are approached by a number of curious people in the street. They are encouraged to go into a fish and chips bar and, through a series of very conspicuous occurrences, the two end up at number 26 Fishbone Alley. I really don’t know how to react to this beginning. It borders at times on pure parody, but it’s got some neat atmosphere and some good dialogue. Watson’s defensiveness is displayed at its full and I love his line about “loathing” fish and chips. But, it’s still just so silly.

Cat: To be honest, I might have to rewatch the beginning by myself to get a “true” opinion of it because I was already thoroughly amused by Nick’s reactions to, well, everything. However, I found the silliness enjoyable, and I too enjoyed Watson’s apparent loathing for fish and chips. Nigel Bruce has truly wormed his way into my heart, so when he’s so defensive, I find it very endearing. I think part of the reason I found the whole beginning amusing is because Holmes so very clearly is aware of the fact that something’s going on while Watson is his usual oblivious self.

Nick: Maybe you have gotten swept up in the intrigue of this beginning and you’re wondering just who and why Holmes has been drawn into this web. It transpires that Holmes is being hired by representatives of the kingdom of Rhodesia who, following the assassination of their king, are fearful for the life of his son who is currently in England. These representatives wish for Holmes to act as the (for the lack of a better word) chaperone for their future king, Nikolas. Now, something I meant to ask you while watching this: what do you think of this plot on a whole? On paper, it does have some potential and it’s sort of cool that, in some ways, the story is entering spy/espionage territory.

That actually is a cool shot

Cat: On the whole, I did think that the plot was kind of interesting and had some real potential for some cool scenes and I thought the possible spy/espionage theme could be fun. It’s not necessarily much of a mystery” for Holmes to solve, but I still thought there was potential there. I don’t think I ever asked, but how do you feel about that all? You didn’t seem to be a huge fan of the plot itself, but I wasn’t really sure.

Nick: I like the idea of the plot. I don’t like the execution of the plot. When the movie moves to the cruise ship, I find the whole thing yawn-inducing. But, let’s get to that boat. So, Holmes agrees to fly with Nikolas aboard a small airplane while Watson acts as a decoy and sails aboard a cruise ship into the Mediterranean. Interestingly, the name of the ship S.S. Friesland is something of a reference to an untold story mentioned in “The Norwood Builder” so that gets the Nick seal of approval. Watson also meets a number of curious folks aboard the ship: a young singer named Sheila, an obnoxious woman carrying a gun named Dunham, and a couple of suspicious men who are discussing transporting bodies.

Cat: You know, regular cruise ship people. I don’t really think that at least the beginning of the cruise ship scenes were anything awful. Especially since Watson is tasked with acting as the “conspicuous decoy”. Given that conspicuous seems to be how Watson acts on a normal day, seeing him purposefully try to be so was a bit amusing to me. He’s trying so hard to keep what Holmes is doing a secret and only barely succeeding. And then, as he starts getting to know the other passengers, he’s really trying to be a good and subtle detective, and couldn’t be more obvious if he tried! Though I have to say, they never really cleared up why Dunham randomly had a gun in her purse...I mean, the lady was weird enough as it was, so it wasn’t that surprising, but it was strange.

Nick: The gun was simply to make her a red herring. Though, I never, NEVER thought that she was responsible for a threat to Nikolas’ life. Anyhow, one of the highlights of the films comes when Watson learns that Holmes’ airplane has crashed and all its occupants are presumed dead. Once more, Watson believes that he has lost his friend and, again, Nigel Bruce proves that he has a great set of acting chops. I love the way that Bruce just stares out into the ocean just trying to come to grips with Holmes’ death. It’s a beautiful little scene and quite moving here in the middle of this strange film.

The return of Sad Watson

Cat:   I only thought she was a crazy lady with a gun, since they never did anything with it. And that was SO SAAAAAAD! I had started to sense where the movie was going with this development, but it was still SO SAD! I don’t want to see Nigel Bruce look that sad ever, ever, ever again! (Even IF he’s really good at it - it’s just too much!) Thankfully though, as I suspected, Holmes just happens to occasionally employ plots that involve faking his death. (Apparently, they’re still effective after the first time.) He ends up being in the room that Watson’s cabin is attached to with Nikolas, both of them perfectly unharmed, which slightly confuses and greatly relieves Watson.

Nick: Yeah, Holmes does fake his death quite a bit. Well, Holmes decides to oversee Nikolas as well with Watson’s help and, once he’s introduced to the singer Sheila, she flees at the very sight of him. This, of course, leads to an infamous line of dialogue which, I must transcribe in full just to emphasize the sheer stupidity of it all:

Watson: I don’t understand it, Holmes. She seems such a nice girl. And she sings charmingly.

Holmes: My dear fellow, musical talent is hardly evidence of innocence. As a matter-of-fact, the late Professor Moriarty was a virtuoso on the bassoon.

Um...WHAT?! I...I just don’t comprehend. I fully admit that I burst out laughing when Basil Rathbone delivered that dialogue with the most deadpan of expressions.

Cat: Yeah, you found that line MUCH funnier than I did, honestly. I paused the movie so that you could let it all out at once. Sure, it was amusing, but it wasn’t that funny! I didn’t even find it all that odd. I mean, Sherlock Holmes plays the violin quite well, so it doesn’t seem that odd to me that his arch-enemy that he’s supposed to be very similar to also has a musical outlet. However, I can’t take away your amusement of that moment. (You needed something to enjoy.)

Nick: Well, let’s take a moment to ask the really important question: which of the three Moriartys that we have met in the Rathbone/Bruce series is the one who would most likely have played the bassoon? Can we picture Henry Daniell’s uber-creepy Moriarty sitting down and playing the bassoon? How about Lionel Atwill? The music-loving George Zucco? If I had to cast a vote I’d say George Zucco’s Moriarty. He seems the most cultured of the three Moriartys. Inclined to agree?

Professor Moriarty - Bassoon virtuoso?

Cat: Agreed, he’s the most likely, I think. Though I have to say, I really could almost see all of them playing the bassoon. What I can’t see is any of them taking lessons to learn to play the bassoon. That’d be weird. Really, really weird.

Nick: That conjures up some truly lovely mental images! It truly does! Well, let’s keep going. We’re (thankfully) at about the halfway point. So, with suspicion mounting around the ship’s passengers, it soon becomes apparent that the real threat is coming in the form of Mr. Gregor, Gubec, and Mirko who arrive on the boat at an unscheduled stop off the coast of Spain. As far as villains go, I suppose they’re alright, but Martin Kosleck’s Mirko is the highlight.

Cat: He was creepy looking. (And he reminded me a bit of Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory for some reason?) I thought those guys were okay as far as villains go. They’re your typical shady brutes with unspecified motives, I suppose. They’re housed up in the room across from Watson, Holmes, and Nikolas - which is very suspicious. Then, they engage in the most evil of all dastardly activities….shuffleboard.

Shuffleboard?! Really?

Nick: Oh my God. Shuffleboard. Watching Sherlock Holmes playing shuffleboard is one of the most surreal and one of the most unusual things I think I have ever seen. It’s just so weird. I mean, it’s that stereotypical thing to do on a cruise ship so I suppose it made sense to have them play shuffleboard in a movie which is set on a cruise ship but...I still just don’t like it. This does, however, lead into a nice bit where Mirko attempts to kill Holmes by throwing a knife through a porthole into his cabin only for Holmes to close the porthole on Mirko’s wrist breaking it. It’s a tiny, little bit, but I love how cold and nonchalant Rathbone’s Holmes is while doing it.

Cat: Agreed, that was a cool moment. I especially liked how when Holmes sees them the next morning, neither of them acknowledge it much. It’s all, “Oh, good morning - sorry that your friend broke his wrist, how unfortunate.” I was amused by that. It was also funny to see in a later scene that he has the knife casually tucked under the edge of the set of coat hooks on the wall. Only Sherlock Holmes. Watson and Nikolas are focused on other manners, namely Sheila Woodbury. (Nikolas seems especially interested in the young singer, but they never really go anywhere with that.) Sheila continues her tradition of running away from the great detective after Watson tries to retrieve music from her music folder without her permission. To say she’s touchy on the subject is an understatement.

Nick: She’s understandably touchy because she is unwittingly smuggling stolen diamonds out of the country (a plot point which was introduced at the beginning of the film and then kind of forgotten). Anyhow, Holmes deduces this and leaves Sheila free to romance Nikolas. Before we know it, it’s the last night aboard the ship before it docks in Algiers and the crazy Mrs. Dunham has organized a party where she cajoles Watson into recounting some of Holmes’ cases. In this instance, he decides to retell “The Giant Rat of Sumatra” (the story for which the world is not yet prepared) and does so by using a stick of celery to represent Holmes and a round piece of cheese to represent himself. [Heavy, heavy sigh]

Cat: Though they cut back and forth from the party to the villains not at the party, waiting for a cleverly hidden bomb to quite literally blow up in Nikolas’ face, so you never actually hear the full story. I actually found that to be a really clever way to go about putting that in the movie (and actually thought it was pretty funny to be honest, as Holmes is far too busy making sure the bomb doesn’t blow up to listen to Watson and listen for any inaccuracies in his story.) By the end of the night, the bomb threat is neutralized and it seems as though everything is going well enough. Sheila and Nikolas get to have one last dance and Watson gets to wear a paper hat. It even looks like everything’s wrapping up nicely!

Nick: Ah, but how looks can be deceiving. Holmes, Watson, and Nikolas return to their cabin to prepare to rendezvous with Nikolas’ people when the villains (imitating Watson’s voice; he says that he does voices) break into the cabin, tie up Holmes and kidnap Nikolas. Things look bleak when Watson returns to find Holmes still tied up and the king gone, that is until Holmes rings for the steward and announces that he has the been the actual king the entire time. I will admit that that is a neat bit of subterfuge on the part of the screenwriter, but it really does come out of nowhere and isn’t exactly tied up real nicely. (It should also be mentioned that the steward is played by Morton Lowry who last turned up playing Stapleton in The Hound of the Baskervilles opposite Rathbone and Bruce.)

Cat: Yeah, that was...something. I thought the idea of him being the steward the whole time was actually quite genius (both from the point of view of the screenwriter and Holmes), and it made sense that he had a decoy for the decoy from the beginning. I think the wrap up could have been a bit better, that was my only real complaint with that. Because that’s quite literally the end. The actual king and his men exit the ship, and Holmes makes a crack about how Watson’s got too honest a face to be an actor, and they end the film. I think they could have had another minute or two where they discuss their vacation plans and the audience has a better chance for the wrap-up of the plot to sink in. Nick, do you feel similarly? What are your thoughts on how the ending comes out of nowhere?

Nick: Oh my goodness, yes. The movies ends really, really abruptly. The same goes for the last few Rathbone/Bruce films and I really don’t understand it. You may have not been a big fan of the patriotic speeches from Holmes in the earlier films, but they did at least give the films at sense of closure. Well, the last bit that we need to touch on is the music. This movie has four songs (four too many if you ask me), and one of them is sung by Nigel Bruce. I think we came to the consensus that he’s actually rather decent.

Cat:  He really is! I was surprised by that! The best part of that scene though was undoubtedly when he finishes and Holmes leads a whole group of passengers into applause after Watson thought he was just singing for Sheila. Holmes was so proud of him too! And the songs last not even a minute, they’re not that unbearable. Marjorie Riordan is actually quite a good singer as well, I thought. But I’m biased in favor of that older style of singing (it makes me think of Judy Garland and that makes me very happy). To be fair though, one of the major supporting characters is a singer, so some musical numbers are practically to be expected.

Nigel Bruce's singing gets the Baz's Seal of Approval

Nick: The songs weren’t bad (don’t get me wrong), but I don’t really want them in my Sherlock Holmes movie.

It’s time for Final Thoughts:

Nick: Per usual, I like to alternate and, seeing how I went first last time, what are your overall thoughts on Pursuit to Algiers?

Cat: I...expected MUCH worse. I really, really did. I didn’t find this awful, like I thought I would. I truly didn’t. It wasn’t anything amazing or one of the greats, don’t get me wrong, but I thought it was likeable enough. There were parts of it that I found amusing (whether they were supposed to be or not), and I did actually like the very, very subtle hints of a spy/espionage theme that were present. It did feel a bit longer than it actually was, so I suppose it does drag a bit in some sports. It also doesn’t help that it’s really all in one place the whole time. But really, I didn’t mind it much. I think I really did find it strangely enjoyable (I guess I’m part of that crowd then?). Nick, you’ve made your dislike for this movie very clear, but lay it all out for us: what are your final thoughts?

Nick: Being one who is partial to hyperbole, I probably made this out to be a lot worse than it actually is. It is hardly on par with The Room or Plan 9 from Outer Space, but it is obviously the weakest of the Rathbone/Bruce films. It does have some positive elements, I will admit. However, the greatest crime that this movie commits in my mind is just that it is really dull. I feel like nothing happens for a long time and, when something does happen, I don’t find it all that interesting. It’s just a boring movie for me. So, I’ll go ahead and give my deerstalker rating while I’m at it: 2 deerstalkers out of 5. It’s without doubt the weakest in the series. Slow and plodding are the best words I could use to describe Pursuit to Algiers. And you? Official rating?

Cat: I...feel like I have to give it a 3.5 deerstalker rating. I really do. I gave you a heads up about this before we formally reviewed Pursuit to Algiers and you said that was higher than Sherlock Holmes in Washington (which was a 3.0). I think I’ve come up with a bit of an explanation for that: I feel like I can take this movie a little bit more seriously than Washington, despite its silly or laughable moments. It’s certainly not anything spectacular, but Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce are still great, so it’s already got that going for it. It can be a bit dull at times, I suppose, but on the whole, I truly didn’t think it was awful. Hopefully that hasn’t ruined your opinion of me…(and hopefully this blog won’t be the end of our friendship, in one way or another…). Well, Nick, we did it. We made it through Pursuit to Algiers. We’re in this for the long run, it would seem!

Nick: [Heavy, heavy sigh]

Nick's Rating

Catharine's Rating

Next Time: It’s Pursuit to Algiers...on a train!