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 'A Study in Scarlet', especially one with such an appetising and great title. Also with interest as to how Reginald Owen, a bizarre casting choice on paper (but some initially weird casting choices have been known to come off surprisingly better than expected so that wasn't a concern), would fare as Holmes. 'A Study in Scarlet' is a very loose film adaptation, the names and title being the only resemblances. It is not one of the best Sherlock Holmes adaptations certainly, the best of the Jeremy Brett adaptations and films of Basil Rathone fit under this category. It's also not among the very worst, although one of the lesser ones overall, being a little better than any of the Matt Frewer films (particularly 'The Sign of Four') and much better than the abominable Peter Cook 'The Hound of the Baskervilles'.There are good things with 'A Study in Scarlet'. Anna May Wong really spices things up in a sensual performance, shame she didn't have more screen time. Alan Mowbray is a quick-witted and not too idiotic, if not quite electric, Lestrade and Alan Dinehart intrigues as Merrydew. Nice shots here and there and the ending is a satisfying surprise if not ingenious. The set-up and frame-work is neat.However, anybody who raised eyebrows at Owen's casting before watching are not going to find themselves converted seeing him in the role. It's not because he's wrong physically, he is also far too stiff and tends to overplay the role. Warburton Gamble is an insipid and forgettable Watson, having the opposite problem of being too much of a buffoon like Nigel Bruce but displaying little personality. The lacklustre at best chemistry between the two and the wanting performances of both actors makes this iconic partnering fall flat. June Clyde is both melodramatic and disengaged with some ridiculously delayed reactions.Visually, 'A Study in Scarlet' is pretty lacking too, time and budget limitations seem to be evident here. There is nothing evocative or handsome about the production values, the sets being very drab and most of the way it's shot and edited is very primitive. Moreover, too much of the script lacks flow and intrigue, just as insipid as Gamble's Watson and with comic relief that is overplayed and pointless. The direction is never more than pedestrian. Other than Owen and Gamble, the biggest faults are the story and pace. The pace tends to be dull, hurt by some very tedious padding that is not always necessary. The story lacks tension and suspense as well as not always easy to follow.Overall, underwhelming. 4/10 Bethany Cox

This is a poor and bizarre Sherlock Holmes movie. It's poor because the story has very little to do with the original Conan Doyle story. Heck, they even included a bunch of characters that weren't in this tale! It's bizarre because Reginald Owen seemed a very odd choice for the lead--seeming much more suited to the role of Watson than Holmes. Much of this is just tradition--actors famous for playing this same role repeatedly were William Gillette, Arthur Wontner, Basil Rathbone and Jeremy Brett were all thin guys and bore some similarity to each other. Owen just looked nothing like them and this took some getting used to. This isn't a bad thing--just an odd thing.Also, I am really confused by the film because although it bears almost no similarity to "A Study in Scarlet", the film is very similar to Agatha Christie's "And Then There Were None" (a.k.a. "The 10 Little Indians" and another title which I can't use because I doubt if IMDb would allow me to use the original title due to political correctness). However, Christie's novel did not appear until the late 1930s, so it appears that perhaps she lifted the plot from this 1933 film or at least was strongly inspired by it. I am really surprised there wasn't a lot of uproar about the similarities.If you ignore all these aspects, you still have a poor film because the film had such poor production values. There was no incidental music, lousy dialog, the acting was often VERY poor and the whole thing simply had no energy. As a result, instead of being engaging, the whole thing was mind-numbingly dull and I can't recommend you see it.

By 1932, the California Tiffany studios had been hard-hit by the depression's increasing damper on the motion picture industry, and had most recently been taken over by the troika of Burt Kelly, Sam Bischoff and William Saal, producing under the achronym K.B.S.One of the talented individuals attracted to K.B.S. during this turbulent period was Robert Florey, who had directed THE COCOANUTS, in which the Marx Brothers made their film debut, and co-authored the script of FRANKENSTEIN, then adapting and directing MURDERS IN THE RUE MORGUE.A STUDY IN SCARLET was Florey's third project at Tiffany, and he was again scheduled to both write and direct--his preferred mode of working. While producer Bischoff had purchased the motion picture rights to the title of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's novel for only a small sum, Florey was told to compose a new scenario to co-star Anna May Wong opposite Sherlock Holmes.A cause for the alteration of the original plot is that producers may have felt the title exceeded the worth of the actual story. Conan Doyle's original, written in 1887, was a vehicle for a denunciation of the contemporary Mormon practice of polygamy, which for American movie makers may have aroused concerns of censorship and regional distribution difficulties--just the type of difficulty a small, independent company like K.B.S. could not afford to risk. As well, half the narrative consisted of a lengthy confession, with Holmes only present in the prelude, which would have surely disappointed most filmgoers. While A Study in Scarlet was the first Holmes mystery Conan Doyle wrote, it had been filmed only twice before, with an English feature and an American short both appearing in 1914. Not until 1968 was the subject tackled again, this time by the BBC in a fifty-minute television presentation.Given a week to come up with a narrative to fit the picture's title and Wong's presence, Florey collaborated with his friend Reginald Owen, who had been chosen to portray Holmes, and split the $1,000 script payment. They collaborated on the continuity in consultation with Art Director Ralph DeLacy in order to utilize as many standing sets as possible, economies always being especially important at a studio like Tiffany, even on as significant a project as A STUDY IN SCARLET.At this point Florey left, having received the offer of a long-term contract from Warner Bros. on condition that he leave immediately to direct their comedic mystery GIRL MISSING. Bischoff allowed Florey to leave, with both agreeing that his replacement as director on A STUDY IN SCARLET should be Edwin L. Marin. Marin, age 33, previously had helmed only one movie on his own, a low budget item entitled THE DEATH KISS (1932). At K.B.S. he had just finished assisting Florey on THE MAN CALLED BACK and THOSE WE LOVE, "waiting for such a break."Although the Florey-Owen script contained no similarities to the novel, their plot did demonstrate a familiarity with the world Conan Doyle created for Sherlock Holmes. Elements are present from other Holmes stories, especially The Sign of Four, "The Red-Headed League" and "The Five Orange Pips." There are many of the typical clues, devices, and mannerisms.The title is incorporated to refer to a very exclusive organization called "the Scarlet Ring," a group of eccentric and highly ambiguous characters so suspicious of one another that they are afraid to even walk together. Upon the death of any member, his property is divided among the remaining survivors; suddenly they begin to die at an alarming pace under strange circumstances. This group of individuals were personified by an unusual group of actors, including J.M. Kerrigan, Halliwell Hobbes, Wyndham Standing, Tetsu Komai, and Cecil Reynolds.Some critics have pointed out the movie's similarity to And Then There Were None / Ten Little Indians, with suspects killed one by one and their murder announced by a nursery rhyme. But if anything, the influence was the other way around, since Agatha Christie's novel was not published until 1939.The script of A STUDY IN SCARLET was extremely polished and well-constructed, developing at just the right pace while carefully building the appropriate mood and environment. The movie breathes life into the classically eerie atmosphere of the British mystery, creating a pervasive feeling of fear in the fog-bound studio streets of the Limehouse section of London. Strange gatherings, arranged by secret codes, take place in abandoned, out-of-the-way buildings; dark and oppressive dead-end streets are places of isolation and terror; fog and shadows hide murderers and their victims.Suspense is heightened by a number of devices. For instance, the killer is kept unseen, while at the same time menace is suggested by having the crimes viewed through the murderer's eyes using a subjective camera. The silhouette of a giant shadow appears on a wall as the victim stares at the audience and screams "It can't be you," followed by a close-up of a hand checking off the name of one more member of the Scarlet Ring who has been killed. The climax of this technique comes in a long-take with the still-unknown murderer visiting the crooked lawyer played by Alan Dinehart: the camera completely adopts the viewpoint of the killer as Dinehart opens the door and the unknown individual is offered a cigarette, puffs of smoke ascending in front of the lens.The sense of locale was enhanced by the use of a nearly all-British cast, something unusual for a Hollywood-made Sherlock Holmes picture. Reginald Owen in particular was given the necessary latitude to offer a different interpretation of the Holmes personality. Owen portrays a much more human, less remote man, more akin to the personification offered by William Gillette in his stage play, to whom Owen even bore a certain physical resemblance.By the time A STUDY IN SCARLET was released, in mid-1933, K.B.S. and World-Wide had folded, with Fox handling the distribution. The picture opened to an excellent critical reception.

This early sound-era portrayal of Sherlock Holmes is good for its era and genre, with solid acting and an interesting story that is set in a believably mysterious atmosphere. An important note is that the story has no real similarity with the Arthur Conan Doyle story titled "A Study in Scarlet", but rather draws its characters and material from several different stories, plus at least one Agatha Christie novel. As long as you don't expect to see the original story, there is certainly enough to make this a feature worth seeing.Reginald Owen is solid as Holmes, although he does not leave his mark on the role in the way that Basil Rathbone and Jeremy Brett did. Owen does have the unique distinction of having played both Holmes and Dr. Watson (having played the latter in "Sherlock Holmes" the year before "A Study in Scarlet").The rest of the cast likewise play their characters in a straightforward fashion, allowing the story and atmosphere to get the main focus. The one who does stand out is Anna May Wong, who adds beauty and a mysterious presence, although unfortunately she does not get a lot of screen time.The story itself has numerous turns, and keeps you guessing. The atmosphere might not always be Holmes-like, but it is quite suitable for the story, and it is aided by good use of the lighting and photography. Overall, if you can set aside the misleading (for Holmes fans) title, it is an entertaining mystery with some good touches.