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 'Sherlock Holmes and the Deadly Necklace' (aka 'Valley of Fear', although it bears very little resemblance to that story), especially one featuring Holmes' arch-nemesis Moriaty.There are better Sherlock Holmes-related films/adaptations certainly than 'Sherlock Holmes and the Deadly Necklace', 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 much better than any of the Matt Frewer films (particularly 'The Sign of Four') and also much better than the abominable Peter Cook 'The Hound of the Baskervilles'.'Sherlock Holmes and the Deadly Necklace' is not terrible. It just could have been much better. The best thing about it is Christopher Lee, who is an excellent imposing Holmes. Thorley Walters is equally very good as Watson, with signs of bumbling traits but also those of dignity and loyalty. In fact, the cast in general make the film watchable. Lovely Senta Berger, Leon Askin and suave but menacing Hans Sohnker are the standouts in support. Evidence too of some nice expressionistic images created by the photography, suspense (especially with Holmes and Moriaty) and intelligent dialogue. Unfortunately, there is a good deal wrong. The dubbing is atrocious, there was absolutely no need for it and sounded cheap and ill-fitting, robbing us of Lee's wonderful, distinctive voice. The production design instead of being handsome is pretty flat, the editing is choppy at times and Terrence Fisher's direction (who did a lot of good to great films and who directed the infinitely superior 'The Hound of the Baskervilles') is only workmanlike at best.Dialogue mostly doesn't flow enough and hurt by the dubbing, the costumes are not always that attractive (am in agreement with those who found Lee's in the countryside sequence horrendous). Then there is the story which is convoluted to the point of incoherence and too often tediously paced. Overall, watchable but disappointing. See it for the cast but for a good story there are far better Sherlock Holmes adaptations. 5/10 Bethany Cox

"Sherlock Holmes and the Deadly Necklace" is, among the twenty- something films by Terence Fisher that I have seen, one of his less accomplished works. A bit better than the boring "Night of the Big Heat", this is a production with motivations I don't fully understand: for a start I do not know why they decided to make a Sherlock Holmes movie starring Christophe Lee in German (although there is an English language version, the official version is in German, which is the one I opted to watch), with Lee's real voice absent in all versions. Then I cannot reason why in 1962, with moneys coming from German, French and Italian production companies, they decided to shoot an adventure movie in black and white. The decision seems even more uninspired given the uneven quality of Richard Angst's cinematography, ranging from attractive expressionistic images (as the scene where Holmes saves his life using a police whistle) to flat compositions (as the Baker Street apartment). Maybe the budget was low, but they had several names in the cast that were not highly expensive, but neither cheap to hire. And thirdly there is not a well-defined concept of what they wanted to do: producers, composer, writer and director seem to point into different directions. The German producers probably assumed it as one of the many cheap detective movies they were making by the dozen, composer Martin Slavin opted for a playful score, writer Curt Siodmak kept loyal to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's three main creations (Holmes, his nemesis Moriarty and his mate Dr. Watson) and Fisher… well, he had to keep everything going. However it would be unfair to deny that there are a few hints that suggest the intention of making some kind of photo-novel or a black-ink-on-cheap-white-paper comic book, and that would explain why the filmmakers could not care less what language characters spoke, the anachronisms (the more obvious being ladies' hair styles), Slavin's jingling-jangling cues, extensive use of maquettes, and a few disheveled art direction and wardrobe decisions, starting with the key prop, a very ugly and cheap looking necklace that supposedly once adorned Queen Cleopatra's neck. I am also sure that Lee never wore an uglier costume in his entire long career than the horrendous checkered suit he wears in the countryside sequence. The actor does his best as Doyle's creation (obviously not imagining the estrangement that dubbing would produce, resulting in an involuntary Brechtian effect of rejection to his participation in the movie), so we tend to go for the villains, played with gusto by Hans Söhnker as Moriarty and Leon Askin as his chauffeur-assistant Charles. But what we see is what we get, so we better not complain. We are warned very early into the film that we are going to watch a rather sloppy product, when the same shot of a longshoreman working on dock is repeated twice within minutes. Compared to this, Fisher's next project starring Pat Boone is a masterpiece.

First off, I am a big Holmes fan, and have been for over half a century. I grew up reading the canon, and I saw the TV series in the 50's as well as the more recent one with Mr. Brett. I've seen almost every Holmes movie ever made. My only regret is not having seen the stage production with William Gillette performed around the turn of the century (the 19th), although I have seen the silent movie made from the play in 1920.Based on all that, I think I have a pretty good tolerance for the vastly differing styles that Sherlock Holmes can come in. I enjoyed the humorous takes that have been filmed ("Sherlock Holmes' Smarter Brother", "Without a Clue", and "The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes"). I even managed to watch "The Seven-per-cent Solution" twice. However, I was bored out of my skull by this movie. I actually had to get up and walk around to stay awake, just to be able to say I watched it all. Now I wished I hadn't.

very difficult to watch German Holmes film.Christopher Lee is excellent in a role he wanted to play throughout his life (returning to it late in a couple mini-series) - this despite the fact that his voice was unnecessarily dubbed by someone else. He plays the great detective as an intense young crime-fighter with wit and chutzpa.The problems are the script and direction. The story is too convoluted, in a manner familiar to anyone who has suffered through other German mysteries of the same period, such as the Dr. Mabuse films. This was a Germany still dealing with the fact that they had a murderously criminal government only two decades previous - consequently there is considerable suspicion of the police in these films, evil seems omnipresent, the moral center is hard to find. A similar atmosphere, for completely different reasons, crept into British popular culture only in the 1970s, appearing in a British Sherlock Holmes film only in "Murder by Decree." But the German film also suffers from the evident fact that the director can't decide whether he wants to make a Sherlock Holmes film or a Sherlock Holmes parody - there are all sorts of misfired jokes and bits poking fun at a "Sherlock Holmes superhero" image that doesn't really exist - a problem for other directors who have tried spoofing the detective, including the great Billy Wilder. The fact is, Doyle was careful NOT to make his hero an 'Uebermensch,' just a closet Nietzschean - a common romantic British type of the day.Finally, all existing prints I know of are in shoddy condition.Worth a view, especially for Holmes fans, but sub-par for this sub-genre of mystery film.