Review of The Scarlet Claw (1944) by Riley H — 08 May 2010

I know Rathburne and Bruce are considered by many to be the definitive screen version of Holmes and Watson but I find this utterly preposterous. Rathburne is arrogant enough, but he is entirely too put together to resemble the actual character.

Bruce is far more off the mark, as his Watson is a bumbling, blustering fool who is often a drunkard. In the stories, Watson may often not know what is going on, but he rarely a source of comic relief, as Bruce portrays him.

I think these characterizations have a lot to do with the anger more recent and more valid characterizations have elicited from so-called â??purists.â?? These two actors are so etched in people's brains that they forget how unlike the actual characters they are.

That being said, I find the story, even though it isn't original (why can't people use actual Conan Doyle stories? I don't understand that), to be in the spirit of Conan Doyle's work. The effects are often neat and the shadows are fun.

One other major issue is that these are the worst Quebecers anyone has ever seen. I guess nobody who made this film had ever been there. But to hold a film this old to that standard isn't really fair (after all, this is the era when Asians of various stripes were thought to look â??Indianâ??).

It's fine as a movie, given the context, but don't look for any kind of definitive Sherlock Holmes here.