BEFORE: Almost done, just one more Basil Rathbone film to go after tonight. By Monday I'll be watching more current films on a different topic. So March Mystery Madness is almost over, thank God. I'm glad I did this, cleared these films off the list, but I have no desire to ever watch them again.
THE PLOT: When the fabled Star of Rhodesia diamond is stolen on a train to Edinburgh and the son of its owner is murdered, Sherlock Holmes must discover which of his suspicious fellow passengers is responsible.
AFTER: This is a totally different film from "Pursuit to Algiers", which featured an emerald thief on a boat. This one has a diamond thief on a train - see? Totally different thing. But Holmes still has to interact with all of the passengers and figure out if everyone is who they say they are, and if not, then who are they? Who's not telling the truth?
But as usual, Holmes is two steps ahead of everyone else, even Watson, who barely caught the train as it was pulling out of the station. Watson even brought a friend along on this trip, Major Duncan-Bleek - was he TRYING to make Sherlock jealous? And what exactly were the sleeping arrangements on the train, hmmm? Hey, the Holmes-Watson relationship is solid enough to survive a few twists and turns, it's not like they ever said they were exclusive or anything. Watson's free to see other detectives or military personnel if he wants.
If you've been following along, you can probably figure that Holmes is not going to let the real diamond be in any danger of being stolen. If he's on the case, he's probably going to do a switcheroo, or possibly even two or three, just to be on the safe side. And if the diamond appears to be stolen, it's because Holmes LET it be stolen, so he could observe the theft and track the criminal. But is that really the responsible thing to do here? I've noticed in a few of these films that people often keep dying, even after Holmes is on the case.
If he's so smart, why can't he solve the crimes in a way that prevents these murders from happening? I've seen him use Watson or other people as bait, is that really the best way of doing things? Or is he afraid that if he prevents the crime from happening, then it will look like he didn't DO anything? Is Sherlock Holmes' ego really so fragile that he needs people to DIE so that he can take credit for solving their murders? It seems like a weird way to earn a living, that's all. More emphasis should be placed on crime prevention, not crime solving.
In a little over two weeks, I'm going to watch the remake of "Murder on the Orient Express", another movie with a famous detective solving a murder on a train. Though I've seen the original movie from the 1970's, and I'm wondering why anyone bothered to remake this. Doesn't everyone already know the famous ending to this story? So unless they've changed that, how could this story manage to have any surprises left in it? I guess I'm going to find out.
My main issue with "Terror By Night" involves Holmes knowing things that the audience couldn't possibly know, the solution is all based on things that we didn't see, facts that were in Holmes' brain, and I'm not sure if that makes for the best mystery film. It's also odd that Scotland Yard has no jurisdiction in Scotland - can that be right? You'd think they would have changed their name at some point, because it's just too confusing this way.
Also starring Nigel Bruce (carrying over from "Pursuit to Algiers"), Alan Mowbray (last seen in "Every Girl Should Be Married"), Dennis Hoey (last seen in "The House of Fear"), Harry Cording (ditto), Renee Godfrey, Frederick Worlock (also last seen in "Pursuit to Algiers"), Mary Forbes (last seen in "Sherlock Holmes in Washington"), Skelton Knaggs, Billy Bevan (last seen in "The Pearl of Death"), Geoffrey Steele (last seen in "Doctor Dolittle").
RATING: 3 out of 10 plates of curry
No comments:
Post a Comment