MovieChat Forums > The Pearl of Death (1944) Discussion > Why-II?

Why-II?

posted 9 years ago by udippel
4 replies | jump to latest

How come this amazing film with a lot of suspense and only small holes in the plot is not being discussed much more? It is one of the most highly ranked in this 'season' of Sherlock Holmes, and it is a pearl!
It beats hundreds of so-called modern crime stories hand down.
From the first scene with the tired old man on board the ship to Dover,
through the next disappearance of the pearl, the start of the murder sequence, to Holmes finding out the really amazing reason connected to Napoleon, the visit at the ceramics manufacturer and the shop, and the scenes towards the end, when everyone comes out in the open.

[I edited my post when I learned that the Creeper was not a mask, but the genuine disfiguration of a gentle person from poisoning suffered through WW1. I feel sorry for him, to be exploited in this way, actually.]

The movie overall is fully recommended!

[–] tony5810 8 years ago

Yes I like the style. The type of film you can watch again much like the books, they become old friends.

[–] telegonus (727) 4 years ago

I just finished watching The Pearl Of Death and have wondered the same thing. The storytelling is all over the town but the particularly nasty master criminal and his ugly, pitiful, deformed back breaking Frankenstein monster-like assistant make the movie far more intense than most of its kind, although the Universal Sherlocks are nearer to it in style than most other mystery and detective films. Pearl Of Death plays at times like a horror, and in this it builds a head of steam as it comes down to its resolution. There are sadistic undercurrents abounding in the movie, which features more cruelty than most in the Rathbone-Bruce series.

[–] strangenstein (683) 2 years ago

udippel, I’m with you regarding Rondo Hatton, but I give him credit for parlaying his disfigurement into a decent, albeit short-lived, career. Here we are, some 75+ years later still talking about him. He got dealt a bad hand, but played it the best he could.

[–] greenbudgie (2355) 2 years ago

I have tended to overlook this one in the past. It is good. Three points IMO I came away with after seeing it this time:-

1. The best closing speech by Holmes in the series.
2. Good to see Evelyn Ankers play a crooked part for a change.
3. Some of the best murky fog and shadows atmosphere of the series.