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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.