Marketic It's no definitive masterpiece but it's damn close.

MamaGravity good back-story, and good acting

Pacionsbo Absolutely Fantastic

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

kryptoman102 I get that this is not one of the all time best silent movies however this is a very good representation of the burgeoning art of filmmaking. The director is trying to make a large film using pieces of the entire Holmes catalog. Does he make an Oscar winner? Well, since the Oscars weren't created when this movie was made I guess we will never know.Still, this is an amazing piece of history that you should watch for what it is, a restoration. To even discuss the technical aspects of lighting etc, is just pure silliness, it's 1922 for goodness sake! I love Holmes, I love Barrymore, I love this movie. It's history. It's where we came from, watch it in that light and you will enjoy it so much more.

bkoganbing Purists who follow every written word that Arthur Conan Doyle put down about Sherlock Holmes must have shrieked with horror when this Sherlock Holmes movie came out. Even with Sherlock Holmes aquiline profile in solid relief by that great profile John Barrymore in this film, the changes made here damage the whole essence of the Sherlock Holmes mystique.I have never yet seen Holmes made a romantic figure, but that's what happens in this film. Dr. Watson played here by Roland Young is even given a wife whom we never see. Holmes and Watson are simply neighbors who live in separate establishments on Baker Street But the action of this film starts when a young Holmes is looking for a career path when Dr. Watson suggests that Crown Prince Reginald Denny look to him for help as he's suspected of a theft. Denny is the heir of some minor German state who is studying at Cambridge. It turns out the real thief is William Powell who made his screen debut in Sherlock Holmes. He's a henchman of the infamous Professor Moriarty, but Holmes actually rehabilitates Powell and Powell works for him during the rest of the film.Gustav Von Seyfertitz plays Moriarty a wizened old man who looks more the mad scientist than master criminal. When he and Holmes first meet Holmes is a generation younger, maybe more. This is the first time I've ever seen Holmes and Moriarty played that way. Still he is a sinister figure as every Moriarty should be.The action of the film takes place over several years and involves Holmes getting involved with Carol Dempster who is the sister of a woman that Denny was seeing back in his student days, but whom he gave up rather abruptly on orders from his government. Very much like The Student Prince which would soon be on Broadway. Dempster's got some nice love letters from her late sister to Denny and vice versa which could really embarrass that royal house. And of course Moriarty wants them bad.According to a biographical study of the Barrymore clan, John Barrymore was helpful and encouraging to all the cast, especially to Hedda Hopper who had a small role, William Powell, and Roland Young. Barrymore himself said Young stole every scene he was in and he's pretty good. He could not however stand Carol Dempster. The book says that in the final fadeout with them embracing he refused to do the scene with her. Watching the film you can see that whoever is playing the scene is facing both away from the camera and is in shadows. Could have been a department store manikin for all we know.Sherlock Holmes after years of being thought lost is now restored. But I'll bet that the legion of Holmes fans worldwide are sending up howls of protest at what their hero has become in this movie.

JohnHowardReid Answer: Largely disinterested acting from its star, an almost actionless script, a plodding pace, verbose inter-titles, and mostly flat, uninvolving direction.Despite negative contemporary reviews (including an excellent summation of everything that's wrong with the movie in The New York Times), this vanished version of Holmes with its fantastic cast line-up (including the movie debuts of Powell and Young) has long intrigued both film and Sherlock buffs worldwide. So imagine the joy when about 600 rolls of work print offcuts (amounting in all to about 4,000 feet) were found! These were handed to Kevin Brownlow who, with the aid of Albert Parker himself, painstakingly re-assembled the movie over a period of six months. George Eastman House then came to the rescue when the inter-titles were found in their vaults.The composite reconstructed movie now runs about 109 minutes. There is still footage missing, but that doesn't matter a great deal as, alas, the photoplay is boring enough as it is.Admittedly, it has its moments: Von Seyffertitz is a marvelous presence. I also enjoyed Roland Young's Watson and Powell's chat with Barrymore in the taxi. And unlike other viewers, I thought Miss Dempster looked quite charming in this non-Griffith outing. And even below-par Barrymore did provide a great moment at the climax for those hardy viewers like myself who persisted right to the end.But the movie is full of talk. Talk, talk, talk! That's mostly all the characters do in this tediously paced, almost actionless movie. After 80 minutes or so, I just got so bored reading the inter-titles, I gave up. Some of them were too hard to decipher anyway.Which brings me to the next problem. Labs take no care in printing up positives which are solely to be employed for negative cutting, so 90% of the movie is far too dark. Sometimes you can hardly see what's going on. True, some if it looks attractive and you say to yourself, "Wow! Film noir lighting in 1922!" But this is not the way it was presented to original movie audiences.

Michael_Elliott Sherlock Holmes (1922) ** (out of 4) Considered lost for nearly fifty-years, this film was finally found in the mid-70's but sadly it turns out to be a pretty dull affair. What had silent film buffs so interested in this film was the incredibly cast of actors including John Barrymore as Holmes and Roland Young as Watson. The supporting cast was equally impressive as we see a young William Warren, Reginald Denny and D.W. Griffith's lover, Carol Dempster, in her only screen appearance not directed by Griffith. In the film, Holmes and Watson are friends at Cambridge when Holmes is accused of stealing some money. On the other side of town, the evil Professor Moriarty (Gustav von Seyffertitz) is planning world domination. After Holmes is cleared of the theft he becomes interested in the detective game and sets out to bring Moriarty down. The actual case of Holmes and Moriarty doesn't start until around the fifty minute mark as the first part of the film lets us get introduced to both sides. This here was certainly a mistake as I'm sure people going into this film will know who Holmes is. Another problem is that the film relies way too much on the intertitles and we spend way too much time reading instead of seeing anything happen. Barrymore plays Holmes very straight and I personally find the actor boring when he doesn't go over the top. He really doesn't bring anything to his role but Young is good as Watson. Carol Dempster, on the other hand, doesn't come off too good but she's not horrible either. I'll have to check some of my Griffith books but I'm not quite sure how she got the part in this since most major studios didn't want Griffith using her for anything. There's a nice twist at the end of the movie but by then you'll either be asleep or pushing the FF button.