User Reviews

"When a young prince is accused of a crime that could embroil him in international scandal, debonair supersleuth Sherlock Holmes comes to his aid, and quickly discovers that behind the incident lurks a criminal mastermind eager to reduce Western civilization to anarchy. Adapted from the hugely popular stage version of Arthur Conan Doyle's stories (by William Gillette), 'Sherlock Holmes' not only provided Barrymore with one of his most prestigious early roles, but also presented the screen debuts of two notable actors: William Powell and Roland Young," according to the good folks at Kino International.

The star and property once made this one of the more missed "lost" films from the silent era. Then, in the 1970s, the 1922 version of "Sherlock Holmes" was found. However, this was no ordinary find. What they found was a cache of film canisters containing a jumble of the original film. There were multiple pieces of scenes, in no particular order, and with out the benefit of intertitle continuity (itself a curious and intriguing state). Kevin Brownlow and The George Eastman House set about restoring the film. That the restoration was ready in the 2000s indicated the level of work and dedication involved.

Now, we see the 1922 "Sherlock Holmes" is no classic. Even upon original release, there were complaints about the high level of reading (title cards and letters) as Mr. Barrymore and the cast conversed about plot elements. And, to miss reading a single intertitle will leave you confused. Also receiving understandable heckles in some quarters was the assertion that the famously asexual detective had a desire for Carol Dempster (as Alice Faulkner). This "romance" was carried over from Mr. Gillette's very successful version; at the time, leaving it out might have been more unwise. Audiences expected "Alice".

Goldwyn Pictures and director Albert Parker "embellished" the Gillette version by having the characters meet in college, during a long prologue. So, this is where Barrymore's Holmes falls in "love at first sight" with Ms. Dempster and meets malevolent professor Gustav von Seyffertitz (as Moriarty). Holmes is also introduced to the "prince and letters" plot by pre-shaved college pal Roland Young (as John Watson). This, and the London location footage, was meant to ward off the staginess of the source material. But, the film remains in the box. The last act excites, if you picture it occurring on stage.

***** Sherlock Holmes (3/7/22) Albert Parker ~ John Barrymore, Gustav von Seyffertitz, Carol Dempster, Roland Young

In the wake of the new Sherlock Holmes movie starring Robert Downey Jr. (which I have yet to see), Turner Classic Movies has been gracious enough to give us screenings of earlier film tales of the iconic detective whom originated from the creative mind of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Now we all think of Basil Rathbone when we think of Sherlock Holmes, but unbeknownst to many, there was an earlier adaptation of the story (actually, I think a few) starring John Barrymore as Holmes and Gustav von Seyffertitz as Professor Moriarty. The film was titled simply "Sherlock Holmes" and was thought to have become one of many silent films now lost to us forever. Thankfully, the movie was found and restored with assistance from director Albert Parker and is now available for public viewing again.

This "Sherlock Holmes" is not a classic; it's not one of the pictures that people will talk about or remember five years after they've seen it for the first time. I neither will have it lingering in my memory for terribly long, but I am very glad I saw the picture. Because although its story structure is a little flimsy, and although it feels as though some parts of the story are still missing, and although the ending was below my expectations, I did enjoy the show. John Barrymore makes a very good Sherlock Holmes and Gustav von Seyffertitz is wonderful as Moriarty and these two appropriately have the most impact during their scenes especially with some surprisingly clever intertitle dialogue. However, I'm afraid, Dr. Watson (Roland Young) and Holmes' love interest (Carol Dempster) are very flat and two-dimensional in this story and neither of them seem to have any real connection to Holmes or to Moriarty.

I think if the filmmakers had strengthened the connection between the two lead characters and the supporting roles and patched up that ending, we would have had a better film. This "Sherlock Holmes" is not a classic nor memorable, but I did enjoy it and I make no regrets in the fact that I took the time to see it.

The film starts out in Sherlock Holmes' (John Barrymore's) college days at Cambridge. Watson (Roland Young) is rooming with Prince Alexis (Reginald Denny) who has been falsely accused of stealing the university athletic fund. Holmes, even as a student, quickly gets to the bottom of things - an apprentice to Moriarty, Forman Wells (William Powell), stole the money to escape Moriarty. Holmes is fascinated by Moriarty and decides his life work will be to bring him to justice.

Meanwhile, the prince's uncle decides, to stop any scandal, he will pay back the athletic fund to the college. At the same time the prince learns that his two older brothers have died in an accident and now he is heir to the throne. He returns to his home country after penning a letter to his fiancee that he must break their engagement because of his new position. The woman kills herself. Coincidentally, this woman is the sister of a woman that Holmes falls in love with at first sight. She disappears from Holmes' life after her sister's suicide.

The years pass, and Watson is a doctor and Holmes is persistent in his battle against Moriarty. Prince Alexis has announced his marriage to a woman of royal blood. But his dead fiancee's sister is threatening to expose the prince with his love letters to her sister, with Moriarty also wanting those letters so he can blackmail the prince. Moriarty has his subordinates keeping her at a rented castle trying to get those letters away from her. At this point Holmes gets involved mainly to save the girl - from enacting bitter revenge and from Moriarty - more than to help the prince.

This film is far from perfect - it has great big plot holes in it. For example, why does the prince's fiancee kill herself? Was she pregnant? Just heartbroken? It is never said. Yet everybody blames the prince for what seems to be an outsized reaction on the girl's part. It's also hard to follow at points. Apparently Holmes' house has burned, but exactly how and when this happened is not said. What is especially good is Barrymore's performance as this particular rendition of Holmes, even though Sherlock Holmes in literature was never particularly interested in women and this Holmes is a hopeless romantic. On the technical end, the picture is so dark at points that it is impossible to see what is going on, and there are not that many intertitles, but the ones that exist are very verbose.

What's really interesting is just how many future stars and just plain famous people are in this production. I've already mentioned William Powell in his first film appearance, Roland Young, and Reginald Denny, but there is also Hedda Hopper as a henchwoman of Moriarty's, Louis Wolheim as Moriarty's muscle, and David Torrance as a count. All of these people had careers that reached well into the sound era.

Imagine. We've been perhaps watching Jeremy Brett, Benedict Cumberbatch, and Robert Downey, Jr. as Sherlock Holmes. We then have an opportunity to see the great John Barrymore in a silent film believed lost, Sherlock Holmes (originally titled Moriarity). We see William Powell's and Roland Howard's film debuts. We see old London.

And here we are, talking about title cards and lighting.

It's true -- this script was perhaps not one that lent itself to filming. Yes, there are too many title cards and letters. And, even with 26 minutes or so missing, it moves slowly. But what a thrill to see Barrymore, Powell so young he is barely recognizable, and those amazing locations.

The story concerns a Prince accused of stealing athletic funds. Holmes learns immediately the crook is Forman Wells (Powell); he explains to Holmes that he stole the money to get away from Moriarity (Gustav von Seyffertitz). After meeting Moriarity, Holmes realizes what a dangerous man he is.

The Prince has become the Crown Prince and in doing so cannot marry his betrothed, who commits suicide. Her sister is determined to bring revenge on him, so she retrieves her sister's love letters to him. Moriarity wants them for blackmail and has had her hired by one of his henchman.

Sherlock sends Wells in as the new butler for the henchman and sets to work retrieving the letters. To do that, he uses the same trick he used on Irene Adler in "Scandal in Bohemia."

Despite all its failings, it was still a privilege to see this film. which was restored by Kevin Brownlow and The George Eastman House, located where I live. It's worth at least watching the first half hour or so to see Barrymore, Young (as Watson), Gustav von Seyffertitz (Moriarity), Carol Dempster, and Hedda Hopper. And a movie 93 years old - you don't see that every day.

For decades the 1922 version of Sherlock Holmes starring John Barrymore was thought to be lost, surviving only in the form of a few tantalizing production stills, until an incomplete print finally resurfaced in 1970. Even so, it wasn't until recently that a viewable version was painstakingly pieced together at the George Eastman House in Rochester NY, and it is this restoration which is now available for public screenings, and on DVD. Bearing all this in mind, it's dismaying to report that the film, seen at long last, is a decided disappointment. Unfortunately, this is one of those cases where a rediscovered work falls short of the imagined movie we project in our minds. Film buffs and viewers with a special interest in the Barrymores will want to see it anyway, but dedicated fans of the original Holmes stories, in particular, will likely find it unsatisfying.

All the elements were in place for something special when the movie went into production. John Barrymore, in the year of his legendary stage Hamlet, was in his prime; the supporting cast was full of first-rate actors, two of whom (Roland Young and William Powell) made their film debuts here; a number of scenes were filmed on location in London -- an unusual practice at the time -- and the constructed sets were strikingly designed and well photographed. But the first and perhaps biggest problem was the screenplay, which feels off-kilter and oddly lopsided. The early scenes are focused on the activities of the arch-criminal Professor Moriarty, played by that magnificently named character actor, Gustav Von Seyffertitz. We're given a lot of information about this villain's curiously unmotivated evil, but very little information about our hero and his eccentricities. We're forced to conclude either that the screenwriters thought we already knew enough about Sherlock Holmes, or that they considered their bad guy more interesting than their hero.

Holmes and Watson are introduced in the prologue as two rather middle-aged looking Cambridge students, and the story seems to concern a scandalous situation on campus involving some of their classmates. Eventually we realize that this is a set-up for the climactic confrontation with Moriarty, years later, although the Professor's connection with the Cambridge scandal is vague and indirect. It takes too long for the viewer to identify the central plot line, too long for Holmes and Watson to set up shop on Baker Street, and too long for Holmes himself to emerge as an adult and take charge of events. Holmes' uncharacteristic romantic interludes with the vapid leading lady -- more about her in a moment -- don't help matters, either.

Another major flaw is the over-reliance on title cards. The best silent movies told their tales with minimal titling, or concentrated the bulk of the expository titles in the first reel or two, but this film tells far too much of its story in words which must be read. Reading is all well and good when we curl up at home with a book, but a movie must MOVE. The source material for this film is a stage drama of the 1890s, crafted by the stage's first and most famous Sherlock, actor/playwright William Gillette. The play was not based on any single Conan Doyle story, but borrowed plot elements from several of them -- and, incidentally, it provided a very early stage role for the preteen Charlie Chaplin, who portrayed Billy the messenger boy. Gillette's play certainly had movie potential, but the filmmakers in charge of this adaptation lacked the skill to properly translate the material from stage to screen, and failed to maintain a consistent tone. Is it meant to be serious? Is it a send-up? Hard to say.

John Barrymore certainly looks the part, but except for one brief sequence when Holmes disguises himself he doesn't appear to be having much fun. He suggests a male model glumly dressed as Sherlock Holmes in order to pose for a magazine illustrator. He is given several gauzy close-ups emphasizing that famous profile, but seems to be merely posing for stills. Perhaps he wasn't having much fun off camera, either, for according to a recent biography Barrymore loathed his co-star, Carol Dempster. Miss Dempster, not unfairly, is best remembered as the modestly talented girlfriend of director D. W. Griffith, who mysteriously featured her in movie after movie in the 1920s. Not so mysteriously, these movies flopped at the box office and accelerated Griffith's career decline. Sherlock Holmes marked the only occasion Dempster appeared as a leading lady in a non-Griffith production, but why this occurred is anyone's guess. Her role isn't large, and she doesn't have much impact one way or the other, but let's just say she doesn't bring much to the picnic.

It's interesting to see William Powell, long before the Thin Man series, looking so young and gawky; unlike his co-stars, he could pass for an undergrad in the opening sequence. But unfortunately, Powell's later scenes are difficult to assess, for despite the best efforts of the Eastman film preservationists the latter portions of the movie are badly tattered, with crucial chunks obviously missing, and this has a serious impact on climactic scenes involving Powell. The climax is difficult to follow because of the poor condition of the surviving print, and although this can't be blamed on the filmmakers it only deepens our sense of disappointment. Still, even in the unlikely event that a better print is discovered, it appears that the people who made this movie just didn't have an affinity for the material. Too bad John Barrymore didn't take another crack at the role in the early '30s, with sound and a better script. But in any case, fans of the Jeremy Brett TV series (and I count myself among them) have a definitive Sherlock to enjoy, thanks to a star and a creative team who knew precisely what they were doing.

Here's another old movie where the distance from the "original" events (here the writing of the stories) is closer to the movie than the movie is from us. It makes it even odder that the era of the story is shifted to the era of the movie, with cars and phones.

I'll watch any old detective story. Anything along these lines until 1940 or so was important to the development of narrative, no matter how bad. This one is no masterpiece; the plot is muddled, but the fact that the ending is missing is almost better because you can imagine something better than what the filmmaker can. We might even have done away with the latter half of the thing.

But there is one interesting thing: the legacy of the actors. The Barrymore gestures of Holmes are the basis for the silent-filmlike excess of Jeremy Brett. You can see William Powell, the famous star of the Thin Man series, which reinvented the detective film genre. And you can watch Watson played by the man who would presage noir with "Topper." Both in their first film.

And I suppose there's some mild pleasure in seeing obsolete visions of female beauty.

The Holmes here does no detecting except for deducing that Watson has moved his dressingtable.

Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements.

John Barrymore was eager to become the third screen incarnation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's famous detective when offered the role by Goldwyn Pictures. He had just wrapped his autumn European vacation with his second wife, Blanche Oelrichs (who fell in love with a poet in Venice), before he went to London to shoot the film's exteriors. He then returned to New York for the interior shots in preparation for the release of March 1922's "Sherlock Holmes."

Barrymore's take on the detective was more of a romantic one than the classic stage portrayal of William Gillette's. Directed by Albert Parker, who handled Rudolph Valentino's first major role in 1919 'Eyes of Youth,' "Sherlock Holmes" is largely known for the cinematic debuts of future Academy Award nominees William Powell and Roland Young. The feature film also stars the eventual newspaper columnist Hedda Hopper as well as D. W. Griffith's primary actress Carol Dumpster, the only time the pioneering director loaned her out to another studio. It had been rumored that Dumpster, whose role served as Holmes' love interest, upset Barrymore so much during the production that he insisted for the romantic concluding scene to have a stand-in for the passionate kiss.

"Sherlock Holmes" was Powell's first movie. After 10 years on the stage, both on road tours and in New York City, the 29-year-older was hired for the film after his appearance in the Broadway hit play 'Spanish Love" drew positive notice. Powell's part is rather large for a film novice: he's an orphan who's groomed to do the dirty work of Holmes' arch-nemesis Professor Moriarty. But when cornered by Barrymore, Powell confesses all he knows and works to foil his former mentor. Powell, who acted in over 30 silent films and was nominated for the Oscars three times--1934's 'The Thin Man,' 1936's 'My Man Godfrey,' and 1947's 'Life with Father'--appeared in his last movie playing Doc in 1955's 'Mister Roberts.'

Roland Young, also in his first film, as Holmes' sidekick Dr. Watson, was an English-born stage actor who shuffled between New York and London theaters. Busy throughout the 1930's, he played the bank president who was constantly hounded by the ghosts of his deceased clients in 1937 'Topper,' a role he was nominated for Best Supporting Actor. Billie Burke, who played opposite of him in the Cary Grant vehicle, wrote that Young "was dry and always fun to work with."

The actor playing Prince Alexis, Reginald Denny, is a recognizable character actor to today's viewers. In Alfred Hitchcock's 1940 'Rebecca' and playing alongside Frank Sinatra in 1966's 'Assault on the Queen,' he's most remembered by TV fans as Commodore Schmidlapp in the 1966 'Batman' series.

Hedda Hopper was already a successful silent movie actress commanding over $1,000 a week when she took the role of Madge Larrabee in "Sherlock Holmes." After 120 movies in 23 years of acting, her failure to make a successful transition to sound in the mid-1930's led her to use her Hollywood insider contacts to become a noted, if not controversial, gossip columnist for the Los Angeles Times. She was also a recognizable figure in television during the 1950's and 1960's.

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.

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.

I have been viewing the great detective on film as a progression, through the years, since the early part of the 20th century. I'm sure it was fascinating for readers of the stories to watch our hero develop, and there have since been countless literary expositions on Holmes and anything accompanying him. It has likewise been a lot of fun watching different portrayals on the screen.

I have enjoyed the Eille Norwood productions immensely, and of course can strongly recommend Messieurs Rathbone and Brett in the role. Other commendable cinematic or televised Sherlocks include Charlton Heston, Peter Cushing, Christopher Plummer, Nicol Williamson--a lot of good men have played Sherlock Holmes.

But this one is the very worst one I've seen, except for a short burlesque by Douglas Fairbanks Sr. Mr. Barrymore shows zero intellectual processing--that's right, none. He is in a daze. Can you can imagine Sherlock Holmes in a daze? I understand he was intoxicated for most of the production, and it shows. If he was a great actor, he was a pitiful interpretor. I would doubt he ever read a Holmes story.

The film has some good features, as delineated by Mr. Morris in the review above this one. It is of some historical interest. It might even be a fairly good movie of its day. But, when laid beside The Hound of the Baskervilles starring Jeremy Brett, you have a turkey.

This starts out with Sherlock Holmes (John Barrymore) and Dr. Watson (Roland Young) as VERY old looking college students. They help Prince Alexis (Reginald Denny) foil a plot against him by the sinister Dr. Moriarty (Gustav von Seyffertitz). They cut to years later when Holmes is a world famous detective and Watson is married and a successful doctor. Moriarty again comes into Holmes' life when he threatens Prince Alexis with incriminating love letters! That's right--Holmes on a case to get some stupid love letters! Arthur Conan Doyle must have been spinning in his grave when this came out!

There are so many things wrong with this it's unbelievable. First off Barrymore is terrible as Holmes. He walks through the role and shows none of the deductive powers that Basil Rathbone did so effortlessly. Also he was 40 when he did this--and looks it. Watson is barely in this one--he adds almost nothing to the story line. Moriarty looks hysterically evil. He looks like something out of a Charles Dickens' novel! Not even close to the suave Moriarty we all know and hate. The case here is, as stated before, so ridiculous it's insulting. Even worse Holmes is given a love interest!!! That's totally against any of the books or the character! Historically this is important as (I believe) the first full length Holmes picture and I'm glad it's available. Sadly, as is sometimes the case, it doesn't live up to its reputation. If you're a Holmes fan like me stay far FAR away from this one!

Don't be mistaken : this is a Barrymore movie, and Sherlock Holmes just the anecdote. Based on a theatrical play, this adventure has the interest of introducing Holmes and Watson in their youth, when they are both students and collaborate in solving a college incident which will have consequences in their future. One of the best scenes is when Holmes examines his own knowledge about life, yet it does not have continuity. Holmes deductive methods and abilities are only anecdotically mentioned although they are what made the character famous, so readers will be disappointed. This is my main criticism.

Being John Barrymore the leading actor you can expect romance and adventure and a glamorous hero. Well, I would have preferred more adventure and less romance being about Sherlock Holmes. The action follows the trend of the times, approaching earlier silent serials in an uncomplicated way. Moriarty, who is played by Gustav von Seiffertitz, looks as a really mean villain but one wonders why as quite more evil would be expected from him, resembling more a Dickens headmaster than the dangerous and intelligent head of a secret criminal system. If you have this in account, the film is just a nice picture if not specially true to the Conan Doyle spirit. As always poor Watson is undervalued and does not receive much attention, yet Roland Young fits quite well and could have offered much more. We meet a young William Powell in a secondary part. Carol Dempster is all right if not impressive as the lady in distress.

The image quality is quite good (thanks to a restored copy) and one can see it was made with generous means as the production design shows (see Moriarty's underground quarters or Baker Street apartments).

Yet as this movie was belived to be lost for many years it is a real pleasure to watch it and a luck to have it with us.

First off I'm not a Sherlock Holmes expert so I'll leave it at that and just comment on the film for what it is, not what it isn't. I have however watched episodes of the Jeremy Brett series on A&E and they're wonderful. For those who always say John Barrymore is a ham, this film counters that argument somewhat as he displays a terrific gamut of underplaying. Not boring but decidedly underplaying. Director Al Parker had to talk Barrymore into doing the picture so the film is more of Parker's labor-of-love than Barrymore's. No 1922 print of the movie survived through the decades as a release print would give evidence of a working continuity and of how this film unraveled to 1922 audiences. Only the actual camera negative survived of this film in a dismantled state. Kudos to Kevin Brownlow for doing a masterful job of re-assembling the negative to where it could be printed for viewing. What Brownlow has edited is 'probably' not too far off from the original release prints. The source for this film is similar, in procurring, the source for Barrymore's 1920 Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde in that the story comes from a great author, adapted to a stage play, then the play is used as a source for the film. Having seen three of Al Parker's films 'Eyes of Youth'(1919), 'Sherlock Holmes'(1922) & 'The Black Pirate'(1926), I can say that his directing style stays the same in all three pictures. Parker is only going to give the audience: closeup, medium shot & long shot. Sometimes faint moving camera ie the mock street fight, car leaving down the street. Parker is not going to do as King Vidor or Alan Crosland would do that is experiment in panning camera or tracking shot or zoom. That would've livened up this movie some what. This movie however follows the Griffith school of directing that is lots of stationery camera action in frame and title cards, much like other movies of 1922. J. Roy Hunt's photography is quite low like that of Milton Moore's in 'He Who Gets Slapped'(1924). Perhaps this was to signify the gloomy nature of the story. Original prints were probably tinted like many Goldwyn features of this period. This story should've been left in the 1890s and the movie a period piece rather than update the story to 1922. Both Carol Dempster & Hedda Hopper's characters wear contemporary clothing, Dempster the traditional patterned dresses that are in one quick sequence quite diaphanous. Hopper gets to dress fashionably, hats & all, 1922 style as one of her dresses is loose fitting & comfortable and looks like it was designed by Coco Chanel(parts of this film WERE made in Europe ie: Switzerland & England). William Powell & Roland Young(as Dr Watson) make their film debuts here. Powell later recalled that in 1936 when Barrymore was having trouble auditioning for MGM's 'Romeo & Juliet' and couldn't remember his lines, MGM tapped Powell to replace him. Powell countered that he did not have the heart to replace Barrymore as it was Barrymore who had given him his start in movies in 'Sherlock Holmes'. Louis Wolheim, Reginald Denny and David Torrence round out supporting roles.

Suffering from the same quandary as the silent Shakespeares this early film version of the famous sleuth involving blackmail and royal scandal would be swimming in title cards if it were possible to do any justice to the deductive supremacy of the world's most famous detective. As Holmes John Barrymore cuts a fine figure matching Sherlock's aquiline features and introspective looks of discern but without verbal dissection the film is merely a lengthy series of long stares, evil looks and perplexed squinting.

Director Albert Parker does anything but as the film hangs limply about void of action and suspense save for one jolting suicidal moment. The titanic confrontation and battle of wits between Holmes and Moriarity does not even attain low grade fever pitch though when all is said and done hints at a sequel.

Roland Young's Dr. Watson is reduced to watching Holmes think while Gustav Von Seyiffritz as Moriarity registers his menace with a fatigued Caligari boniness. William Powell as a snitch along with Carrol Dempster and Hedda Hopper show a little life in their performances but overall this Holmes is a crime.

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.

Am a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes and get a lot of enjoyment out of Arthur Conan Doyle's stories. Also love Basil Rathbone's and especially Jeremy Brett's interpretations to death. So would naturally see any Sherlock Holmes adaptation that comes my way, regardless of its reception.

Moreover, interest in seeing early films based on Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories and wanting to see as many adaptations of any Sherlock Holmes stories as possible sparked my interest in seeing 'Sherlock Holmes'. Plus to see how John Barrymore would fare as the iconic detective, and see Roland Young and William Powell in their film debuts.

After years of being lost and then found and restored, 'Sherlock Holmes' could and should have been great. While not the worst Sherlock Holmes adaptation, 'The Hound of the Baskervilles with Peter Cook and Dudley Moore will always take that dishonour, it is one of the lesser efforts and a contender for the most disappointing. Not awful, but should have been much better.

There are strengths. It does look good, with very handsome and evocative set/production design and a lot of strikingly beautiful moments in the photography.

Gustav von Seyffertitz is a formidable Moriaty, if occasionally a little eccentric, and William Powell makes a likeable film debut.

However, John Barrymore does not look interested or comfortable as Holmes, which is enough to bring the film by more than one star. Furthermore, Roland Young is one of the duller cinematic, and perhaps ever, Watsons and Carol Dempster is a completely vapid leading lady. Nothing intrigues or entertains in the iconic Holmes/Watson chemistry.

Despite an interesting idea and an atmospheric start, the story is far too ridiculous (often beyond belief) and tediously paced, with nowhere near enough of Holmes or his deductions. What would have solved that would have been to have less reliance on the too talky, bogging-down-pace and overused talking cards and getting rid of the out of character and out of place, not to mention incredibly bland, love interest relationship. How it's solved is too quick and too easy.

In summary, disappointing. 4/10 Bethany Cox

It's fun to see one of the earliest interpretations of Sherlock Holmes in this 1922 silent film that has been restored only in the last few decades. Unfortunately this Holmes runs out of deductions in his intro scene with Watson and the rest of the movie is just Holmes trying to catch Moriarty out on a pile of love letters?? The plot makes little sense and as the movie progresses into the final third, there is clearly a lot of still-missing footage that makes things even murkier. Moriarty comes to Holmes house in what was shaping up to be an interesting action scene and suddenly *poof* the scene is at an end point and we see a character involved that hasn't even been introduced!

It proceeds to the ending in similar fashion and again there is zero deducting from Holmes to get us there, just a bit of flimsy action and more seemingly missing footage as there is much that is unexplained.

I won't even address the love interest that seems to have been inserted for the sole purpose of giving said actress a role in the film, who I imagine as a 1920s version of Tori Spelling.

Still worth a watch just to see an early silent film formation of Sherlock Holmes while movies were still finding their footing for this character. Thankfully we soon got Basil Rathbone and company who did their wonderful job with Holmes in the 1930s.

I recently had the privilege of seeing the "World Premiere" of Albert Parker's version of Sherlock Holmes at The George Eastman House's Dryden Theater. John Barrymore was the sleuth and he was simply grand. I loved every campy moment! I'm quoting now from the capsule description written by the staff at the GEH: Until its rediscovery in the mid-1970s by Eastman House's first film curator James Card, Sherlock Holmes was the most sought-after `lost' John Barrymore film. When another print containing the missing original intertitles was located within the Eastman House's vaults a few years ago, a major restoration was undertaken. The resulting film reveals a faithful adaptation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's original story (the film was in fact fully endorsed by Doyle in 1922), as Barrymore's Holmes, aided by the ubiquitous Dr. Watson, battles wits with-who else?-sinister arch-nemesis Professor Moriarty. Live piano by Philip Carli.