From my favorite movies..

It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

What begins as a feel-good-human-interest story turns into a mystery, then a tragedy, and ultimately an outrage.

The tone of this movie is interesting -- the stakes are both dramatic and high, but it's balanced with a lot of fun, tongue and cheek dialogue.

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.

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.

"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

I agree with with another reviewer who thinks this might just be the worst Sherlock Holmes ever--or at least among the worst. It's because this version of the great detective is him in name only--almost nothing about him sees like the Holmes of the Conan Doyle stories. Having read all the original stories, I know what I am talking about here. John Barrymore simply isn't Holmes. This didn't come as that much of a surprise, though, as when the movie began it said that the film was based on the plays of William Gillette--not the Doyle stories. Gillette played fast and loose with the character and added many of his own details and flourishes and over time, his plays became less and less like Doyle's stories. So how could anyone expect this film to be THE Sherlock Holmes? The story is a weird variation on the original Doyle story "A Scandal in Bohemia". Of all the dozens and dozens of original stories, this one happens to be my favorite and it's practically a perfect story. But, oddly, very little of the original story remains (just a few odd bits and pieces)--and lots of unnecessary stuff is added. To Holmes maniacs like myself, this is tantamount to sacrilege! A prince has fallen for a commoner. He isn't particularly worried, as there are others in line for succession well before him. However, when those ahead of him are killed unexpectedly, he calls off his upcoming marriage--such a marriage would not be acceptable to the nation. Despondent, the lady kills herself and her sister has letters that the future king had written to his former lover. The British government want Holmes to find those letters and return them to the man who is about to be crowned.Okay, aside from completely changing the story into a tale involving Moriarty (who, by the way, was captured pretty easily at the end), the story did some of the most ridiculous things you could do with Holmes--it made him a sentimentalist AND had him fall in love, inexplicably, at first sight. Holmes NEVER showed anything but contempt for most women (save two) in the stories and NEVER was sexually interested in any woman--in fact, he was repulsed by them. In THE SECRET LIFE OF SHERLOCK HOLMES the film went so far as to say that Holmes was gay (and fantasized about Watson!). While the real Holmes in the stories seemed asexual, being gay at least made much more sense than having him fall for a lady and even propose to her at the end of the movie!!! This is just wrong and violated the entirety who Holmes was. Plus, Holmes acted more like an action hero and showed little of the usual methodology he employed in the stories. It was as if no one associated with the film ever read the stories--not even one. If all this is okay, why not make him a Chinese acrobat or a serial killing nudist? There was so much more about the film that was wrong or didn't work but I won't bother going on, as the love interest alone ruins the story.So what is good about this film? Well, it had lots of footage that was actually filmed in London and the scene in the mountains looked nice. Aside from that....absolutely nothing makes the film worth seeing--even if the great John Barrymore is in the lead. Apparently it took many years to piece this movie back together from various sources in order to restore the film. Too bad it wasn't worthy of such efforts! Yes, you can tell that I do love my Conan Doyle!