Sherlock Holmes

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 had looked forward to having John Barrymore's SHERLOCK HOLMES on DVD for quite some time. I had seen the movie before but only in a wretched public domain VHS which was so dark that most of the film was hard to make out. The first half is made up of original material that sets the stage for the second half which is the William Gillette play. Holmes and Watson begin as college students at Cambridge which leads to his first encounter with Moriarty. The scene is clever and memorable.

It's a shame the rest of the movie can't match it. Although atmospherically lit, the camerawork is rather static and the direction is often ponderous. To be fair, this restoration by the George Eastman House is 24 minutes shorter than the original and this could be a case of where the missing footage makes it seem longer. There are obvious gaps and the film just doesn't flow right.

The biggest problem with this release as far as I'm concerned is the use of Ben Model's virtual organ score. Model is a fine musician who has enhanced many a silent film but this is a movie that badly needs an orchestral score to cover its deficiencies. This score, while well played and well recorded, failed to keep my interest. Still the movie is definitely worth having for the performances alone.

In addition to Barrymore you get to see early turns by William Powell (his first movie), Roland Young (as Dr. Watson), Carole Dempster (away from D. W. Griffith), Hedda Hopper before she became a columnist, and Gustav von Seyffertitz as the ideal Moriarty. The actual London locations also enhance the proceedings. The Blu-ray edition is slightly better and is the way to go for the best results regarding this title...For more reviews visit The Capsule Critic.

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.

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.

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.