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

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

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.