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

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.