MartinHafer 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!

preppy-3 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!

JohnHowardReid 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.

Michael_Elliott 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.