Horst in Translation ([email protected]) Over 110 years before Robert Downey Jr. gives his approach on the character, this is the very first Sherlock Holmes movie ever starring an unknown actor. The film was considered lost, but rediscovered in the 1960s. To put it in relation, the author Arthur Conan Doyle was 40 years old, when Arthur Marvin shot this very short film, which lasts clearly under a minute. It's one of 3 films made by Marvin, but he was one of the most prolific cinematographers of the early years of cinema. He participated in over 400 films despite dying in his early 50s already.Holmes surprised a burglar who's about to steal a big sum of cash and tries to take it from him. However, the burglar seems to have great magic abilities as he not only manages to keep disappearing when Holmes confronts him. But he even reappears shortly afterward and takes the money with him. Too much for old Sherlock. And only one for early cinema enthusiasts really.

Michael_Elliott Sherlock Holmes Baffled (1900) *** (out of 4) This thirty-second film from American Mutoscope and the Biograph Company is the earliest surviving (and perhaps first made) Sherlock Holmes movie. The story is pretty simple as Holmes walks in on a thief and as he goes to grab him he disappears into thin air. Holmes, as the title suggests, is baffled but the thief reappears only to quickly disappear again. At just 30-seconds one shouldn't go into this thing expecting any type of real story and as you can tell by the story what we're basically got is a Georges Melies rip-off but I must admit that I found it entertaining. The actors are unknown I believe but I enjoyed the Holmes here. There's not much of a performance but I thought the actor did a nice job with his short time and the cigar was a nice touch and something that wouldn't be seen in future versions. The magician tricks aren't nearly as good as what you'd see in an actual Melies movie but at the same time they're actually quite a bit better than most rips including some from this very studio. The disappearance trick happens about three times and it's clearly done with the editing but the effect works well enough. While I'm sure many viewers of today would just see this as some sort of generic junk, it's actually pretty interesting in its own right and not to mention the fact that it's probably the first Holmes movie. That there is reason enough to check it out.

pyrocitor Considering his currently being recognized as one of the most singularly celebrated and iconic fictional characters of literature and cinema, one could be excused for finding Sherlock Holmes Baffled to be somewhat of an underwhelming cinematic debut for the unconventional detective. A thirty second short involving Holmes struggling to capture a teleporting burglar hardly appears to capture the intrigue, suspense and logical foundation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's novels. In the end, the story itself hardly bears any similarities to the established Sherlock Holmes figure whatsoever, leading one to ruminate on whether it was even intended to be an adaptation of the character when first filmed (the 'Holmes' figure hardly fulfils any of the character's visual iconography). As such, the film remains predominantly a curiosity through its (essentially unnecessary) use of an established fictional character, demonstrating an early and unexpectedly poignant example of movie marketing and use of ancillary markets and art forms to attract viewers - consider how likely the film would be to be recognized were it not billed as 'the first on-screen appearance of Sherlock Holmes'. Nonetheless, to dismiss the film as a single piece of crude marketing or a one-note bit of early cinematic trickery would still be doing it a disservice. As thirty second investments of time go, there are by far enough developments transpiring in the short to merit its recognition, from the bizarre and vaguely comic performance of 'Holmes' to the inexplicable, seemingly supernatural process of the vanishing burglar, lending itself to a slew of metaphoric speculation. It is also worth noting that, lack of narrative arc or not, the film demonstrates an early example of the protagonist losing, as Holmes is unable to capture the burglar, remaining perpetually baffled, as the title would have it. As such, while complexity or narrative sophistication are hardly in store (not that extensive quantities of either within a thirty second short would be a realistic expectation), putting one's self in the position of early 1900s audiences watching the short, gasping at the seeming magic and desperate struggles of the protagonist allows for a wonderfully nostalgic throwback to the days when a (now) simple vanishing act would be sufficient to bewilder, amaze and thoroughly entertain audiences - in essence, all of the aims of contemporary cinema distilled to their most bare bones fundamentals. -8/10

mrdonleone I guess this was the first Sherlock Holmes movie ever made. the special effects are superb (especially for the time back then), they do get every attention. some guy appears and disappears a lot of times. I wonder how they would do it nowadays. anyway, the effects are way better than the acting performances. they act quite ridiculous, so it's more a comedy than a detective movie. it's even more a horror movie than a comedy. the villain who seems to be untouchable, is a theme that would come back in a lot of films nowadays. yes, this short movie is very important in the history of cinema: without this genre mix, movies as Jurassic Park (reactions on something that isn't there) would be impossible to make.