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!

bkoganbing 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.

TheUnknown837-1 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.

jhboswell I have been viewing the great detective on film as a progression, through the years, since the early part of the 20th century. I'm sure it was fascinating for readers of the stories to watch our hero develop, and there have since been countless literary expositions on Holmes and anything accompanying him. It has likewise been a lot of fun watching different portrayals on the screen.I have enjoyed the Eille Norwood productions immensely, and of course can strongly recommend Messieurs Rathbone and Brett in the role. Other commendable cinematic or televised Sherlocks include Charlton Heston, Peter Cushing, Christopher Plummer, Nicol Williamson--a lot of good men have played Sherlock Holmes.But this one is the very worst one I've seen, except for a short burlesque by Douglas Fairbanks Sr. Mr. Barrymore shows zero intellectual processing--that's right, none. He is in a daze. Can you can imagine Sherlock Holmes in a daze? I understand he was intoxicated for most of the production, and it shows. If he was a great actor, he was a pitiful interpretor. I would doubt he ever read a Holmes story.The film has some good features, as delineated by Mr. Morris in the review above this one. It is of some historical interest. It might even be a fairly good movie of its day. But, when laid beside The Hound of the Baskervilles starring Jeremy Brett, you have a turkey.