ada the leading man is my tpye

Majorthebys Charming and brutal

Konterr Brilliant and touching

Haven Kaycee It is encouraging that the film ends so strongly.Otherwise, it wouldn't have been a particularly memorable film

TheLittleSongbird 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

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!

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.