Solemplex To me, this movie is perfection.

Beystiman It's fun, it's light, [but] it has a hard time when its tries to get heavy.

CrawlerChunky In truth, there is barely enough story here to make a film.

Lidia Draper Great example of an old-fashioned, pure-at-heart escapist event movie that doesn't pretend to be anything that it's not and has boat loads of fun being its own ludicrous self.

lugonian SHERLOCK HOLMES (Essanay, 1916), directed by Arthur Berthelet, is not the first nor the last motion picture produced depicting on the most recognizable and famous fictional detective of all time, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes. What makes this edition so special is it's historical account and reproduction and cast reprising their original roles from the popular stage play, notably William Gillette (1855-1937), the actor long associated with the title role decades before Basil Rathbone won that honor though his 14-film theatrical series produced by Universal in the 1940s. Anyone familiar with the carnation of Rathbone (Sherlock Holmes) and Nigel Bruce (Doctor Watson) would immediately realize how little the renown forties series and Gillette's screen adaptation have nothing in common, not even any by-plays and great chemistry between Holmes and Watson that made the Universal films work so well.As with many silent films of this nature, prints to SHERLOCK HOLMES have been lost to extinction until (according to the title cards with tiny printing readable only through the use of a magnifying glass) inserted prior to the opening credits), "a print was discovered in France 2014, with French-language inter-titles translated back to English." Another interesting fact is that this 1916 production was initially released as a seven reel feature while the European release in 1920 was extended with French inter-titles formatted into a four-part chaptered serial edition: ( "The Prince's Letters," "Moriarty vs. Sherlock Holmes," "A Tragic Night," and "The Triumph of Sherlock Holmes"). The restored 116 minute, color-tinted, accu-speed silent film process, completed by January 2015, would make its world television premiere October 18, 2015, on Turner Classic Movies cable channel.Following the opening sequence capturing the legendary stage actor, William Gillette, as Sherlock Holmes, working on experiments in his laboratory, the introduction of its supporting players of the four-act story are as follows: The Larrabees, James (Mario Majeroni) and Madge (Grace Reals), unscrupulous adventurers; Alice Faulkner (Marjorie Kay), a young girl whose abused sister, now deceased, having been entrusted the indiscreet love letters written to her by the crown prince; Baron Von Stalburg (Ludwig Kreiss), the prince's assistant, and Sir Edward Leighton (Stewart Robbins), a British official, knowing the great value of those letters, attempting to retrieve them; Sid (William Postance), a resourceful cracks-man and member of the Larrabee gang; and Doctor Watson (Edward Fielding), Holmes' occasional confident. As Sherlock Holmes is hired to retrieve the stolen letters, as well as protect and later rescue the abducted Alice, the ace detective also encounters his arch enemy, Professor Moriarty (Ernest Maupain), getting into the act with the villains while at the same time avenging himself on Holmes; and Billy (Burford Hampden), a boy secretly assisting Holmes supplying him with some valuable information needed for his investigation.Considering when SHERLOCK HOLMES was made, one can forgive primitive stand-still camera technique and limited visual close-ups on central characters most associated with movies nowadays. The acting style and method of storytelling can prove disappointing to contemporary viewers, which in fact, it is. At least it wasn't too stage bound.As much as it's a film buffs dream having lost silent movies rediscovered and available for viewing again, especially the opportunity of seeing the actual visual image of William Gillette captured on film, rather than associating his name with his Gillette Castle home overlooking the Connecticut River. The disappointment in general lies mostly by its new scoring that accompanies this movie. Definitely not for its listening pleasure considering this being shown for the first time in nearly a century. The piano accompaniment is okay, but its overuse of violin playing simply ruins it. This film deserves better. Had SHERLOCK HOLMES been discovered in the 1960s, no doubt it would have sufficed on public television during the nostalgia boom of the 1970s with excellent William Perry piano or Gaylord Carter organ scoring from the Killiam Collection. A pity this didn't happen here.The title SHERLOCK HOLMES would be used again in latter screen adaptations: (Goldwyn, 1922) starring John Barrymore (Holmes), Carol Dempster (Alice Faulkner) and Roland Young (Doctor Watson); and (Fox, 1932), talkie edition with the Gillette look-alike Clive Brook (Holmes), Miriam Jordan (Alice Faulkner) and Reginald Owen (Doctor Watson), all forgotten editions with limited reissues and appeal in modern times, yet there's more to Sherlock Holmes of the movies than anyone would come to realize. This is one of them. (**)

Hitchcoc There are two things to recommend this film. First of all, it is in marvelous condition for something made in 1916. Secondly, we get to see the famous William Gilette, who played the great detective over 1000 times on the stage. This version is the stage version, sans most of the dialogue. The story is a bit confusing at first, but it involves a young woman whose sister had an affair with royalty. She has letters that would prove embarrassing to a prince. Holmes has been hired to get those letters (like in "A Scandal in Bohemia"). There are a man and his wife, the Larabees, who also want to get their hands on those letters in order to turn a profit. Enter Moriarity, Holmes' arch rival. There are a series of ridiculous plots that don't work because people are stupid. The young woman is clueless. She also becomes a love interest for Holmes. This is out of bounds in the canon. One thing lacking is that Holmes is uninteresting and dull. He is coy and sad. His overconfidence is his greatest trait and he has none of that here. Still, as a period piece, it is fun.

Michael Dzyban In 2014 it was announced that a negative of this film had been discovered in France and would be restored for the world to see. After being considered lost for nearly 100 years it is miraculous for this to have happened. Once the restoration was complete there were only two planned theatrical screenings; one at the Cinémathèque Française film festival in France in January 2015 and another at the Silent Film Festival in San Francisco in the United States in May of 2015.I had the good fortune to be able to attend the San Francisco screening at the beautiful and historic Castro Theater. Live music accompanied the screening, performed wonderfully by the Donald Sosin Ensemble. The theater itself was filled to capacity for the single screening and a line trailed down the sidewalk outside the building.The film itself, post restoration, looked great. The image quality throughout was very strong and consistent with rich detail. One of the most striking features of the film itself is it's camera work and cinematography. Unusual for the time period there is a lot of camera movement and stylized editing. The visual style employed by the film is both very effective and engaging and may well have been a significant influence on other filmmakers of the time. (This viewer has seen nothing similar to it for that era.) As per the original theatrical release the film is color-tinted an orange-sepia for the interior/daylight sequences and a dark blue for the night/exterior sequences. This also is a very effective device that adds impact to the film, and successfully heightens the experience. (Especially compared to if the entire film were in standard black and white.) There is a significant amount of exposition present in the inter-title cards (which had to be translated from French back into English). This may be because much of Gillette's play had to be scaled back for the film adaptation.What of Gillette? His was the first performance that anyone ever saw of Sherlock Holmes. In general appearance he does seem to be cut almost directly out Sidney Pagent's original drawings for Holmes. At the time of filming he had been playing Holmes for decades and he does portray a rich and nuanced Holmes on screen. His characterization is both powerful and playful at times, displaying a wry sense of humor. While comparisons will be made to every other actor who has been Holmes on screen (particularly Basil Rathbone, his closest contemporary) his physical movement did remind this viewer a great deal of Jeremy Brett. His was a strong and sturdy Holmes and not a thin rail of a man.Other classic characters are, of course, present. Watson is used minimally, and not surprisingly, often for comic effect. However, it is done with care and he is an intelligent and believable character in the story. In general, the other performances (done by several of Gillette's stage company) are above par for films of the period, but do occasionally dip into Victorian clichés (as does the story now and then).The script was a pastiche of several Holmes stories and Gillette had Doyle's full permission to take liberties with the cannon, and he does. Audiences should keep this in mind, and note that during filming Sherlock Holmes was not the century-old icon that he is today. Overall, the film is still enjoyable and engaging even for contemporary audiences. Gillette's Sherlock Holmes has aged well, and happily can be enjoyed again by new generations of fans.

John Wayne Peel This is the one and only film ever done by actor William Gillette and he was 60 years old at the time, a fact which shows particularly in photos of the photoplay. Also strange is the fact that those who conduct tours at the Gillette Castle in East Haddam, Connecticut don't even seem to know the film was ever made even though they display photos on the walls taken directly from the film.William Gillette has an astounding record in terms of the role of Sherlock Holmes not only because he played the role over 1400 times in three mediums total, but also because he got permission from Conan Doyle himself to do things with the character that were never in print mainly because Doyle was so sickened of the stories that people did not seem to care about any of his other novels and publications. Gillette had no such problem since he relished playing the part particularly since it made him a rather wealthy man as well as a famous one.Gillete also add bits of business that became so associated with the fictional detective that they exist to this day. Things such as the curved Meerchaum pipe and the dressing gown he so often wears in his digs at 221 B Baker Street. And in the last few serialized Sherlock Holmes stories in the American magazine Colliers, the illustrator intentionally made the detective hero look just like William Gillette.Samuel French still prints the play and it was performed by no less than the Royal Shakespeare Company on Broadway as well as on the Wezt Coast. Still, when it was performed at the Williamsburg festival, there were changes made in the stage play making one wonder if there was more than one version of the play. Still these two things - the printed play and the videotaped production are all we have to go on in what this film may have been like since no print seems to exist.Then there is the 1922 Sanuel Goldwyn film starring John Barrymore which tantalizes us further. While many here on this site have lambasted that version, it appears by all accounts to have been wildly successful.SPOILER ALERT: Gillette in his version marries off Holmes to the character of Alice Faulkner who seems to have been based on the literary character known as "THE Woman" by Sherlock Holmes himself in a story in the Canon. Her name was Irene Adler.Reportedly, when Gillette asked the creator Conan Doyle if he could marry him off, he was known to have said "You may damn well kill him off if you wish" As I have said in my summary title, I do hope that one day this film will resurface and be seen at all. One can only dream.