Watch Sherlock Holmes For Free

If you don't like this, we can't be friends.

A brilliant film that helped define a genre

At first rather annoying in its heavy emphasis on reenactments, this movie ultimately proves fascinating, simply because the complicated, highly dramatic tale it tells still almost defies belief.

The movie really just wants to entertain people.

For decades, Albert Parker's film of Sherlock Holmes was lost until the 1970's when canisters holding negatives of several scenes surfaced. Researcher Kevin Brownlow contacted Parker, who was at the end of his life, and received enough assistance from Parker to assemble the film. It took a few more decades to completely restore the footage. What resulted is a disappointment in terms of the story itself. With John Barrymore, what could go wrong? Several scenes were filmed on location in London, which was probably rare at the time. The sets were terrific for the time, and the actor playing Moriarty makes for a formidable foe. However, there are three main reasons why the film goes awry.First, the film took nearly the first half of its remaining length to develop to the point of the Holmes character becoming the detective viewers are familiar with. Included in this stretch is exposition drawn collectively from the Conan Doyle stories, but the film is mostly based on a play by William Gillette. Holmes supposedly pines away for Alice Faulkner, played by D.W. Griffith protégé Carol Dempster, because of a chance incident in the film. Viewers will cringe with this unnecessary introduction of romance into the plot. It's also not in sync with the Conan Doyle character as most people will remember him.Second, there's not enough action in the film and instances for Holmes to show his stuff. Early on there's a brief mention of what Holmes' strengths and weaknesses are in the form of a written memo, which the viewers can see. However, what good is it to reveal those talents and weakness when none are displayed in the film? It becomes empty filler. Much of the film occurs in different scenes with actors simply standing around and talking. The film transitions to another scene or location and then we have more actors standing around and talking, leading to third reason which does the film in.Third, the volume of title cards is frequent throughout the film, requiring the viewer to read voluminous dialog, which does not necessarily always add much to the scene(s). As a result, the film plods on in the first half with the viewer doing a lot of reading and little happening in the film. The film does pick up the pace a bit in the second half, and a lot of this may have to do with the fact that some prints are still missing some footage, so depending on how complete a print is, the film may seem to have better pacing or not in the second half. Film debuts of Roland Young as Doctor John Watson and William Powell as Foreman Wells. Louis Wolheim plays Craigin and gossip columnist Hedda Hopper plays Madge Larrabee. ** of 4 stars.

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!

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.

I recently had the privilege of seeing the "World Premiere" of Albert Parker's version of Sherlock Holmes at The George Eastman House's Dryden Theater. John Barrymore was the sleuth and he was simply grand. I loved every campy moment! I'm quoting now from the capsule description written by the staff at the GEH: Until its rediscovery in the mid-1970s by Eastman House's first film curator James Card, Sherlock Holmes was the most sought-after `lost' John Barrymore film. When another print containing the missing original intertitles was located within the Eastman House's vaults a few years ago, a major restoration was undertaken. The resulting film reveals a faithful adaptation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's original story (the film was in fact fully endorsed by Doyle in 1922), as Barrymore's Holmes, aided by the ubiquitous Dr. Watson, battles wits with-who else?-sinister arch-nemesis Professor Moriarty. Live piano by Philip Carli.