Customer Reviews

Sherlock Holmes

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I have looked forward to having John Barrymore's SHERLOCK HOLMES on DVD for quite some time. I had seen the movie before but only in a wretched public domain VHS which was so dark that most of the film was hard to make out. It's also hard to follow because it's based on the William Gillette play which takes several liberties with Conan Doyle's original source material. Like the play, the film is problematic in many ways. Though atmospherically lit, the camerawork is rather static and the direction is often ponderous. To be fair, this restoration by the George Eastman House is 24 minutes shorter than the original and this could be a case of where the missing footage makes it seem longer. There are obvious gaps and the film just doesn't flow right.

The biggest problem with this release as far as I'm concerned is the use of Ben Model's virtual organ score. Model is a fine musician who has enhanced many a silent film but this is a movie that badly needs an orchestral score to cover its deficiencies. This score, while well played and well recorded, failed to keep my interest. Still the movie is definitely worth having for the performances alone. In addition to Barrymore you get to see early turns by William Powell (his first), Roland Young (as Dr. Watson), Carole Dempster (away from D.W. Griffith), Hedda Hopper before she became a columnist, and Gustav von Seyffertitz as the ideal Moriarty. SHERLOCK HOLMES is part of Kino's new 4 DVD JOHN BARRYMORE COLLECTION but it can be purchased separately.

Comparing the new Blu-ray to the old DVD shows that there are two main, but slight, improvements.
First: The black levels have been raised a little, just enough to bring out details that are hard to see in the old DVD but not enough to make it look washed out. (The same player was used for both discs so it is not a player issue.)
Second: The framing shows just a sliver more picture on all sides. I first noticed this when you can see the film frame line move into the picture and move back out. This is no doubt the result of image stabilization which was masked off in the DVD presentation.

A good frame to compare the presentations on is at 04:14 into the movie. An interior office shot with two men at a desk. At the top of the picture the two books on the mantle piece are completely in view on the Blu-ray, but the DVD cuts off the top of the second book. Likewise there is a knob at the bottom of the picture that gets cut off slightly in the DVD. The right side of the picture is in dark shadows, but on the black-adjusted Blu-ray you can see details of a chair and other objects that are hard to see in the darker DVD.

And yes, Blu-ray has more resolution than DVD so on a big screen the image will look sharper. On a 32" TV you will not notice the difference.

BONUS FEATURES:
Yes, Kino has technically added some bonus material, 3 theatrical re-issue trailers.
1) Moroder's Metropolis
2) The Complete Metropolis
3) Battleship Potemkin
These are the trailers that recently ran at theaters to promote that theater's showings of Kino's new restored versions.

There is a nice reproduction of a trade magazine ad for the Sherlock Holmes movie on the reverse side of the cover insert that was not on the DVD. And the new menu shows stills from the movie, some may just be frame grabs while others are probably from trade ads.

Other minor changes are a new revised Kino Classics/Kino Lorber logo replacing the old Kino International logo, and a fancier FBI warning logo.

Quite frankly I was surprised to see John Barrymore's Sherlock Holmes come out on Blu-ray, the original film material was not in that great of shape. My first hope was that some of the missing footage was found, not so. Is there reason to re-invest in a Blu-ray copy if you already have the DVD, maybe. The improved details in the shadows do make the movie more enjoyable, but if you are happy with the picture quality of your DVD there is no big reason to upgrade.

For the side-by-side comparison I ran only the first 6 minutes of each presentation on the same Sony Blu-ray player and monitor. I do have an advance review copy. If there is a glaring difference later on in the movie i will update my review.

This is one of several early, silent film versions of the ever-popular detective, and one that lives up to the original and traditional trademarks and characteristics of Sherlock Holmes. In just under 90 minutes, this fast-moving drama takes us from the beginning of Sherlock's career as a freelance sleuth helping out Scotland Yard, meeting his arch enemy, Professor Moriarty, and finishing with the capture of the infamous evildoer after forty crime cases Holmes had worked on over the years. But rather than the typical murders and crimes we are used to today, the story of this 1922 version revolves only around one particular case of a theft and consequent set-up of a European Prince, as well as letters to his betrothed which are later the object of a blackmail attempt. Even so, Holmes puts into action his famous (and often humorous) astute observations and deductive reasoning with his loyal companion, Doctor Watson, and even disguises himself as Moriarty in order to trap the villain once and for all.

What might seem like a somewhat dull and plodding story to modern audiences is given extra appeal and zest by some of the stars, in particular of course, its famous star, John Barrymore. Although this role as Sherlock Holmes doesn't present many opportunities for Barrymore to shine and show off his usual charisma and talents, he does step into the part of Holmes quite well, even if it takes a little getting used to at first. A good villain is also important in stories like this one, and the sinister Moriarty is perfectly portrayed by the brilliant character actor, Gustav von Seyffertitz, who played an impressive array of varied characters, good and evil, throughout the silent era. Also thrown into the mix to attract a wider audience is Carol Dempster, famous for being D.W. Griffith's leading lady in a number of 1920s films, who plays a small but significant role as Sherlock's love interest, adding a twist not expected in the standard Sherlock Holmes mystery. Other viewers might find it of interest to see William Powell, perhaps best remembered for the Thin Man series of movies in the 1930s and 1940s, in his screen debut in "Sherlock Holmes" as Forman Wells, also playing a small yet important role in assisting Holmes.

The picture quality is overall quite good, though perhaps not as outstanding as many other silent films from the early 1920s issued on Kino, and the music is a very good organ score composed and played by Ben Model, who has performed many fine organ accompaniments to silent films. There are no bonus or special features on this DVD, and it is part of a four-DVD set by Kino of John Barrymore silent films, and as part of such a collection "Sherlock Holmes" is an important addition to highlight Barrymore's earlier and unusual roles. On its own, it would be of special interest for Sherlock Holmes enthusiasts in particular, and some knowledge of the original stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle would no doubt help in appreciating this particular silent version.

Movies have been taking liberties with Conan Doyle's creation long before Guy Ritchie, with the Great Profile's 1922 silent take on the Great Detective, Sherlock Holmes (aka Moriarty), a modern-day version ill-advisedly rewriting the book in a manner that offended the purists while not coming up with anything new to appeal to the more casual moviegoer, then or now. Partially shot on location in London and opening with some striking overhead shots of the city, it's not as terrible as its reputation nor as good as it should be considering all the talent and money involved (Reginald Deny, Louis Wolheim and future gossip queen Hedda Hopper are in it as well). Revolving around a blackmail attempt and some love letters to a European Prince from the woman who killed herself when they were prevented from marrying, it's at times a talky script, always a problem in a silent film, with more of a taste for melodrama than sleuthing.

A very loose adaptation of William Gillette's play, it begins with Holmes and Watson as fellow university students, charting his first encounter with Moriarty (on learning the fate of various detectives who have tried to bring him to book, Holmes responds "Oh! - Well, of course, if you're as difficult to know as all that, I'd better be getting back to my microbes") that sets him on a life of fighting crime. But along the way we get Holmes rustically ruminating on human nature and, of all things, falling in love at first sight with Carol Dempster's innocent girl and spending much of the first half of the film in a daze. Or it could be plain disinterest as Barrymore hardly seems terribly engaged with his role, going through the motions of concentrating and staring into the far distance while making little impression. Not that he has much to work with, Holmes going by instinct rather than deductive reasoning - `It's easier for me to know Wells is guilty than to explain how I know it' he admits early in the game - while only briefly demonstrating his deductive reasoning in a scene with a clumsily shaved Roland Young's underemployed Watson. As for the domestic revelation in the last scene, it's enough to give the hardcore Holmes fans a fit, though it is rather obvious that Barrymore's real-life hatred for co-star Dempster led to him insisting on a stand in for her in their final clinch.

Holmes isn't the only one to get a bit of a makeover. Gustav Von Seyffertitz's scruffy Moriarty, introduced in the middle of a spider's web and operating from a torture dungeon in Limehouse, seems inspired more by Barrymore's Mr Hyde than Doyle while, aside from a paperboy in the unsatisfactorily perfunctory ending, the closest it gets to a Baker Street Irregular is William Powell in his first film as a thief who defects to Holmes side and whose fate is left vague for much of the last part of the film by the still missing footage. Whereby hangs a tale.

The film was lost for decades until the negative of several cans of out of order sequences were found in George Eastman House in 1970, with Kevin Brownlow and William K. Everson screening them for director Albert Parker and basing the lengthy restoration (funded by Hugh Hefner and the National Parks Foundation among others over more than three decades) on his notes. Unfortunately things get rather confusing towards the end thanks to some still missing footage: where public screenings of the restoration filled in the gaps with stills and explanatory captions, Kino Video's extras-free DVD from 2008 makes no such concessions, with events around Holmes' second encounter with Moriarty particularly abrupt (a wounded man and a rejected proposition referred to in one title card literally come out of nowhere while another segment ends abruptly). One for the Barrymore and Holmes completists only, though it is amusing to note that even in 1922 films were making in-jokes about evil masterminds wasting time on elaborate death traps rather than simply killing their nemesis the easy way.

This Kino release is most likely the best we will see for sometime if not ever. However, as has been mentioned, it is obvious there is some missing footage even without researching the film. That out of the way the overall print quality is good and seeing William Powell in his first role is, for me, the real treat of this film. Taking nothing away from the great Barrymore of course. Barebones release but worth a purchase.

I agree with the observations of the previous two reviewers but I think I can clear up a few of the information gaps. I believe that the film lacks a certain amount of suspense because most of the missing footage occurs near the end, roughly from the point of Holmes' meeting with Moriarity at Baker Street. The subsequent scene in the "gas chamber" room and the finale at Dr. Watson's home are cut up quite a bit making the action incomprehensible. This otherwise laudable KINO release would have been aided greatly by some liner notes explaining the critically missing action.

Although I'm no Holmes expert, it is fortunate that the film's story is based on the same William Gillette play that Orson Welles used in his radio adaptation in 1938 (broadcast a month before Welles tackled the Martian invasion). Having listened to the radio broadcast a few times over the years, I was able to figure out what was happening in the film. First, Moriarity blackmails Holmes to let him go in the Baker Street flat because he has kidnapped little Billy, the bellboy. Holmes realizes he has to agree but wants to see Billy safely returned first. The surviving footage shows a bedraggled boy standing Holmes doorway but there's no explanation of who he is or why he's there.

Second, Holmes escapes the trap of the gas chamber room by misdirection - he makes the villains (including a wonderfully surly Louis Wolheim, a Barrymore buddy)think he escaped through one door and they all follow in pursuit. Holmes then suavely walks out another door to freedom. One at least can follow the action at the finale in Watson's flat although the action is choppy. Curiously, left out of the finale is the fate of the Faulkner letters that motivated the whole story in the first place. At least we finally know how William Powell later became such a fine detective as Philo Vance and Nick Charles - he started out working for Sherlock Holmes!

I'm a longtime Barrymore fan so I know I'm biased but I enjoyed every moment of SHERLOCK HOLMES, especially since it gave JB the opportunity to appear with later well-known film actors such as William Powell and Roland Young, with whom he never made sound films. This film did not give Barrymore opportunities to show his comedy abilities or give him a "mad scene" that made most his other silents so memorable. Also, Barrymore had to go up against "the" one and only portrayal of Holmes by William Gillette, who had played the role on stage since the 1890s (and continued through the 1930s!). So he may have believed that he couldn't stray too far from the public's well-entrenched view of Holmes. To be fair, the original reviews of the complete film back in 1922 were rather luke-warm so even with missing footage we should be grateful to KINO for restoring this long missing film (not counting dreadful bootlegs) back to the Barrymore filmography. Viva KINO!

Thanks everyone for ruining the movie for me. That's why they call them MYSTERIES you ninkompoops. Thanks for giving away the entire plot!