Simply Perfect

Absolutely the worst movie.

Absolutely Fantastic

Yo, there's no way for me to review this film without saying, take your *insert ethnicity + "ass" here* to see this film,like now. You have to see it in order to know what you're really messing with.

8.5 out of 10 I had the privilege of seeing this at the Castro Theater in 2015 for the public world re-release at the Silent Film Festival there. I had no idea what to expect since the film had been lost for nearly 100 years, and I have never been a huge Holmes fan (but I don't dislike the character at all). As we know, silent films can sometimes move at a snoring pace, so I kept my expectations low.This film really surprised me with its Mystery Comics/early Noir kind of feel- splitting the film into "to be Continued...!" type of segments, since it was originally a serial. I imagine it can be enjoyed watched in 3 separate parts as well (it wasn't meant to be a 2-hour sit-down affair).The pace is great overall, only a little sluggish at first with the introductory part of the plot (a letter scandal or sorts?) being very outdated. After the first part of that serial you will feel right at home (or Holmes!) with all the booby traps and laughs. William Gillette absolutely steals the show every time he's on screen and it is no wonder that he was adored for his portrayal of the character at the time of release.I won't give away any of the gags or trickery, but they are top-notch and this film has Chaplin-inspired hoodwinking all over the place. If you enjoyed Chaplin's Essanay work like "Police" or his work on "The Adventurer" then this will be right up your alley.Going deeper, this film also provides a fascinating insight into the development of the modern "Super Hero." Sherlock Holmes was in many ways the world first superhero, his intellect being the primary superpower. It's kinda neat to think of how this protagonist archetype has developed over the last 100 years! A fine gem to be preserved for future generations :)

After being so let down by the 1922 John Barrymore Sherlock Holmes, which boasted a lackluster leading lady and way too many intertitles, I was not expecting too much from the long-lost 1916 version, in spite of the presence of William Gillette. Thankfully, I was wrong: this is a well-paced, atmospheric, and well-acted picture. Thank God it was found.For someone who never acted in front of a camera before, Gillette is phenomenal. Like Sessue Hayakawa and Mary Pickford, here was another actor who understood the camera came with its own rules, a need for a greater subtlety which comes with the intimacy of the projected image. Self-assured, intelligent, and understated, Gillette is a great Holmes; no wonder he was so influential in our modern conceptions of the character.The plot itself (based off the popular 1890s stage play and later used for the bland 1922 film) is a mess, a mish mash of images, characters, and story elements from an assortment of the original Holmes stories. Some of the developments are silly and there are some plot holes, but what keeps the film from sinking are the mysterious atmosphere and the charisma of the performers. The pacing is slow, but never boring. I can only describe the picture as having a hypnotic quality.Many are put off by the addition of a love interest for Holmes, but I don't mind too much. At least he and Alice have some chemistry. It makes me think a lot of the 1970 film The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, where director Billy Wilder examines the emotions behind the famous detective's rational reserve.Film buffs and Holmes devotees will be interested. Give it a watch.

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.

This film, up until recently thought to have been lost, is of interest chiefly as a record of the earliest, and among the most famous, portrayals of the immortal Sherlock Holmes. William Gillette, who portrays Holmes in this movie, first played Holmes on stage in 1899, and continued to do so for over 1,300 performances during the next 35 years. To audiences before 1939, when Basil Rathbone made the role his own, William Gillette WAS Sherlock Holmes. This is a somewhat stagy version. That is partly due to having been made in 1919. However, it is also due in large measure to the fact that the movie actually is, for all intents and purposes, a filmed version of the stage play, which Gillette not only starred in, but also wrote. Nevertheless, this is a fascinating film to view, as well as a valuable record of one of the most famous portrayals of one of the most famous characters in literature.