Wow! Such a good movie.

It is a performances centric movie

Captivating movie !

It's easily one of the freshest, sharpest and most enjoyable films of this year.

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 being very outdated.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.

Sherlock Holmes (1916) *** (out of 4)A member of the Royal family writes some letters to a woman who suffers from a broken heart and dies. Her sister Alice (Marjorie Kay) gains possession of the letters and the Royal family wants them back. A couple blackmailers learn of the letters so they kidnap Alice and plan on using the letters for money but Sherlock Holmes (William Gillette) also has an interest in them.SHERLOCK HOLMES was a lost film for decades but thankfully a print from France showed up. I'm not going to lie. I love silent movies and each year it seems more and more films are being discovered, which is great but I've noticed that a lot of the films aren't all that good. Even if they aren't that good it's always great when one is discovered. SHERLOCK HOLMES, on the other hand, is actually a very good movie and it turns out to be a real discovery.Gillette was one of the most famous actors of his time and he did a tremendous tour playing Holmes, which took him around the world. Whenever someone thought of Holmes it was Gillette that they thought of and you can see certain things that would be borrowed by future actors. It's almost hard to believe but this here was Gillette's only film and it was produced by the Essanay Company after they lost Charlie Chaplin.The film is pretty much what you would have seen on the stage at the time so it's fascinating getting to see the film. Gillette certainly makes for a very good Holmes as he certainly has command of the character and a certain grace that really jumps off the screen. It's rather shocking that this was Gillette's only time in front of the camera because he really comes off as a natural. Kay is also very good in her role as is Ernest Maupain as Professor Moriarty and Edward Fielding as Dr. Watson.SHERLOCK HOLMES features a story written by Gillette and it too is very good and manages to hold you attention for a few minutes shy of two hours. The movie has a terrific pace to it and it's well-shot. This film is so much better than the 1922 version with John Barrymore so film buffs have a lot to celebrate with this one turning up.

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.