Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

AnhartLinkin This story has more twists and turns than a second-rate soap opera.

Juana what a terribly boring film. I'm sorry but this is absolutely not deserving of best picture and will be forgotten quickly. Entertaining and engaging cinema? No. Nothing performances with flat faces and mistaking silence for subtlety.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

skyfall-33402 Um... I just watched this movie in YouTube. And... it is really weird.

MartinHafer I agree with another reviewer who says this film is impossible to rate. Although the film is longer than the 30 seconds stated on IMDb (possibly due, in part, to the speed at which it was played but mine clocked in at about 50 seconds), there really isn't enough film to allow you to rate it. In addition, what you see seems to have NOTHING to do with Sherlock Holmes. In fact, it looks like it was inspired by the films of Georges Méliès--as it uses some of the same tricks this French master director used. Specifically, by stopping and restarting the camera, Arthur Marvin made characters appear and disappear in order to bedevil 'Sherlock Holmes'--who spends most of the film trying to catch this appearing and disappearing character. A strange little curio worth seeing once, but as I said before, it bears very little semblance to the Conan Doyle character.

Michael_Elliott Sherlock Holmes Baffled (1900) *** (out of 4) This thirty-second film from American Mutoscope and the Biograph Company is the earliest surviving (and perhaps first made) Sherlock Holmes movie. The story is pretty simple as Holmes walks in on a thief and as he goes to grab him he disappears into thin air. Holmes, as the title suggests, is baffled but the thief reappears only to quickly disappear again. At just 30-seconds one shouldn't go into this thing expecting any type of real story and as you can tell by the story what we're basically got is a Georges Melies rip-off but I must admit that I found it entertaining. The actors are unknown I believe but I enjoyed the Holmes here. There's not much of a performance but I thought the actor did a nice job with his short time and the cigar was a nice touch and something that wouldn't be seen in future versions. The magician tricks aren't nearly as good as what you'd see in an actual Melies movie but at the same time they're actually quite a bit better than most rips including some from this very studio. The disappearance trick happens about three times and it's clearly done with the editing but the effect works well enough. While I'm sure many viewers of today would just see this as some sort of generic junk, it's actually pretty interesting in its own right and not to mention the fact that it's probably the first Holmes movie. That there is reason enough to check it out.

jhboswell No character, no plot, one set, trick photography but no camera movement--did anyone of the time consider these few seconds a harbinger of Holmes in the cinema? Not all of the stories had been written, and when this was made Holmes was still murdered by Professor Moriarty. Besides that, people weren't going to the movies in theaters yet, because no one was making any decent films in 1900: they were only considered nickel arcade curiosities. That's why it's neat to watch this little turn, once or twice; and to think about people who already knew who Sherlock Holmes was. But, I'm afraid the people who made the movie didn't!