I guess this was the first Sherlock Holmes movie ever made. the special effects are superb (especially for the time back then), they do get every attention. some guy appears and disappears a lot of times. I wonder how they would do it nowadays. anyway, the effects are way better than the acting performances. they act quite ridiculous, so it's more a comedy than a detective movie. it's even more a horror movie than a comedy. the villain who seems to be untouchable, is a theme that would come back in a lot of films nowadays. yes, this short movie is very important in the history of cinema: without this genre mix, movies as Jurassic Park (reactions on something that isn't there) would be impossible to make.
11 Reviews
Sherlock holmes Baffled
callumbjenner9 March 2023
Warning: Spoilers
Sherlock holmes baffled is the first detective film ever released on the 4th month of a new centry it is an all black and white film giving us not only a depiction of who shetlock holmes is but also gives us an idea about films at the time. The running time goes for just under a minute. It starts with the young detective returning to some sort of room only to find it being robbed. The burgler plays some games with Sherlock Holmes before escaping out the window with sherlock deciding to just give up. It is rated G being appropriate for all ages however the little ones might not appeal to the idea of sitting through such an old film.
Back to a time without colors.
ITALUKE7 April 2022
Important little trick film! hi
jwpeel-124 July 2006
It's impossible to rate this short curio from early film. At the time, film was just a little novelty item to show people something fun to watch for literal seconds in hand crank machines called Nickelodeons (which actually cost pennies most times until they were later projected on crude screens.) But Sherlock Holmes name was extremely well known at the time, and would guarantee several curious viewers. A simple film trick begun by George Melies in France where things seem to vanish by simply removing them from the camera's eye and resuming shooting. The "actor" playing the world's greatest detective looks the part but, as the title suggests is baffled by the disappearing-re-appearing burglar who loots the single room. Stationary cameras were common in those days before film found its more inventive directors and cinematographers, so again, there is really no way to rate these type films. They did what they were supposed to do - entertain in a few seconds - so, by those standards, the film does its job. I'm glad to finally own it as an addition to my own Sherlock Holmes collection.
Interesting, maybe; but pretty dumb
jhboswell25 May 2006
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!
But, I'm afraid the people who made the movie didn't!
Supervillain baffles Holmes
Horst_In_Translation16 September 2013
Warning: Spoilers
Over 110 years before Robert Downey Jr. gives his approach on the character, this is the very first Sherlock Holmes movie ever starring an unknown actor. The film was considered lost, but rediscovered in the 1960s. To put it in relation, the author Arthur Conan Doyle was 40 years old, when Arthur Marvin shot this very short film, which lasts clearly under a minute. It's one of 3 films made by Marvin, but he was one of the most prolific cinematographers of the early years of cinema. He participated in over 400 films despite dying in his early 50s already.
Holmes surprised a burglar who's about to steal a big sum of cash and tries to take it from him. However, the burglar seems to have great magic abilities as he not only manages to keep disappearing when Holmes confronts him. But he even reappears shortly afterward and takes the money with him. Too much for old Sherlock. And only one for early cinema enthusiasts really.
Holmes surprised a burglar who's about to steal a big sum of cash and tries to take it from him. However, the burglar seems to have great magic abilities as he not only manages to keep disappearing when Holmes confronts him. But he even reappears shortly afterward and takes the money with him. Too much for old Sherlock. And only one for early cinema enthusiasts really.
Not... bad
skyfall-334022 June 2018
Simplistic yet perplexing noteworthy early Holmes short
pyrocitor16 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Considering his currently being recognized as one of the most singularly celebrated and iconic fictional characters of literature and cinema, one could be excused for finding Sherlock Holmes Baffled to be somewhat of an underwhelming cinematic debut for the unconventional detective. A thirty second short involving Holmes struggling to capture a teleporting burglar hardly appears to capture the intrigue, suspense and logical foundation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's novels. In the end, the story itself hardly bears any similarities to the established Sherlock Holmes figure whatsoever, leading one to ruminate on whether it was even intended to be an adaptation of the character when first filmed (the 'Holmes' figure hardly fulfils any of the character's visual iconography). As such, the film remains predominantly a curiosity through its (essentially unnecessary) use of an established fictional character, demonstrating an early and unexpectedly poignant example of movie marketing and use of ancillary markets and art forms to attract viewers - consider how likely the film would be to be recognized were it not billed as 'the first on-screen appearance of Sherlock Holmes'.
Nonetheless, to dismiss the film as a single piece of crude marketing or a one-note bit of early cinematic trickery would still be doing it a disservice. As thirty second investments of time go, there are by far enough developments transpiring in the short to merit its recognition, from the bizarre and vaguely comic performance of 'Holmes' to the inexplicable, seemingly supernatural process of the vanishing burglar, lending itself to a slew of metaphoric speculation. It is also worth noting that, lack of narrative arc or not, the film demonstrates an early example of the protagonist losing, as Holmes is unable to capture the burglar, remaining perpetually baffled, as the title would have it.
As such, while complexity or narrative sophistication are hardly in store (not that extensive quantities of either within a thirty second short would be a realistic expectation), putting one's self in the position of early 1900s audiences watching the short, gasping at the seeming magic and desperate struggles of the protagonist allows for a wonderfully nostalgic throwback to the days when a (now) simple vanishing act would be sufficient to bewilder, amaze and thoroughly entertain audiences - in essence, all of the aims of contemporary cinema distilled to their most bare bones fundamentals.
-8/10
Nonetheless, to dismiss the film as a single piece of crude marketing or a one-note bit of early cinematic trickery would still be doing it a disservice. As thirty second investments of time go, there are by far enough developments transpiring in the short to merit its recognition, from the bizarre and vaguely comic performance of 'Holmes' to the inexplicable, seemingly supernatural process of the vanishing burglar, lending itself to a slew of metaphoric speculation. It is also worth noting that, lack of narrative arc or not, the film demonstrates an early example of the protagonist losing, as Holmes is unable to capture the burglar, remaining perpetually baffled, as the title would have it.
As such, while complexity or narrative sophistication are hardly in store (not that extensive quantities of either within a thirty second short would be a realistic expectation), putting one's self in the position of early 1900s audiences watching the short, gasping at the seeming magic and desperate struggles of the protagonist allows for a wonderfully nostalgic throwback to the days when a (now) simple vanishing act would be sufficient to bewilder, amaze and thoroughly entertain audiences - in essence, all of the aims of contemporary cinema distilled to their most bare bones fundamentals.
-8/10
A curiosity
sunsetboulevard1612 September 2002
This strange film was produced by American Mutoscope circa 1900, but it was not released 'till 1903. It's only a few seconds film about a burglar who is surprised during his task by a very strange Sherlock Holmes. It is silly and very schematic, but funny and interesting anyway for Sherlock Holmes Films aficionados...
Holmes First Case
Michael_Elliott1 May 2011
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.
*** (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.
Important, yes....but not exactly Sherlock Holmes
planktonrules16 March 2013
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.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
