This 93 year old movie tells the story of Sherlock Holmes's son. That sounds awesome, but I could really say otherwise. I found the nearly the whole thing to be dull. There are simply better mystery movies I have seen: The Great Mouse Detective.(Disney Movie.) Sheerluck Holmes and the Golden Ruler(VeggieTales show.) Monk(TV show about a detective with OCD.) Nancy Drew(assuming it's still good, it's been like a decade since I last saw it.) There are better mystery movies than this. See my bulleted titles instead of this.

Quick synopsis: A young man who is working as a projectionist in the local cinema tries his hardest to become a detective. His favorite pastime activity is reading books about said topic; "how to become a detective". When the father of his romantic interest lost his watch he applied himself by trying to figure out who stole it. By a twist of fate he ends up being accused/framed for the crime. With the now blemishing reputation he has all the more reason to reveal the real thief.The first thing that you'll notice is the movie's brevity. With a running time of only 45 minutes this movie is among the shorter ones (even for the silent film genre). It is a silent film so there is no actual "spoken" dialogue. If you're not accustomed to this type of genre it may take some getting used to.The great thing with the film scores for silent movies is that they're continuous. Unlike in contemporary movies where the film score only kicks in every now and then to accentuate certain scenes or to blend in with the uneventful scenes. So yes, even though they're called silent films they're anything but silent. Quite to the contrary; they feature more music than regular movies. I myself have a rather impressive collection of projection reels of silent movies; the only problem being that I'd need a full-blown orchestra to accompany it. So unfortunately for me my movies are truly silent. How ironic.... I know.The second half of the movie is basically the projectionist's daydream in which he "solves the crime". The billiard scene was rather hilarious. I wonder how many times they had to film those scenes to get it just right. Either that or Buster Keaton was seriously skilled in the art of trickshotting.To conclude: The movie was actually quite enjoyable once the protagonists entered his daydream. But for me personally the beginning felt a little bit like a drag. If once considers that all the action happens in his dream it becomes clear why the first half of the movie should've been kept shorter. So yes, pacing-wise the movie feels a little bit slow in the beginning.All the classical Sherlock Holmes themes were explored with the exception of Bartitsu. Sherlock Jr. wasn't a skilled fighter but rather the kind of fellow who'd run away from a fight, even in his dreams.It's a decent movie but definitely not one of Buster Keaton's best. But that's just my personal opinion. Feel free to chime in if you think otherwise.Final verdict: recommended (if you like silent movies)

With a film like this made in 1924, you have to wonder why some of the creative effects Buster Keaton developed for this story have never been seen since. They may be out there, but I've never seen anything before like his stroll right into a movie screen to take part in the story that he's projecting for an audience in a theater. He then pratfalls his way through a number of scene changes, remaining in one spot while the action around him hurriedly continues apace. One of the best bits had him nosedive through an open window and into a woman's dress for a stunning visual effect. The question on the tip of your tongue will be 'How did he do that?', or alternatively, 'How can anyone do something like that'?' Another thing I found interesting as a cinema fan was the choice of movie posters one can see as advertising material in the lobby of the theater where Keaton's character is working. One of them was a very early Stan Laurel silent film, "Mud and Sand", which demonstrated that Keaton wasn't averse to showing another performer's name in print, even if he might have been a competitor, so to speak. There was another one for a 1923 short titled "The Fog", but it appears the movie the projectionist was showing wasn't real. It was called "Hearts and Pearls or The Lounge Lizard's Lost Love in Five-Parts". My search on IMDb didn't come up with anything on that one. I know a lot of folks shun silent films because they don't consider them very interesting, but you can do yourself a favor by checking out "Sherlock Jr." Yes, it's black and white, and it's silent, but director and star Buster Keaton is so inventive that you'll come away amazed at the effects he creates. One could almost call them special effects, but of course, in 1924 they were all real, just camera tricks and techniques to come up with a stunning visual. This is just that kind of a fun flick.

"Sherlock Jr." by Buster Keaton was a film revolutionary for its time and still holds up well today in many aspects. The significance of this film very clearly lies in its use of special effects and stunts, many of which are still impressive in this day, and make you wonder aloud, "How did they do that?" Methods not yet seen before or had not truly come into their own yet, one that stands out to me is the effect of Buster's "dream self" rising out of his body once he is asleep. The emphasis of the film is clearly on the action and the physical components, which is a win-win, considering how wonderfully the special effects were pulled off. Things like splicing and film editing were still being toyed with, but with this bold new addition to film, it was made apparent that these things could be pulled off to make a spectacular film.