The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes (1970) User Reviews (115)

A surprisingly melancholy celebration of Conan Doyle's most famous creation

[Rogue-4 · 8/10 · 19 February 1999]

Billy Wilder's excellent 1970 film handles the whole subject of Sherlock Holmes from a refreshingly different angle. As the title suggests, the film is rather more concerned with characterisation than plot, which although entertaining and original, is hardly an adequate stage to show off Holmes' exceptional talents.

Instead, Wilder and Diamond start with the premise that "Watson's" stories for Strand Magazine were a little more lurid than the "reality" and use it to develop a more subtle characterisation than the "thinking machine" of the literary Holmes. Admittedly, the film probably concentrates on Holmes' celebrated cocaine habit more than it should, but all references are lifted straight from the book and in any case, Stephens does not dwell on it.

Stephens himself is quite simply excellent, giving Holmes' a depth of character not seen again until Jeremy Brett on the small screen. Stephens' performance leaves us with a slightly melancholy Holmes', a man who perhaps regrets that, unlike Watson, he has dedicated his life to pure reason and while the screenplay hints at Holmes' sexuality, Stephens deflects it masterfully, remaining ambivalent and gentile where a less accomplished actor would have been simply camp, and so uses the suggestion to wrap another layer of ambiguity about the character.

All in all, Wilder and Stephens combine to make a refreshingly accessible Holmes and the entertainment comes from the interplay of characters rather than pace of plot.

Strange but enjoyable

[preppy-3 · 8/10 · 5 September 2003]

Sherlock Holmes (Robert Stephens) and Dr. Watson (Colin Blakely) get involved in a very weird case involving a mysterious French woman (Geneuieve Page), Sherlock's brother Mycroft (Christopher Lee), midgets, Scotland, the Queen and the Loch Ness Monster! Believe it or not they all come together. I originally saw this on TV back in the late 70s but it was so heavily edited (for instance, the entire first half hour was gone because it dealt with gay characters which was still a taboo on TV back then) that I couldn't follow it and gave up. Now it's back on uncut and I'm glad I'm finally able to see it.

A very strange movie but lots of fun. Some people think this is a spoof. It really isn't but there are some very funny moments--my favorite is at the beginning when Holmes blasts Watson for how he writes about his cases--"Watson, I've never said 'elementary my dear Watson' in my life!""Poetic license Holmes". There's also quite a few funny one liners mostly delivered with great relish by Stephens and it does deal with the sexual relations of Holmes and Watson (it was hinted that they were gay lovers). But it does involve a very serious case and the jokes stop towards the end.

Stephens is actually very good as Holmes--he won't make you forget Basil Rathbone but he's not bad. Colin Blakely isn't as big a buffoon as Nigel Bruce was but he tends to overact a little. Page is just terrible as the mystery woman--but then again, English is her second language. Lee, surprisingly, is kind of stiff as Mycroft. He's a very good actor--I'm surprised to see him so bad.

The movie is very lavish (probably because Billy Wilder was involved)...a lot of money and attention was given to sets and costumes, and they actually went on location to shoot the end in Scotland. The cinematography is just beautiful and the movie was never dull. It doesn't always mix the comedy with the drama successfully but it works more often than it misses. As most people know this was HEAVILY edited before it was released and the uncut version doesn't seem to exist anymore. That's too bad but what remains is not bad. Worth catching...a must see for Holmes fans.

Particular adaptation based on the classic characters about famed sleuth and his helper

[ma-cortes · 7/10 · 12 June 2012]

When a bored Holmes (Robert Stephens who also played Holmes on the stage and in TV series 'The Rivals of Sherlock Holmes') eagerly takes the case of Gabrielle Valladon (Genevieve Page) after an attempt on her life , the search for her missing husband leads to Sherlock and Watson (Colin Blakely) towards Loch Ness and the legendary monster. This affectionate story reveals the secret allegedly hidden by Holmes and Watson .

Atypical Holmes movie , resulting to be a extremely personal pastiche of the Arthur Conan Doyle stories and takes a melancholic point of sight at famous eye private . It is packed with intrigue , thrills , emotion , taste , wit , and of course ,intrigue . In the flick appears the usual of the Arthur Conan Doyle's novels : Mycroft (Sherlock's brother , well played by Christopher Lee) , Mistress Hudson (Irene Handl) , and as always Doctor Watson (Colin Blakely). Furthermore , a notorious secondary cast as Clive Revill , Stanley Holloway as an undertaker , Catherine Lacey in her last cinema film and the classic dancer Tamara Toumanova . The film has an enjoyable atmosphere , it's in wonderful color that originates a glamorous setting created by the magnificent cameraman Chistopher Challis , and filmed at Pinewood Studios , Buckinghamshire, and Inverness , Highland , Scotland . Production design by the expert Alexandre Trauner is of first rate , the movie is very atmospheric , 221 Baker Street home , the streets of London , castles are very well designed .

Robert Stephens's interpretation is magnificent, he's one of the best Sherlock Holmes in the cinema , likeness to Peter Cushing and Jeremy Brett in television. Robert Stephens as Holmes plays in a clever , broody and impetuous manner . Colin Blakely plays as Watson with humor, goofy and joy , he's the perfect counterpoint to Holmes . However , initially Peter O'Toole was going to play Sherlock Holmes with Peter Sellers playing Dr. Watson, but Billy Wilder decided to go with lesser known stars instead . Originally, the scenes featuring the Loch Ness Monster were intended to be filmed in the actual Loch , a life-size prop was built which had several Nessie-like humps used to disguise flotation devices , the humps were removed, however, at Billy Wilder's request. Unfortunately, during a test run in Loch Ness, the Monster-prop sank and was never recovered ; a second prop was built, but was only filmed inside a studio tank . At the request of director Billy Wilder, composer Miklós Rózsa adapted music from his own Violin Concerto , opus 24 , as the basis for the film score, supplementing this with further original music.

This special Billy Wilder movie takes melancholy look at Holmes . Apparently, he had been a fan of Sherlock Holmes for many years prior to making this picture. Wilder said of this flick in the book 'Conversations with Wilder' by 'Cameron Crowe' : " when I came back from Paris, it was an absolute disaster, the way it was cut. The whole prologue was cut, a half-sequence was cut , in fact it was intended as a 3 and half hour film . I had tears in my eyes as I looked at the thing. It was the most elegant picture I've ever shot ¨ . The motion picture was panned by the critics whose reputation should soar in future years , being recently a 12 minutes restored . Rating : Better than average , 7/10 . Well worth watching .

Thoroughly civilised, delightful entertainment

[R. J. · 30 March 2003]

Billy Wilder's take on the world's most famous detective is both painstakingly faithful and sardonically subversive to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's idiossyncratic creation. Presented as a case that loyal companion John Watson duly recorded but requested remain secret until long after his death, in which Holmes aids a Belgian woman find her missing husband, a mining engineer hired by an apparently non-existant English company, it makes clever use of the rulebook Conan Doyle set down while at the same time undermining it from within. The title and the plot may seem misleading at first - the first half hour especially seems at odds with what comes afterwards - but in fact if you're a Holmes fan you'll quickly realise that this is as close to romance as the detective would ever allow, and Wilder tells it through a masterful accumulation of small touches that only someone as meticulous as the man himself would notice. Script-wise, it's a cracking mystery in the best Doyle tradition, with all the time-honoured twists and turns present and correct. The acting is also up to Wilder's usual standards; Stephens and Blakely are an engaging duo as a bored Holmes and a bumbling Watson, and there's a hysterically funny supporting turn by the always underrated Revill as a Russian ballet impresario. Wilder's trademark pointed cynicism fits the English witticism particularly well, even if at times it all seems a bit too modern for the peaceful Victorian surroundings, but it is quite ironic to see him chiding Britain's stiff-upper-lip, old-fashioned morality when the film seems to be an "old timers' movie" entirely out of sync with its own time. Still, it's hard to find fault in such a thoroughly civilised and delightful entertainment.

"I don't dislike women, I merely distrust them. The twinkle in the eye and the arsenic in the soup..."

[ackstasis · 7/10 · 28 December 2007]

Sherlock Holmes is certainly one of literature's all-time most famous characters, the subject of countless novels and short stories by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle between 1887 and 1927. Since then, he has become possibly the most portrayed movie character in cinema history {according to the Guinness Book of Records, over 70 actors have played the coveted part in more than 200 films}. So rich was Conan Doyle's description of Holmes that many readers have come to think of him as a historical figure, and derive enjoyment from speculating on the finer detail's of the private detective's life. Likewise, many authors and filmmakers have decided to expand on the stories of Sherlock Holmes, creating new mysteries that perhaps Dr. John Watson forgot to publish. 'The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes (1970)' is such a tale, directed by master filmmaker Billy Wilder, who also produced and co-wrote {with long-time collaborator I.A.L. Diamond} the film.

'The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes' was originally written and filmed as a three-hour roadshow picture, an episodic compilation of Sherlock Holmes' most difficult mysteries. Unfortunately, the studio's unwillingness to take a risk with such a format meant that entire sequences, including a prologue with Watson's grandson in London, and a flashback to Holmes' university years, were inharmoniously cut from the film. Though I was initially unaware of this studio intervention, I met these findings with anger and frustration; while the surviving picture is merely a good film, Billy Wilder's original vision would certainly have been something special. I hear that at least one episode has been restored into later DVD editions of the film, but most of the missing footage remains, devastatingly, permanently absent. The story, as we now find it, is comprised of two unequal portions: the first concerns Holmes' interactions with a glamorous ballet dancer (Tamara Toumanova), casting doubt on the famous detective's sexuality, while the second mystery demonstrates the efforts of Holmes and Watson to locate the husband of an beautiful woman (Geneviève Page) suffering from amnesia.

When little-known British actor Robert Stephens first appeared on screen as Det. Sherlock Holmes, I wasn't certain that he was the suitable man for the job {Wilder had initially considered Peter O'Toole as Holmes, and Peter Sellers as Watson, before deciding to cast unknowns}. However, despite initially appearing too flamboyant to play Conan Doyle's brilliant investigator, I'm happy to say that, by the end of the film, he had well-and-truly grown on me. While Stephens didn't quite match the stories' depiction of Holmes, this is only because Dr. Watson's dramatisations often tend to embellish the truth and misrepresent facts about the detective's personality and demeanour – a point that is alluded to early in the film itself. Colin Blakely, though given very little to do, is a lot of fun as Holmes' companion and biographer, playing the role a lot less serious than I've seen it done in the past. Christopher Lee also appears as Holmes' intellectually-equal brother Mycroft, whose associations with the British government may prove crucial to the case being investigated.

"You think this is funny, but we're both in the same boat!"

[classicsoncall · 7/10 · 20 September 2016]

For a slightly different take on Sherlock Holmes, this one has it's entertaining moments, but I think the 'hook' that was supposed to define the detective's sexuality didn't work. Hints of his being gay were done away with rather handily after Holmes dismisses Madame Petrova's attempt to get him to sire a brilliant and beautiful child. Comparing himself to gay composer Tchaikovsky in the sexual preference department worked to rid himself of a sticky dilemma; at least he wasn't too old like Tolstoy or too German like Nietzsche.

This is a rather weird story, what with midgets, a drowning woman, an assortment of mysterious monks, a submarine and the Loch Ness monster. Oddly, the elements all tie together in a rather curious fashion, so if one is patient, Holmes and Watson eventually end up solving their mystery, with a big hand from brother Mycroft (Christopher Lee). Actually, if you think about it, it was Mycroft pulling the strings for a good part of this story.

Surprisingly, Robert Stephens makes for an acceptable Holmes, looking the part better than his assistant Watson, portrayed by Colin Blakely. The script doesn't treat Watson as a buffoon in the manner of Nigel Bruce's characterization when working with Basil Rathbone, but he does have his manic moments. Die-hard Sherlock Holmes fans may take offense at this take on the character, but if you dig an off beat story, you've come to the right place.

Billy Wilder and Scooby-Doo walk into an English bar

[pyrocitor · 6/10 · 22 June 2016]

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's iconic detective has always been astute at cheating death (you'd practically imagine him, upon leaving the room, to call out "Be Reichenbach!"). But how to cheat a movie death, outliving the chipper Basil Rathbone adventure serials of the 40s and more sombre Christopher Lee Hammer Horror films of the 50s/60s? Why, by the 1970s version of one of Hollywood's favourite contemporary go- to tropes: the gritty reboot. Behold: The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes.

Penned by Billy Wilder and I.A.L. Diamond, arguably Classical Hollywood's most famous comic duo after the Screwball era, Private Life is an enjoyable romp, but a touch too confused in terms of what it wants to be to really hit home. Take the 'gritty reboot' qualifier, for one. Wilder seems to be simultaneously striving for an old- fashioned feel (the scratchier, grainier film stock, stagier performances, and more bombastic score), while also embracing the freedom the 1970s have lent him (Holmes can do cocaine here! Nudity! References to homosexuality, and even Holmes' sexuality!), which he does with almost whimsical abandon. This disjuncture can't help but feel a touch gratuitous, like a teen giddily but clumsily experimenting out of parental supervision. Moreover, its ensuing projected uncertainty worms its way into the rest of the film.

As the first third, a cute but overstated prologue set strictly to reflexively tweak and challenge the public's - and audiences' - perceptions of Holmes' legendary mystique winds up, we settle into a British Isles-spanning mystery adventure, which chugs along satisfactorily. The seemingly disparate elements of the plot's mystery inevitably coalesce with a suitable 'big reveal' and intriguing conspiratorial undercurrent. Still, affairs culminate somewhat awkwardly, especially anchored on an unsatisfyingly understated climax - which, spoilers aside, has no business falling so flat, considering it involves international intrigue, explosives, and the Loch Ness Monster(!!). It's also an oddly flat and disinterestedly serious film, considering Wilder and Diamond's satirical pedigree, and the fact that Robert Stephens appears to be bursting to uncork the campy Holmes he seems to be barely keeping in check. A sillier, zanier Billy Wilder touch could have helped liven up the proceedings and sweep plot quibbles under the rug, but profiling the most fiercely observant character in literary history makes such audience scrutiny and nitpicking impossible to avoid.

Ultimately, though, the majority of the film's plot gaps lead to a mishandled characterization of Holmes himself. Taking its cue from the film's reflexive deflating of the legend, Holmes is played as more emotional and far less intuitive and observant than customary, and even prone to the kind of asinine redundant questions he would normally rebuke others for. This uneven portrayal leads to several inconclusive plot points and character beats at the film's conclusion, leaving a conclusion intended as poignantly bittersweet playing as simply vexing instead. Still, the Scotland sequences are fun, if a bit twee - every single castle Holmes and Watson travel to is accompanied by a blare of bagpipes, and the barely feigned accents are something else - while the 'Loch Ness by night' interludes are a welcome dose of The Hound of the Baskervilles- calibre crackling tension. Even if the 'Sherlock Holmes vs. Loch Ness Monster' plot sounds like a Scooby-Doo episode, Wilder and Diamond handle it adeptly enough to keep the fun and stave off the folly.

Robert Stephens' work as Holmes is capably amusing and eloquent, but more fey and extravagantly emotional than one would hope for. Colin Blakely is similarly hammy but more gruffly entertaining Dr. Watson, taking notes from Nigel Bruce, but thankfully nowhere near as bumbling and incompetent (the man is a military doctor, after all, wot wot). Geneviève Page is a bit too flat to much endear herself as a hysterically determined woman with secrets of her own, but the always superb (and former Holmes himself!) Christopher Lee is excellently clipped and debonair as Holmes' enigmatic brother Mycroft.

The regular players of the Holmes pantheon are iconically watchable enough that the characters themselves outperform the actors or story that ensconce them: pleasant but vaguely irksome, and overall mediocre. As such, The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes is neither the witty, revisionist take you'd expect from Billy Wilder, or much of a gritty postmodern exposé. What it is is a perfectly passable trifle. And are trifles overall worth it? Elementary.

-6.5/10

Grand even as an edit

[kurt_messick · 9/10 · 21 December 2005]

This film is sometimes described as a comedy, and while it has humorous bits (a more sardonic and biting form of humour most of the time), it has never really felt at home being classified as a comedy, in my estimation. I do like the rapid-fire wit that Holmes seems to have here (a bit more in abundance than in the canonical Conan Doyle stories), but the Holmes presented here is a bit more dark and brooding, more akin to the extra-canonical 'Seven Percent Solution' Holmes in many ways.

Wilder was an extraordinary director and genius who sometimes gets carried away with his subject (in this regard, he is sometimes compared with Stanley Kubrick). His films are often of epic-proportions, even though they are not essentially 'epic' subjects. This film is reputed to have been nearly twice as long as the final cut version, but this may be apocryphal in that much of the raw footage never made it to final print and production. The restoration available on the disc currently available is, in fact, rather minimal - a few scenes and a few extras, but not much more than the original release of the film. This is disappointing to many fans, but in fact is more than most of us have had for a long time, as the somewhat choppy film was often mercilessly cut for television broadcast.

Holmes in this case is played by Robert Stephens, an unlikely Holmes in comparison to standards such as Rathbone, Brett, or Gillette, but still an interesting choice - quintessentially British, reserved but daring, brilliant yet flawed and faltering. Colin Blakely presents a stronger Watson than often portrayed before (this film, being made in 1970, presented this as a newer idea for Watson, one that has been picked up by many subsequent productions). Wilder has the actors play at various issues of Victorian sensibility and morality, including the implication (dismissed in the end) that Holmes might have a sexual identity issue. Christopher Lee, who himself plays Holmes in other productions, plays Holmes' smarter brother Mycroft here, to good effect.

The story line does have some inspiration from the canonical stories (the Bruce-Partington Plans, for one), and from Gillette's play (the strange case of Miss Faulkner, introducing an ending that allowed for a love interest for Holmes in the end), but for the most part takes the characters from Conan Doyle and runs far afield. Still, this is must-see film for any fan of Holmes, and any fan of Wilder, who saw this as one of his last great productions.

What Holmes Did Not Want Known

[bkoganbing · 6/10 · 16 January 2007]

In The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, Billy Wilder gets access to a case that Doctor Watson did not want revealed. As you watch the film you can see why.

Should I be talking about Holmes as a real person? Well in a sense he's more real to his devoted fans than a lot of the real personalities of the Victorian/Edwardian era. Arthur Conan Doyle created a character that has a cult following to this day that is unmatched. In modern terms, the Star Trek phenomenon is the closest thing we have to it.

Of course Arthur Conan Doyle created a man whose private life was only hinted at and he concentrated on the cases with which Holmes always solved with matchless deductive reasoning and an eye for detail that Adrian Monk would envy.

Billy Wilder had a Holmes film in mind over a dozen years before this one came to fruition. At one time he wanted to cast Peter O'Toole as Holmes and Peter Sellers as the faithful chronicler Watson. That one went by the boards for a number of reasons.

Wilder for the only time in his directing career settled for less than box office draws in casting the film, mainly because people he wanted weren't available. Robert Stephens and Colin Blakely were a fine duo of Holmes and Watson, but no one ran to see the film because they were starring in it.

Holmes gets involved in this particular case when a woman is fished out of the Thames and deposited on his doorstep because she had his address upon her. She's looking for her missing husband and the trail takes Holmes and Watson to Inverness in Scotland.

There's quite a bit involved and it will become clear why Sherlock Holmes did not want this case publicized by friend, colleague, and house mate Doctor Watson.

The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes is not a bad film, it did fail to find an audience back then. Stephens is certainly no Basil Rathbone and Colin Blakely doesn't play Doctor Watson like the befuddled dunce Nigel Bruce was. His Watson is rather bumptious as most of Blakely's roles are. Watson in fact was neither and his medical training helped Holmes any number of times in literature.

Maybe Wilder should have held out for Peter O'Toole.

Subtle and atmospheric

[Moonwrack · 10/10 · 31 May 2005]

As a Conan Doyle purist, I had not intended to watch this film when it first appeared on UK TV some years ago. Curiosity overcame me and I switched on at the sequence with Stephens and Genevieve Page on their bicycle. I was immediately fascinated, particularly by the music, which appears to have been specially written for this scene. Elsewhere, in the film, the music is taken from Rozsa's 1956 violin concerto which, unusually, was not written as film music but which partly inspired Wilder to produce the film.

The acting is excellent, particularly by Stephens, slightly less so by Blakely although Watson is probably the most difficult Doylesian character to play. Clive Revill has also been praised for his part. Christopher Lee gives an early display of his impeccable technique. Genevieve Page is perfect in her role and the subtle nuances of her acting are a joy to behold. She also has a beautiful voice, with a wide vocal range.

There is also some brilliant casting. Stanley Holloway as a gravedigger is a witty reference to his playing of that part in Olivier's Hamlet, although his Scottish accent is not the most convincing. Irene Handl made an excellent Mrs Hudson. Frank Thornton was also a fine choice for the tiny part of receptionist at the Diogenes Club. Britons of a certain generation, had they been able to see the missing episodes, would have recognised Noel Johnson as the sea captain in the Naked Honeymooners episode. Johnson had a distinctive and powerful voice and became famous in 1948 as the BBC fictional radio detective Dick Barton.

It is, of course, sad that significant parts of the film have been lost. Nevertheless, In its shortened form, it works well for cinema presentation. Now that domestic DVD players are common, a full-length version would be perfectly acceptable, since viewers would have control over which parts, if any, they might want to skip through. Meanwhile, the German Spy episode in particular stands beautifully on its own. Wilder creates a wonderful feeling of the atmosphere of 1888. The outdoor scenes in Scotland also provide a nostalgic feeling for the year in which filming took place there; presumably 1969 for the 1970 release.

Interesting, but flawed....

[rsgre · 7/10 · 21 May 2005]

Billy Wilder's take on the Sherlock Holmes legend seems to be more for his fans, rather than Holmes's fans. Right away, it becomes apparent that the private joke in this movie is going to be that Holmes was gay. Robert Stephens portrays the effeminate fop to perfection (and increasing annoyance). The ballet sequence in particular, carries this implication to embarrassing and unnecessary extremes.

Still...once "the game is afoot" the film does become mildly interesting, if a bit silly at times. Nice scenery and music, and good performances throughout. The last scenes redeem the rest of the film in their haunting quality, and leave the audience with just the right bittersweet feelings of nostalgia for the past, and the knowledge of the violence to come in the next century.

The DVD version shows that the final cut was about right. The extra scenes seemed mostly silly and unnecessary. ""Much ado about nothing" as it were...

I forgot to mention earlier: I purchased an Angel brand record some years ago: Rosza conducts Rozsa. It included a suite of his score for this film. The extensive notes included with the record claimed that Billy Wilder's inspiration for this film all came from hearing Miklos Rozsa's violin concerto, and wanting to build a scenario around it! (Sort of a "chicken before the egg" kind of thing!)

August 2007. Another look at this film, is more forgiving this time. The eccentricities of Sherlock Homes, as portrayed by Robert Stephens, seem less extreme now. Maybe it's a film made by older people, for older people, that's why it has always had limited appeal. Ending is still very touching, and Genevieve Page is beautiful in her part.

August 2017, Update. Viewing it again 10 years later reveals a well crafted, well acted film that simply goes over the head of younger audiences. It works for older audiences only which is why it bombed.Not what movie going audiences wanted in 1970. Too sophisticated, subtle, and nuanced for the inexperienced. Takes time and age to appreciate it. How they ever thought it could be a 3 hour epic is beyond me. Lovely film, doomed from the start, but excellent in retrospect. Similar to what happened to Hitchcock's "Topaz" a year earlier. Well crafted film that went nowhere at the box office either. The "old guard directors" were trying hard but failing and slowly fading away. They left some nice work behind for us to see and appreciate today ! Thanks Guys !

A marvelous, delightful, and must see look at the best know and most famous consulting detective.

[ronaldlaporte · 10/10 · 19 May 2002]

Of the films on Sherlock Holmes which have been made, this Billy Wilder version is a masterful blend of drama and comedy. It also has excellent score to match this marvelous film and its main character.

Robert Stephens has captured the mind set of Holmes with a bit of humor added. However, his performance seems slightly detracted with a touch of femininity, but works well within the framework of the film. Holmes, one of the best minds in England, also has a dark side.

Colin Blakely is a fun and delightful bumbling Dr. John Watson, as one might expect in a comic and light hearted film of this nature.

Who else to play Mycroft, but the very talented and marvelous actor, Christopher Lee, who is always a treat to watch.

Genevieve Page is an absolute beautiful and charming woman, making the perfect mystery woman, until her true identity is revealed. We discover a bit of Sherlock's past plans to have wed. But Ms. Page has become the only other woman that has managed to steel the affections of Sherlock's heart.

Over all, an excellent film and a must for any one who enjoys Sherlock Holmes. There is some silly and fun parts to this film, but it only adds to the color and favor of the film and characters. Keep in mind that this is not the PBS series in which you have an entirely different style of Holmes and Watson.

A tid bit for the true movie and Holmes' buffs who enjoy this film. The movie runs over 2 hours, but rumors exists that @50 minutes of the film were cut out before it was released. How marvelous it would be if the 50 minutes were found and added back to the film so we could see the full vision of what Billy Wilder wanted us to see. This leaves us with a real mystery as to what was left on a cutting room floor to be swept out. Or was it swept out? Perhaps as the film begins, the words of Dr. Watson are correct, "Somewhere in the vaults in a bank in London is a tin dispatch box with my name on it...". ???

Arthur Conan Doyle knew what he was doing...

[grizzledgeezer · 6/10 · 19 June 2016]

...so when you ignore Doyle and create your own version of Sherlock Holmes, you invariably weaken the character (as the Robert Downey films show). Billy Wilder anticipated this error by four decades, and the result is a most-unsatisfying film.

Holmes is fundamentally asexual, so any attempt to present him as having any interest in women (or men) is -- well, stupid. His interest in Irene Adler stems from her being smarter than he. As this is presumably a once-in-a-lifetime experience, its duplication here is pointless and ineffective. (Note that the femme fatale's real name -- von Hoffmansthall -- is that of the librettist of several Strauss operas.)

In fact, the whole thing seems pointless and ineffective. The great mystery is not so much untangled as disembroiled, and worse -- there is no human drama at the center of it. Most Sherlock Holmes stories are mysteries second and dramas first, a point which those attempting to duplicate Doyle usually forget.

Perhaps the three-hour version had some wonderfully entertaining scenes -- but they wouldn't change the fact that what we have here IS NOT SHERLOCK HOLMES, in either style or substance.

The only remarkable thing about "The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes" is Miklos Rozsa's score. I find him simply //the worst// film-music composer, ever. His music resembles Max RegeR's (you can't tell whether it's being played forward or backward), and he composed what is likely to forever remain the single worst cue in the history of film music (the star of Bethlehem hovering over the manger).

So I was flabbergasted by this scores. Whether it's the best-possible score for this film is debatable, but it's thoughtful, well-considered, and you can actually //follow// it. (Well, anyone's entitled to an "off" day, I suppose.)

A dry, plodding, flatly conceived movie that had the elements of much more.

[secondtake · 5/10 · 23 December 2012]

The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes (1970)

Billy Wilder is one of Hollywood's greats, and I love his best movies with a kind of awe. They are technically great but also filled with human feeling. And they are well written.

But I've always had trouble with his later comedies in the 1960s, which aren't all that funny to me, and which are filmed with odd, professional indifference. So if you like "Kiss Me, Stupid" you might like this. For me this one falls even a little flatter than the others.

I do love Sherlock, the character and the stories. And it's fun to see another interpretation of him--this time with Sherlock being quietly gay, or possibly gay. The actor, Robert Stephens, is not really quite right, though of course this is a personal preference. We all have our idea of what Sherlock should be like, and you do have to account for the idea that the director is trying to make him homosexual in the late 1800s in England, altogether a fantasy of invention, cinematically.

But let's say this is really fabulous for you, this reinvention of the detective. Now what? A plot would be nice, and there is something of a series of events that go in order, but it's nothing like essential or dramatic. Wilder's great collaborating writer, I.A.L. Diamond, seems to have a more nuanced version of events than suits me. I put it that way because the movie gets pretty good reviews. For me it's nearly a bomb. It doesn't do Holmes justice, and it isn't an interesting mystery story on its own--slow, unconvincing turns of events, etc.

It is on some level a continual farce, and I like its humor, which is sometimes self-deprecating. But this isn't a substitute for other storytelling elements.

What's even more surprising and disappointing is how it's all filmed. Scenes are brightly and even lighted, actors are placed at convenient places rather than surprising and terrific ones, and it is pieced together functionally.

I gave it a shot and you might be able to tell from this whether you should, too. If you want a short answer, there are better Holmes movies. If you love Wilder, you owe this at least a half an hour.

DVD treasures

[prospero-1 · 20 July 2003]

This has always been one of my favorite movies. A good take on Holmes, a witty story, a bittersweet ending and music by Miklos Rozsa that sets the tone perfectly. When I saw it had become available on DVD I rushed out and bought it, without even checking to see the extras on the disc. The quality of the print is all right, but there are times it should have been better. The extras just kept getting better. Christopher Lee remembers his times playing Holmes in other films as well as Mycroft in this movie. Then there's the film editor who mentions parts of the movie I never heard of. Then the disc shows the deleted scenes in various forms and it's amazing what was cut. There is only one little bit I feel would have explained things in the movie better, but all the scenes are interesting. A must for people who love this film and want a wealth of information.

An older Wilder takes on Sherlock Holmes

[blanche-2 · 7/10 · 14 June 2009]

Billy Wilder and old partner I.A.L. Diamond take on "The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes" in this 1970 film, a late edition to the Billy Wilder oeuvre. Holmes (Robert Stephens) and Watson (Colin Blakely) take on the case of finding a Belgium woman's husband, against brother Mycroft's (Christopher Lee) wishes. This to Holmes means there is government involvement, and he takes it on with zest. It leads him to the wilds of Scotland.

Apparently this was a longer film. As it stands now, it has some great stuff in it, and also some parts that drag. The acting is superb all around. Stephens, a wonderful actor, is superb as a darker Holmes, Blakely makes a lively Watson, and Geneviève Page is excellent as Gabrielle Valladon. Wilder gives us a deeper look at Holmes and his sexual identity. Lee as a bald Mycroft does a great job - it's inspired casting.

Though this film has Wilder touches, it's not immediately recognizable as a Wilder film. The film business had changed, and he probably had a hard time fitting into it as he aged. He only made three more films after this; the rest of his credits are for remakes.

Very interesting, a mix of comedy and drama, not vintage Wilder in this writer's opinion, but his films are always worth seeing.

Unconventional detective movie.

[gridoon · 6/10 · 31 March 2001]

A revisionist take on the Sherlock Holmes myth; the title character is humanized and turned into a complicated, flawed individual. Unfortunately, the main story is not terribly compelling and the movie never hits the mark as a mystery, but you can still admire the depth of the characters and the fine, elegant recreation of the era in which the action takes place. (***)

Wilder's Sherlock Holmes

[jc1305us · 7/10 · 10 February 2013]

This was not a film that would have figured for the irrepressible Billy Wilder, after all there is not a undercurrent of severe cynicism, or the usual brilliant wordplay Wilder is known for. That is not to say that 'The private life of Sherlock Holmes' doesn't measure up, quite the contrary! This really is a fun, well told story from the lost files of Dr John Watson, who, while narrating the movie from beyond the grave, (ahh a Billy Wilder touch after all!) tries to give the audience and himself some clue as to the real Sherlock Holmes.

Beginning with Holmes and Watson returning from a recently completed case, we see Holmes, bored, taking up a syringe which to inject cocaine. It seems that Holmes, when bored between cases, uses to try and stimulate his incredible mind. Disapproving, Watson is hopeful a new case will come along to break Holmes from his cocaine fit. While waiting, Holmes and Watson are invited to attend the Russian ballet performance of Swan Lake where Holmes is offered a very interesting arrangement!

Not long later, the meat of the movie starts with a mysterious guest arrives at 221B Baker st, and we are off on a grand adventure. Played by Robert Stephens, and Colin Blakely, Holmes and Watson do make a fun pairing. Trying to watch any sherlock Holmes adaptation without Jeremy Brett, is always going to look odd, but these two are very good. Stephens plays up Holmes' distrust of women, while Blakely is a mite too overdone for my taste, but as a whole, the cast is uniformly excellent. Lushly photographed on location in London and Scotland, this film is a treat for the eyes. With an absolutely fantastic score, by Miklos Rozsa, the finale is especially touching. An even nicer surprise is Christopher Lee as Mycroft Holmes, in a wonderful performance.

In researching this movie, I found out that Billy Wilder had originally scripted this movie as a series of different cases in the same movie, but the footage that was shot was lost. What a shame, it would have made an already excellent film so much better. Highly Recommended!

My brief review of the film

[sol- · 8/10 · 26 September 2005]

One of fiction literature's most fascinating pairs of characters, Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson are depicted well here in this gem from Billy Wilder, which has a biting, clever and witty script, as well as superb production values. It was intended to be a plus three hours production however, and this intention can be seen in the sort of poor structure of the film. There are only two different segments that can be easily separated, and the two do not mesh all that well together, creating a film with one quarter laugh-out-loud comedy and three quarters gripping, but not all that funny, mystery. Still, it is an enjoyable ride as always from Wilder, and when it is amusing, it is highly entertaining. The music choices are great, the acting is good and other than the final 25 minutes or so, which are rather a drag, it all come across well even with a somewhat disjointed structure.

Entertaining

[grantss · 7/10 · 5 July 2021]

Famed detective Sherlock Holmes is hired by a woman whose husband has disappeared. Holmes's investigations lead him to some Foreign Office dealings by his brother Mycroft and to Inverness in Scotland. Moreover, they lead him to the Loch Ness Monster.

Billy Wilder and his long-time writing partner I. A. L. Diamond take a stab at creating a Sherlock Holmes mystery and the result is not bad. The plot is reasonably interesting and intriguing (as you would hope) plus adds the Wilder-Diamond light-hearted touch.

The mix of intrigue and humour does sort of make this neither fish more fowl though. Not serious enough to be tense and riveting, not funny enough to be a comedy. Anyone wanting a dark, tension-filled Sherlock Holmes is out of luck.

The performances fit this bill too. The actors playing Holmes and Watson, Robert Stephens and Colin Blakely respectively, are hardly A-list drama performers and lack the presence to make this a decent thriller.

Overall, it's entertaining enough to be watchable.

superb lost neglected masterpiece

[Tony Rome · 10/10 · 8 November 2000]

This film is Billy Wilder's lost masterpiece. The film is presented in a two hour and five minute version. If was originally intended to run over three hours, giving the viewer a larger look into the character of Sherlock Holmes. Even suffering a massive cut, Billy Wilders artistry shines in this film. Stephens is superb as Holmes, He portrays a man of brilliance, and wit who is deeply troubled. Watson is played quite well by Colin Blakely. I would one day like to see this film in its original 3 hr version. Maybe some studio has the lost footage. If this is so, the film could be reconstructed for an even better viewing experience.

Oddly slow

[movieswithgreg · 6/10 · 14 March 2021]

I love the Sherlock franchise from the 1940s to the 80s tv series to the Robert Downey ones to the Cumberbatch BBC tv series (love that one), but this 70s take is not one of my faves. It's oddly slow. I say "oddly" because there's lots of movement and antics and dialogue, but the scenes are overlong (good lord, will the russian scenes ever end?), and the plot is slow. Clearly, the creatives here wanted that style of cluttered visuals and leisurely plotting, but leisurely plotting isn't part of the Sherlock canon, is it?

And then there's Watson's character. Again, it's clearly a creative decision to make him so prone to hysterics and slapstick, but this movie overdoes it, and overdoes it a bit too overtly.

As for Sherlock's character, he falls within the general parameters of what we envision. Props, costuming, and art direction are wonderfully detailed, and fulfiilling in their Victorian splendor.

I saved the best for last: this version FINALLY puts the LGBT aspects forward. It's a running joke that Holmes and Watson have some kind of relationship that's more romantically fulfilling than is normally depicted, but it's more like a coquettish monty python gag, than anything remotely approaching lurid. It's almost "cute" to see how the filmmakers try to tease the joke into the dialogue, as if they're nuns trying to be naughty.

a must see for everyone interested in true cinema

[grumpy-3 · 10/10 · 4 December 2000]

This was Wilder's last great work, his tribute and homage to Ernst Lubitch his mentor. A film of rare majestic, beauty and though not obvious,true romance. Definitely the best Holmes film ever. From the sparkling and witty script to the faultless performances from all concerned, the great scope photography, and Miklos Rozsa elegant score, the film is the culmination of one of cinema's great masters. As usual the critics and public did not take to it at it's time of release and UA cut a whole section from it, but yet again time has made people wonder what this film is.

Somewhat enjoyable but truncated

[funkyfry · 6/10 · 28 December 2015]

I had never heard of this movie until a few weeks ago when I read about it in a book about the director, Billy Wilder. Wilder is one of the few directors I can think of who started out as a brilliant writer but nonetheless, for the most part, manages to make films where the images speak louder than the dialog. However, he does seem to be quite enamored of the back-and-forth between Sherlock Holmes (Robert Stephens) and Dr. Watson (Colin Blakely). Which is not too bad, because it's the main entertainment value here, in a film largely bereft of real "mystery" or discovery.

Apparently the film was intended to be a much longer examination of various cases that were too embarrassing or personal to be told during Holmes' lifetime. That central conceit does go a long ways, as we see Holmes pretending to be a homosexual (and then we are asked: was it pretending?), being fooled by a lovely German spy (Genevieve Page), etc. Christopher Lee appears in a couple scenes as Holmes' brother Microft, in a silly plot involving a fake Loch Ness Monster. Would the extra scenes have added more mystery? We can only hope.

The film is enjoyable but very flimsy and disjointed in its present form. Blakely and Stephens are fine, but not particularly interesting, and perhaps more inspired casting would have made the film more intriguing.

Very Disappointed

[james-still · 3/10 · 2 March 2006]

I was excited to see Wilder's take on good old Holmes but after having just watched this film I'm very disappointed. If you're a huge fan like me and you've read the original stories as they were printed in the Strand Magazine then I'd stay away from this one. Gone is the sober, thoughtful Watson only to be replaced by a bumbling fool who never stops talking. Gone is the brilliant Holmes who misses nothing to be replaced by a literally clueless and pedestrian hack who misses pretty much all of the basic plot points. He's just as surprised by the mystery and its resolution as we are. Ice skates? Come on! Holmes would have known it was a wheelchair right away and he probably would have known the approximate weight of the woman in it just by looking at the tracks. I love how this Holmes yells at women and tells them to shut up. And the Holmes I know would not have missed the way in which the enemy agent signaled to the monks on the bridge. And what's with Lee's Mycroft? The subtlety isn't there and the character is all wrong. Save the Q schtick for James Bond. One last complaint: your typical American grandmother has more royalty about her than the petulant squirt in this movie. She looks like someone just off the back lot from a Western that they enlisted last-minute to play the Queen.