'Mr. Holmes, we are not amused.'


I just got finished watching The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, and while it's entertaining enough, I don't think it lives up to the promise set by the opening. I've read several of the Conan Doyle short stories, and Wilder's movie, after the first act, doesn't really set itself sufficiently apart from a run-of-the-mill Holmes story. Sure, it has a wider scope than most of them, but other than that, it's easy to imagine Doyle writing this one himself. It really is too bad, because I love the premise of the movie and I think the opening sequence with the iconic pieces of Holmes' stories being examined 50 years after Watson's death. Still, it's probably better than its reputation suggests - don't compare it to Some Like It Hot or Double Indemnity though.

What's the Spanish for drunken bum?

reply

Point well taken fringomania. As I said on another topic, back in 1970 the "Is Holmes gay?" angle and the Loch Ness angle(with the legend in its' "heyday" generated a bit more humor and suspense. But over time, recent viewings do not contain the same energy. The story does has it's moments and overall, does match how the film was marketed back then as the "case Holmes couldn't solve." But over time, especially given the checkered history behind this film, it is well down the list of "being true to the character" Holmes movies.

reply

Look at the way it was planned: First part--introduction with location scenes of 1969 London. Second and third parts: two comic, but affectionate spoofs of Holmes stories. Fourth part: a longer, more straight-forward episode that links Holmes with the British Intelligence work of the late-19th century, brings in Queen Victoria, and draws connections to the coming Great War of 1914-18. Fifth part: a final comic spoof to wind down. What was left in the picture was maybe one minute of the first part, one of the comic episodes and the long fourth part.

reply