MovieChat Forums > The Adventure of Sherlock Holmes' Smarter Brother (1975) Discussion > Disappointing

Disappointing

posted 15 years ago by jrs-8
28 replies | jump to latest

I am a huge Gene Wilder fan but having seen the film when it was first released back at Christmas of 1975 and again reecently I simply didn't think the film was that good. I thought Wilder had some interesting ideas in his script but that his direction lacked focus (come to think of it I don't think any of Wilder's directorial efforts are very good). I think his big mistake was trying to borrow from Mel Brooks by inserting musical numbers unexpectedly and other little things such as including modern day things in a period movie. Maybe Wilder was trying too hard here but I will say it is probably the best of the films he directed. I just think he needed to concentrate more on his story, make it less complicated and perhaps even go further down the avenue with the idea of jealousy with his brother Sherlock. THAT could have been something. It's okay but I expected more - then and now.

[–] brandomarlon2003 15 years ago

"The Seven Per-Cent Solution" with Robert Duvall and Laurence Olivier is a much better Holmes spoof than this. Wilder's movie is not terrible but far from being a classic.

[–] jrs-8 15 years ago

I totally agree. The Seven Per-Cent Solution is terrific and, no, this isn't a terrible film but well below expectations - especially if you saw it when it was first released.

[–] ksf-2 15 years ago

... ya gotta watch it just to see a thin Dom DeLuise. fun bunch... and they had Just done Blazing Saddles the year before. I think when Gene W got off the bus, he left behind the shopping bag with the PLOT in it... but its fun to watch them all doodle around for an hour..

[–] jrs-8 15 years ago

No what Wilder left behind (besides plot) was Mel Brooks. Wilder simply wasn't a good director and this film is his best. Each film he directed after this one was worse then the one before, culminating in the awful HAUNTED HONEYMOON. Yeah the film is amusing for a time but then the ideas run out.

[–] kingarthurup 13 years ago

The seven percent solution was not a spoof.

[–] xerses13 13 years ago

kingarthurup; Also a superior movie in comparison!

[–] grimacinglummox 15 years ago

I disagree. Although, the movie isn't as funny as a Mel Brooks affair (at that time) I found it to be pretty damned funny. Especially after Dom De Luis enters the film. Get a grip. Nothing will ever please us as much as Young Frankenstein ever did.

[–] sludgehound 14 years ago

Might watch it again after last trying many yarns ago. Was disappointed then so curious to see if me or he as changed. Don't feel my sense of humor has changed all that much so probably just a weak film as many have mentioned.
What the heck, still have the wonderful BS and Young Dr Frankie.
And Kahn sure was a doll, real gamer.

[–] larsvedoy 14 years ago

scandinavian misantropy lifestyle: yOURE ALL DEAD wrong.This is the funniest of
the gene wilder films of the 70`s.Even if it isnt as good as a film as Frankenstein jr & Blazing saddles,its insanely funny.In fact ill tie it with
spinal tap and MP and the holy grail for funniest film ever.ive seen it a couple
of hundred times,so it sure wears and tears well,If it is any consolation i didnt
see its greatness until the 10-15 viewing.A classic!! P.s. Love the fantastic songs too.

[–] gayspiritwarrior 12 years ago

larsvedoy, the other people aren't wrong; they just disagree. If a movie works for you, it's good. If it doesn't work for you, it's bad. This movie is good for you and it's not good for others. That's all.

"The value of an idea has nothing to do with the honesty of the man expressing it."--Oscar Wilde

[–] bluestocking-7 14 years ago

I just saw it from one of numerous Encore channels on cable - Encore Mystery.

I didn't like half of the big gags and I couldn't finish the movie in one sitting. It just didn't have the main ingredient of the best of Mel Brooks and Gene Wilder - inspired insanity.

I did like it when Sigerson calls his more famous brother as "Sheer Luck." And though very simple, this bit capitalizing on Sigerson's tea drinking, made me laugh.

Sigerson: Do you call this tea?
Sacker: No, I call it hot water. I was just rinsing out the cup when you grabbed it.

Billy Wilder Page, Play the Movie Smiley Game
www.screenwritingdialogue.com

[–] xerses13 13 years ago

bluestocking-7; I saw this in its original release in 1975. Thank God I did not bring a date. I was expecting it to be at least as good as START THE REVOLUTION WITHOUT ME (1970), BLAZING SADDLES (1974) or YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN (1974). WAS I WRONG!!! A recent viewing (today) has just confirmed my original opinion.

This has to be one of the most UNFUNNY movies made during that period if not in ALL time! Its failings are too numerous to list and I started looking at my watch five (5) minutes after the opening credits, not a good sign.

Interesting by coincidence neither MEL BROOKS or GENE WILDER's films hold up very well after they split up. BROOKS devolved into 'kiss my ass because me I'm Jewish' and WILDER's are just plain uninspired. Remember the FRISCO KID (1979)?! Understand HARRISON FORD is still trying to destroy all prints. Though he made some acceptable films with RICHARD PRYOR that are worth watching, once a decade!

[–] jrs-8 13 years ago

I just watched this again last night on Turner Classic feeling, as the OP, I should try once more. My original review still stands. The film is ok. It has moments that are amusing (The box of cholocates, the tuxedo tear at the formal dinner) but it tries too hard. The musical numbers are out of place and ridiculous, Wilder seems to think repeating a bit over and over will still make it funny instead of lame. But the one thing that really struck me last night watching it was that I didn't care about the mystery Wilder presented. I don't care how silly a movie gets you still have to have a story and characters to care about. The story was paper thin and forgetable. I would say the first 30 minutes contain most of the best moments but those moments are small and not laugh out loud hilarity. I gave Wilder a lot of credit for trying to wear a lot of hats for this film but I think he should have either allowed another writer to come in and re-write the script or he should have handed the directing reigns over to someone else. Wilder never did seem to learn from his mistakes either. The same problems here plauged the other movies he directed.

[–] xerses13 13 years ago

jrs-8; You are more generous then I am. Also caught the TCM viewing because it would be in C.A.R. IT STILL SUCKED!!! Once more spent a-lot of time looking at the Cable-Box Clock waiting for this bore with its boor to be over.

[–] lnoft97 12 years ago

Tedious. It had a handful of OK moments and is a very good looking movie. Who cannot like the cast? But it was just painfully tedious. Would have been better watching with the sound turned off.

[–] xerses13 12 years ago

Inoft97: No, you are better off switching the channel or putting in a different recording.

[–] Owlzindabarn 11 years ago

I think the only problem with this movie is its MacGuffin; the MacGuffin being, in this case, the 'document' they're all pursuing. All we know of the MacGuffin is that Queen Victoria entrusted the document to Lord Redcliff stating "the fate of England is now in your hands." That said, plenty of movies have a "MacGuffin," but I think it takes a more skilled director play with such a plot device...an Alfred Hitchcock, perhaps. The document sets up all the action, but honestly, this movie is just a collection of comic set-pieces; some more successful than others. If we'd known more about that document the stakes might have been raised, and we might have cared about all the action a little more. That said, there isn't really anything wrong with the comics antics as they play out. The comedy is quite good; it's just that we don't care, because we don't really know what's going on. The movie is not skillful enough for that.

I also think that since Wilder rented out half the Mel Brooks Repertory Company, people are expecting a Mel Brooks film. It's not. It's a Gene Wilder film. The comedy is generally a lot subtler and slower-paced than stuff from a Brooks film--aside from the occasional broader comic pieces.

[–] xerses13 11 years ago

Owlzindabarn: Hitchcock though would have played it straight and created a suspenseful movie. Wilder did not, nor really had the skill for directing. His other efforts were just as bad. In retrospect Brooks and Wilder's films seem very dated, while Chaplin's, Keaton's and Lloyd's efforts from the Silent Era are fresh today. Would rather watch a 'Bowery Boys' effort then this film.

[–] murray-92-257388 8 years ago

I've just finished watching this and I was bitterly disappointed. I found this so tedious that it was a real struggle to finish it.

For a comedy this was very un-funny, I didn't laugh once. I simply can't see how anyone would find this amusing, it seemed to be a combination of slap-stick, lots of yelling, bursting into song for no apparent reason, toilet humour and adolescent smuttiness.

As for the storyline, I don't think there was one. At least nothing that I could recognise as a story, I'm still unsure what it was all about.

Maybe this is a film of it's times, created to appeal to the taste of 1970's audiences, and we've all moved on. A bit like how The Three Stooges were popular back in the day but would go down like a lead balloon with today's audiences.

[–] xerses13 8 years ago

murray-92-257388: I saw it in original release and it was disappointing even back then. Then again Mel Brook's efforts also saw a sharp decline after YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN. I can watch Chaplin, Keaton and Lloyd from the 1920s and their films are still fresh and original with great gags. As for THE THREE STOOGES, their two reeler shorts from the 1930s I still find amusing, but after 1939 it was downhill. After all how many times can plumbers come to your house and trash it?

[–] murray-92-257388 8 years ago

I love Keaton and Lloyd, they were very clever and the stunt work was amazing, far above the usual slapstick of a pie in the face or running into a wall.

I'm not anti Gene Wilder, I like Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, but this film was just plain un-funny and annoying.

[–] xerses13 8 years ago

murray-92-257388: Agreed.

[–] irishm 8 years ago

I agree, very disappointing. Before the main title we already get toilet humor and a four-letter word. Not funny.

[–] irishm 8 years ago

Those were the only two things that made me laugh! Five hours later I was still chuckling about the "hot water" exchange.

[–] DaveBowman2001 8 years ago

Disagree. Funnier than Mel Brooks movies. Lots of subtle humor and clever plot. Very much enjoy re-watching too. I'm typically not a fan of musicals in movies either, but I think they kinda fit here and aren't too long at least.

[–] infinitycomicsgabriel 8 years ago

*beep* you

[–] irishm 8 years ago

Not helping your argument, whatever it is.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]