The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes (1970)

It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

It’s not bad or unwatchable but despite the amplitude of the spectacle, the end result is underwhelming.

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

There have been many strange productions featuring the character of Sherlock Holmes. There's been "Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd Century", a cartoon that re-imagined Sherlock Holmes in the future with a robot Watson. There's been the amazing Young Sherlock Holmes that features a sequence where Watson suffers from a hallucination in which he is chased by a giant cupcake. There's been the Asylum production of Sherlock Holmes featuring dinosaurs. All of these have been so out there that they have been entertaining regardless of how blasphemous they may seem to Sherlock Holmes enthusiasts. To me, no Sherlock Holmes production can match the insanity, strangeness, and odd entertainment value of The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes. Directed by the great Billy Wilder, The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes can be described in one simple sentence: Sherlock Holmes hunts the Loch Ness monster. It is an absurd premise for sure, and one with a twist ending almost too bizarre for words, but I can't help but love this movie. It's both stupid and brilliant at the same time. Christopher Lee as Mycroft is inspired casting, and the portrayal of Sherlock Holmes is way more touching and sympathetic than one would expect from a movie that features the Loch Ness monster as a main storyline.Much has been made about the fact that the studio made Billy Wilder cut the movie down from its original version. I have no doubt that Wilder's original version was even better than what made it to screen, but I still love the final version. It's such a unique, strange, and all around different interpretation of the Sherlock Holmes mythos that it's near impossible to hate this movie. A movie this offbeat would never be made by a studio today. It's an oddity for sure, though one that is definitely worth checking out for Sherlock Holmes fans.If there's a downside to The Private Lives of Sherlock Holmes, it's that it's evident at times that the movie has been cut down from a longer version. It doesn't destroy the movie by any means, but there are times when the flow of the film seems mildly choppy. The episodic nature of the whole production is inevitable since the film itself is divided into individual segments, but every so often it's clear there was post-production trouble.Even though it's probably viewed as one of Billy Wilder's lesser films, The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes is well worth watching for Sherlock Holmes fans. It's a forgotten gem that one day will hopefully get the director's cut it deserves. I can't say it's perfect, though it is, at the very least, a fascinating watch. Recommended. 8/10

Some prefer movies based upon famous novels of Arthur Conan Doyle to follow the story lines of the famous novels on which they are based. This is an alternate approach because the plot is an entirely new fantasy case melding a classical ballet company, circus performers reported gone missing and a woman fished out of the Thames uncertain of who she is. There are unusual references to risqué subjects not generally approached in the classic murder mystery realm of Holmes. Should you be expecting a classic Sherlock movie this is not the case,. The photography, editing, pace of the movie and silliness of the humor add a Wilder depth many will enjoy but some will not.

This is fun. It wouldn't be if it had strayed too far from the Holmes persona or if it were not a good movie. Holmes is a favorite from childhood, and odd take-offs on him are generally not appreciated. I have settled on the Jeremy Brett series as the definitive version, but enjoy others that are well done. To me, with remakes and other versions, if the piece is well done, it is not only acceptable but enjoyable. With remakes, I don't know what's worse - it being a general flop as a movie or their changing it all around and calling it the same thing. Sometimes, both happen. Usually, if you like the subject matter, you will probably like a good adaptation, if a bit more inventive that the source material. The Seven Percent Solution movie was well done and enjoyable.I haven't seen a lot of Robert Stephens, but have appreciated what I have. I looked him up and found that this was pretty light fare for his experience. This is a quality portrayal by him, and the others do a good job as well. The overall production is pleasing. The Dr. Watson portrayal mystifies a bit, that here and in other things, they make him sort of ditsy. That doesn't fit the original stories, nor what Holmes' temperament would seem to tolerate as a companion or assistant with his careful work. Maybe it came from the early Rathbone series with Nigel Bruce. Whether intentional or not, he nearly always had a bumbler quality to his portrayal.This is a worthy production in all aspects, which I would think garnered some critical approval at its time of release. I can see why it would take the public a while to adjust to seeing Sherlock Holmes as presented here. But, it speaks of the film's overall quality that it has aged well.

I am not entirely comfortable giving this movie just three stars, because I cannot say that I did not like it. But I also cannot say I did like it or even that it was okay, so I am stuck in the middle. I have chosen three stars because what I do not like about it I dislike much more than I like what I do like.First of all, I should say that although I like Sherlock Holmes well enough, I never was a big fan. I much prefer other fictional detectives. So the fact that this movie takes great liberties with him, the stories about him, and the other characters in those stories matters to me not at all. My comments relate to the movie as a movie, not to its faithfulness to Doyle's stories.The problem is that I am gay. If I were straight, I might be in hog heaven watching this movie, with all the squirmy, slimy gay jokes and innuendos, the female nudity and leering thereat, etc. But I AM gay, and I love being gay and am genuinely proud and delighted to be gay, so portraying what I am as something undesirable and shameful does not entertain me.Robert Stephens is marvelous, as he always was, particularly when he was young; Christopher Lee is a charmer at any age; and Colin Blakely is fine as Watson. I am thinking my problem is Billy Wilder. I have not seen Some Like It Hot in a very long time, but I suspect the comical cross-dressing and the potential horrors implicit in it would bother me now too.Evidently Wilder was none too fond of homosexuality and other alternate ways of being except as opportunities to leer and squirm and make wisecracks. Too bad. Not for him - he's dead - but for me. I used to like him, but no more.I can forgive Some Like It Hot because Marilyn is in it, and she is without question the loveliest human being who ever stood before a camera; but she is not in this movie, so down it goes.