Very disappointed :(

While it doesn't offer any answers, it both thrills and makes you think.

Very good movie overall, highly recommended. Most of the negative reviews don't have any merit and are all pollitically based. Give this movie a chance at least, and it might give you a different perspective.

Blistering performances.

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.

...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.)

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.

Never having read the Sherlock Holmes stories, I cannot say whether or not this is a good adaptation of the character and spirit of the original material. I can say that I enjoyed it immensely and believe it is Billy Wilder's unsung masterpiece of his late career.The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes (1970) manages to be both satirical and melancholy in equal turns. There is an autumnal sadness to the whole thing. It has been called an elegy for the Victorian era's values of honor, but I believe it is also an elegy for an older, more classical style of filmmaking. It certainly feels old-fashioned when placed beside the New Hollywood films from the young directors of the late sixties and seventies. The lush scenery and achingly beautiful Rosza score make it feel a little older than it is.The film explores Holmes not as a superhuman thinking machine, but as a lonely man afraid to let anyone in. His sexuality is brought up throughout, but whether he is homosexual, heterosexual, asexual, or even bisexual is never specified. The nature of his feelings for Dr. Watson and the woman Gabrielle are left ambiguous even within the downbeat ending.It's a wonderful film and I only wish the missing fifty minutes could be discovered.