Evengyny Thanks for the memories!

Nayan Gough A great movie, one of the best of this year. There was a bit of confusion at one point in the plot, but nothing serious.

Ava-Grace Willis Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

Ariella Broughton It is neither dumb nor smart enough to be fun, and spends way too much time with its boring human characters.

TheLittleSongbird Am a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes and get a lot of enjoyment out of Arthur Conan Doyle's stories. Also love Basil Rathbone's and especially Jeremy Brett's interpretations to death. So would naturally see any Sherlock Holmes adaptation that comes my way, regardless of its reception.Furthermore, interest in seeing early films based on Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories and wanting to see as many adaptations of any Sherlock Holmes stories as possible sparked my interest in seeing 'The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes'. Also had the thought that a film directed by the legendary Billy Wilder (responsible for a fair share of masterpieces and even his lesser output is worth watching) and starring Robert Stephens and Christopher Lee has got to be at least worthwhile.Worthwhile 'The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes' certainly is. Regardless of whether it bombed or that Wilder was not happy at the significant truncation imposed by studio interference. By all means, 'The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes' would have been an even better film if it were released and available as Wilder intended, but it more than makes do. It may not quite be as good as the best Jeremy Brett adaptations or the best of Basil Rathbone's films, but of the numerous Sherlock Holmes adaptations seen recently it is by far the best.'The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes' does drag at times, particularly towards the end. It also gets a little strange and the ending itself could have had more clarity and punch. On the other hand, Robert Stephens, while no Brett or Rathbone, makes for a great Holmes, very charismatic, intelligent, melancholic and more interestingly fey than most Holmes interpretations. Colin Blakely is both befuddled and loyal as Watson without being a buffoon. The two work very well together with some great lines, including a delightful moment where Holmes denies ever saying his most famous line. Christopher Lee's Mycroft is debonair and commanding. Genevieve Page brings subtle class to her acting, though all the cast do well with some knowing short appearances from Stanley Holloway and Frank Thornton etc. Wilder directs beautifully, bringing his distinctive comedy touch to some scenes while giving the mystery a fun and seriousness and the personal life aspects a melancholic edge. A witty and intelligent script and a vast-majority-of-the-time a highly compelling and entertaining story, that is intriguingly personal and heartfelt in places, and keeping-one-on-their-toes mystery are further advantages, and the film is more arresting than it is dull. Miklos Rozsa's music score sears with emotion and atmosphere, like a character of its own. 'The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes' looks fantastic, for me it's one of the best-looking films featuring the iconic detective. It is beautifully shot and the costumes are appealingly evocative but the star in this regard is the sets, have never seen a better looking Baker Street on film. Overall, very good. 8/10 Bethany Cox

malmborgimplano-92-599820 Advocates for this film say the reason it stinks is that Wilder wasn't able to make it according to his original vision. I'm not sure I buy this. I've seen the magic that can result from restoring a film that's been mutilated by stupid reediting, "The Wicker Man" being a prime example. But Wilder himself is responsible for the current version of "Private Life" we have now, and what there is of it is so terrible it's just hard for me to imagine that he could have made a masterpiece out of it by doubling its length.The main problem to me with "Private Life" is that it feels like what it was, a big stodgy overproduced road show movie in the tradition of "Gone With The Wind" and "It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World." It was, in the lingo of the time, square. 1970 was a year when much more adventurous films like "Joe" and "M*A*S*H" and "Gimme Shelter" and "Little Big Man" were on offer to the sophisticated film-goer, and thought they have their own flaws their relative sophistication and freshness made the likes of "Private Life" look pretty stale and tawdry in comparison. Its squareness still makes me cringe, but this may be why younger viewers like Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat, the creators of "Sherlock," don't have the same problem; they're too young to know what square is.Sherlock Holmes should be a role that's second nature to any reasonably skilled and intelligent British actor, and it's astounding to watch Robert Stephens of all people failing where so many very different talents, from Basil Rathbone and Peter Cushing to Benedict Cumberbatch and Ian Richardson, each found his own ingenious way into this iconic character. I put the blame for this solely on Wilder, as reportedly he treated Stephens so badly during the shoot that the actor suffered a breakdown, thus spawning the urban legend that playing Holmes drives people crazy, which in turn latched itself on to Jeremy Brett. News flash: it's unfortunately true that Brett had issues with the role of Holmes, but in general you cannot get bipolar disorder from acting.

secondtake 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.

jm10701 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.