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

Christopher Smith 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

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.