Watch The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes For Free

Too many fans seem to be blown away

A film with more than the usual spoiler issues. Talking about it in any detail feels akin to handing you a gift-wrapped present and saying, "I hope you like it -- It's a thriller about a diabolical secret experiment."

Although I seem to have had higher expectations than I thought, the movie is super entertaining.

It's a movie as timely as it is provocative and amazingly, for much of its running time, it is weirdly funny.

There were Forces Afoot that Writer/Director Billy Wilder could Not Control.The Super-Flops of Extravagant, Big Budget Behemoths (the counterculture was taking over the box office) and Wilder became a Victim of Circumstance and His Own Aging Style that Served Him Well over the Years, but was now something of an Anachronism.That's Not to Say that the Movie was Dated upon its Initial Release, because it was not and still Holds Up Today. The Humor, the Experimental Exploration of Holmes "Private" Life, and the overall Theme of the Enterprise is Charming, Witty, and Entertaining.The Films most Annoying, Over the Top, Fingers on the Blackboard Scenes are with Watson (Colin Blakely) Screeching at Holmes (Robert Stephens) and Running Amok at the Hint of a Homosexual Scandal and a Stiff Wooden Loch Ness Monster that a Child could Render a Fake (shades of Nigel Bruce).Wilder called this His most "elegant production" and it is Sumptuous. It Radiates a Fascination with Period Detail and the Extravagance is Pleasurably Documented On Screen.Overall, a Fine Film with a Number of Things to Recommend to Sherlock Holmes Aficionados and Casual Moviegoers.But it Suffered Somewhat by being made at the Center of a Cultural Storm that Resulted in the Death of the Studio System and was Reeking Havoc on Hollywood Movies and the Panic was Profound.

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.

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.

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.