5/10
Shows a little promise, but is ultimately unsuccessful.
25 May 2000
This movie reminds me of nothing as much as 1998's 'The Avengers,' of all things. Both attempt to revive familiar, popular and revered characters while giving their movies a contemporary sensibility that would attract new viewers. Neither film succeeded.

'Private Life...' works much better than 'The Avengers,' to be sure, but I'm afraid that is damning it with faint praise. In 1970, at least, audiences weren't as used to a steady diet of so-called "blockbusters" as they are today, so rather than calling on spectacular stunts and special effects to create sensation, this movie delves into areas of Holmes' and Watson's characters and private lives that have been heretofore only hinted at (i.e. Holmes' drug use, his sexuality, Watson's womanizing, etc.) The results are generally positive in the early going, but the weight of a cumbersome plot involving international espionage, the Loch Ness monster, mysterious monks, a group of dwarfs--even Queen Victoria shows up-- brings the movie crashing down in the second half. Watching the entire two hours is a most tedious task.

It's always a risky proposition trying to revive characters from someone else's literary classic, but there never seems to be any shortage of those willing to try. Billy Wilder and I.A.L. Diamond give the Holmes fan something new to think about, but they miss out on the essence of what made him so special in the first place. This Sherlock Holmes (Robert Stephens, who along with Colin Blakely as Watson, does a good job under the circumstances) shows very little of the astounding deductive powers which have delighted readers for a hundred years. More than once in this film Holmes suggests to Watson that this adventure isn't worth his chronicling. The filmmakers should have taken the hint.
12 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed