The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes (1970) (Masters of Cinema) Blu-ray

I finally got around to watching this movie tonight. It's been a couple years since I last watched the old MGM DVD release which I still have and afterwords I did a quick bit of comparison between the two.Like many have already expressed, the new BD is a disappointment. It *does* look marginally better than the old DVD, especially because it's not as overall bright as the DVD (although that varies in many spots between the DVD and BD) and is a bit clearer despite the way it was filmed (very soft and defused), but it exhibits a distracting pinkish tone especially early on and yes, there's numerous dirt, scratches, etc sporadically throughout, especially noticeable during the (day for night) outdoor coach scene 2/3rds through the movie. The beginning when the box of Holmes' artifacts is being opened with the credits, there's noticeable gate weave going on. Oddly, it appears a different source may have been used vs the old DVD at least for several reels of this transfer as there was little of the blems on the DVD that are seen on this BD. Finally, the encoding doesn't do this transfer any favors, it often looks too compressed.Bonus features include interviews and "deleted scenes" which are mostly reconstructed from stills, images of the script and dialog only. Whoever threw together the bonus feature of the "Alternate Ending" should be embarrassed. A single out of context publicity still is onscreen instead of the footage present in over about 5 minutes worth of dialog from the same scene in the actual movie!The movie itself kind of drags in places but it's more of a character study that rewards the viewer in bits and pieces over the long haul. For it's time, this was a bit of a daring take on Sherlock Holmes, putting his casual drug use and inferred homosexuality front and center in the character. I should also mention the music score by Miklos Rosa, especially the poignant violin coda is wonderful.Overall, my pleasure at this particular movie getting a Blu-ray release is very diminished by the mediocre film source used for this release. I have a hard enough time justifying paying $30+ for old catalog titles from the likes of Twilight Time and Scream/Shout Factory but those companies at least release decent to excellent transfers using solid source material. Not so here from Kino/MGM. I would give this movie at least 3, maybe even 4 stars for the film itself but the quality of the transfer versus the steep price for a catalog title knocks it down to 2 stars.

This is what MGM/UA gave to Kino, this disgusting, shoddy, horrible transfer of a film that deserves much better. It is, in short, an ugly brown mess. The element used is an internegative and a severely faded one at that and neither MGM nor Kino thought it important to actually put some color back, which you can certainly do if you actually care about what you're releasing. For Kino, it's always been a numbers game - how much cash can they lay on a table and how many films will said cash get them, and then do as little work as possible. They brag when it's a new "4K transfer" but the ONLY reason they're doing those is because MGM/UA doesn't have ANY master to give them.I not only cannot recommend this Blu-ray, I recommend you stay as far away as possible. Someday maybe we'll get a proper transfer of this film, but that would require MGM/UA to actually care about their library (they don't) and to have someone who actually knows what the color of this film should look like and that certainly wouldn't be Kino (they don't).

The movie is way too long, for one thing. I think it should have started when the water soaked woman was deposited at 221B Baker Street. Instead, we get over a half hour of ridiculous, frothy padding before the "real" story begins. The set-up that the padding tries to establish could have been done in other ways, and much more subtly and concisely. And I don't like Watson as a buffoon. In the Rathbone/Bruce films, too, Watson is portrayed as a dimwit, but I find Rathbone's Holmes so entertaining that I can accept the clownish Watson (although I do find Bruce rather charming). I much prefer the Watson in the Jeremy Brett series, my favorite Sherlock Holmes films of all, where Watson is portrayed as an intelligent, able, and brave assistant to Holmes. This is much more to my taste. But, Wilder gives The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes a schmaltzy ending, and I'm a sucker for that kind of thing. And Robert Stephens (Holmes) carries off the heart-string tugging well enough, but as Holmes he lacks the panache of either Rathbone or Brett.

Enjoyable parody of Sherlock Holmes here. While maybe the running time of the film is a tad too long for the two stories involved (a little over 2 hours), over all it was a very entertaining film and had many of the Sherlockian staples that fans have grown used to (Holmes' eccentricities and habits, Watson's observations, journal, etc). Not only that, but the actual footage and scenery was very spot on and definitely gave the film of a vintage Sherlock Holmes short story or film. Plus, the two leads were quite stellar in their roles as the dynamic duo. Basically, there are two "stories" contained in the film, the second of which is the longer one and it involves a woman who has apparent amnesia being left off at Baker Street. I thought over all that there was quite a bit of good tongue in cheek humor here, and its fun to watch as a fan of the novels and stories and pick up on it. The running joke about Holmes and woman was funny. Anyhow, pretty entertaining film. I'm always on the look out for Sherlock Holmes' film adaptations of any variety, and this was a nice send up and humorous film dedicated to the great literary sleuth.

I was fortunate to see this film when it was first released. I was not disappointed, but I knew something just wasn't quite right.Much later, I had the chance to have lunch with Colin Blakely. He was sad that scenes, which he said had been shot, were omitted, but he was very proud of his performance. He was pleased to be remembered as a great Dr. Watson. He was a charming man and a terrific actor.Even in it's butchered state, this is one of the most interesting Sherlock films. Wilder doesn't really reinvent Holmes, but he, aided by Robert Stevens and Colin, brings a sadness, humanity and, yes, humor, to the genre. Perhaps Miklos Rozsa's score (reusing his Violin Concerto) gives the film it's soul.It will always be a favorite, if flawed, film.

This one of the worst transfers I've seen on blu ray since the format was introduced.The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes released 48 years ago has not been treated kindly on disc and unfortunately this blu ray is not much better.I bought this blu ray as gift for a close friend for his birthday and we where both shocked to witness the lack care of care for the movie itself.damage and other amolies were seen in the movie, the restoration quality was sadly missing from the movie.Open question to Eureka...How could this film be allowed to pass quality control?It's not acceptable for any film not to undergo any sort of restoration and clean up, it defeats the object of issuing the movie on HD Blu ray in the first place.I cannot wholeheartedly endorse this release, it is shockingly terrible transfer and needs to be redone, so avoid.

This film was enjoyable and came with an interesting set of extras. However, as other reviewers have commented, the quality of this print is very poor with large amounts of flicker, specks and scratches. When one buys a blu-ray one expects the best quality print and quite clearly this is not the case here. There appears to have been no restoration work done whatsoever. For the film itself I would therefore give 4/5 but for the quality of print 0/5 - hence my score of 2/5.

I remember reading about this around the time of its release, doubtless in 'Photoplay Film Monthly', but don't know if it got a local showing. If it did, it might well have been an AA, which would have ruled it out for me.So, this viewing of it on DVD is about fifty years too late, aware as I am that the British film industry was very much on the skids by 1970, never to recover (no, not even with 'Chariots Of Fire'). Besides, I was too keen on horror movies at the time and eager for my ABC Film Review each month, sometimes featuring a whole host of Hammer beauties like Ingrid Pitt (little did I realise then I would have a nice cuddle with her at the NEC).It's not easy to believe that this rather tame, slightly pretentious, ultimately irritating offering came from the same director who gave us 'Double Indemnity'. Why? Why did Wilder believe it was worth the time, money and trouble? It has its moments - nothing more. It has some good acting - Irene Handl, Catherine Lacey (highly underrated) - and some pleasant enough shots of Scotland. Yet it has the feel of a children's film. Is it true that it was meant to run for hours upon end? Again, why?My wife and I agreed, we never wanted to see it again, whereas we can watch the Basil Rathbone/Nigel Bruce offerings from beginning to end year it year out. Robert Stephens - looking far too much like Alan Partridge for my liking - is a completely unacceptable Holmes, and Colin Blakely plays Watson as something of a clown - a trick only Bruce could get away with.It perhaps didn't help that we'd just watched 'The Maggie', a relatively unknown Ealing comedy, also set in Scotland, but with that lovely, crisp storytelling (in black and white) that Ealing did so beautifully. All right, it's no 'Whisky Galore' but it might be a forerunner of 'Gregory's Girl', a true modern classic. A dozen to fifteen years had made all the difference to the British film industry (though at least we got 'The Railway Children'). 'The Private Life Of Sherlock Holmes' seems like something of a throwback - but to what? Maybe it was just too eccentric to succeed, coming not long before such appalling offerings as 'Diamonds Are Forever'.Billy Wilder was a hit and miss director, though, like John Ford and Hitchcock. Frankly, I'm no fan of 'Some Like It Hot' (or, really, La Monroe). Yet 'Double Indemnity' would be in my Top Twenty, not far behind - not at all far behind - 'The Maltese Falcon'. But if you want Holmes - for real - buy yourself a copy of 'The Adventures Of Sherlock Holmes': Rathbone, Bruce, the stunning Ida Lupino, the wondeful, sinister George Zucco.

sherlock holmes would struggle to deduce the difference in picture quality between the dvd and blu ray versions of this moviemore masters of cinemamore VHS qualitythe movie is goodthe extras are goodthe booklet is goodthe packaging is goodnot so good is the quality of the feature film presentationonly buy if you want to see the extrasor you dont yet have this movie on VHS or DVDif you do have this movie on VHS or DVDand you would like to view the movie in a superior formatWAIT FOR IT TO BE BROADCAST ON TELEVISION

Sure, we'd all like to see Billy Wilder's 4 hour cut. But it doesn't exist. Not anymore. After initial screenings, the studio cut movie down by over an hour, cutting out 2 stories completely. What we're still left with is a true cinema classic. The casting is incredible. Robert Stephens (who really suffered under Wilder) gives, to my mind, the perfect interpretation of Holmes. Witty, brilliant but also meloncholy. It is a brilliant, brilliant piece of casting. Colin Blakley as the loyal but long-suffering Watson captures the love and loyalty of the character. The script is full of joy, humour, adventure and real emotion. But fans already know how good the movie is already. What they might need to know is the quality of this Eureka Blu Ray release. The picture quality is the best I've seen it in any home format but I still think a full restoration would be welcome. The extras are very good. The highlight is the 50 minutes of deleted scenes. Wow. This is alone is worth the money as it gives you a sense of just how epic Wilder's 'planned' vision really was. But what we have is still one if (if not the) best Sherlock Holmes movies ever committed to celluloid. Outstanding and essential.