Rating: 
Summary: Why in the world isn't this thing letterboxed!?
Review: The movie itself gets at least four stars, but minus two for the studio for being so purblind as to issue it with a third of the picture lopped off. Gee, folks, can't you at least give us a choice to watch the entire movie?
Rating:
Summary: Why in the world isn't this thing letterboxed!?
Review: The movie itself gets at least four stars, but minus two for the studio for being so purblind as to issue it with a third of the picture lopped off. Gee, folks, can't you at least give us a choice to watch the entire movie?
Rating: 
Summary: Great movie; mediocre dvd picture and sound quality
Review: This is one of the great adventure romps ever put on film with some of the most deliciously quirky casting ever. But be aware that the picture quality is not up to dvd standards. This is distributed by a company call image and I will now be suspicious of their products in the future. I can see digializing grain in the picture that does not allow me to crank up the detail on my tv like I normally do for dvd's. This was especially disappointing since they are getting a high price for this older product.
Rating: 
Summary: Shelock Holmes at his best!
Review: This is the best Sherlock Holmes motion picture.The plot, characters, acting, direction, production are all quite good. Nicholas Meyer wrote the screenplay for this adaptation of his very fine novel which resulted in a handsomely crafted and very engaging entertainment. Meyer remains faithfull in spirit to the Canon and takes us on an enjoyable and plausable adventure that moves along at a good pace. Highly recommended! I regret to say, this early Universal DVD is NOT presented in it's theatrical widescreen ratio. Pan and scan is evident in a few scenes and the images feel claustrophophic. The sound is mono but I thought it was stereo back in 1976. There are no extras. Neither is this disk 16x9 enhanced. This film deserves to be redone and reissued. And please, Universal, redo that cover. This IS a Sherlock Holmes story. Your theatrical poster art would be welcome here. There are substantialy less than a handful of Sherlock Holmes films on DVD. Why this is so is a mystery. At the very least we should have Billy Wilder's The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, Christopher Plummer and James Mason in Murder by Decree, and Basil Rathbone in The Hound of the Baskervilles.
Rating: 
Summary: Stylish deconstruction of a hero
Review: When Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote the original Sherlock Holmes stories, little did he expect they would become the stuff of classics. He thought of them as throw-off stories, light fare, not the serious stuff he wanted to be known for. When he killed off the character at one point, there was such a huge outcry that he had to unwillingly create a miraculous recovery and continue writing about Holmes. Eventually Doyle made it clear that he didn't care what happened with Holmes after his own death, inviting others to write stories about the famous "consulting detective" in whatever way they saw fit (in absolute diametric opposition to Ian Fleming, who guarded his James Bond character with virtual electric fences to prevent others being unfaithful to his vision). Fast forward to the early 1970s, and a new Sherlock Holmes novel is released by Nicholas Meyer. It is widely hailed (and rightly so) as the best Holmes novel not written by Doyle himself, although many other mediocre ones ("Enter the Lion," etc.) have been published. The famous subject and #1 best-seller status of the novel ensure that this story will be turned into a major film. And so we have it. However, like most films made from books, something fails to make the transition. Perhaps it's the awful miscasting of Robert Duvall as Dr. John Watson (!) While Duvall plays the role true to the original character Doyle created (as opposed to the laughable buffoon from the 1930s/40s films), his dreadful accent and lost expression give the impression of one on the outside looking so far in as to seem from another world. Much more on target is Nicol Williamson's wonderful turn as Holmes. His intensity and obsessiveness are done beautifully, and Alan Arkin's Freud is interesting as well. The story ultimately retains two of the more disappointing aspects of the novel: The partial tearing down of the Holmesian persona as a nearly infallible detective, and Meyers' revelation of the always elusive Moriarty (Olivier wasted in this role). I won't go into great detail to spoil it for any prospective viewer, but the whole experience leaves one a bit uncomfortable, and not in a way that necessarily leads to enlightenment or profitable discussions. The visual style with which the story is presented, however, is one of the things that saves it (along with Williamson's portrayal of Holmes). The sets, costuming, and cinematography make for some breathtaking moments (the horse stampede being the most memorable), and these things ultimately push it from two stars to three for me. Definitely worth seeing once, for those Holmes fans who have not had the chance. Rent it, if possible, before you make a decision on purchasing.
Rating:
Summary: Stylish deconstruction of a hero
Review: When Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote the original Sherlock Holmes stories, little did he expect they would become the stuff of classics. He thought of them as throw-off stories, light fare, not the serious stuff he wanted to be known for. When he killed off the character at one point, there was such a huge outcry that he had to unwillingly create a miraculous recovery and continue writing about Holmes. Eventually Doyle made it clear that he didn't care what happened with Holmes after his own death, inviting others to write stories about the famous "consulting detective" in whatever way they saw fit (in absolute diametric opposition to Ian Fleming, who guarded his James Bond character with virtual electric fences to prevent others being unfaithful to his vision). Fast forward to the early 1970s, and a new Sherlock Holmes novel is released by Nicholas Meyer. It is widely hailed (and rightly so) as the best Holmes novel not written by Doyle himself, although many other mediocre ones ("Enter the Lion," etc.) have been published. The famous subject and #1 best-seller status of the novel ensure that this story will be turned into a major film. And so we have it. However, like most films made from books, something fails to make the transition. Perhaps it's the awful miscasting of Robert Duvall as Dr. John Watson (!) While Duvall plays the role true to the original character Doyle created (as opposed to the laughable buffoon from the 1930s/40s films), his dreadful accent and lost expression give the impression of one on the outside looking so far in as to seem from another world. Much more on target is Nicol Williamson's wonderful turn as Holmes. His intensity and obsessiveness are done beautifully, and Alan Arkin's Freud is interesting as well. The story ultimately retains two of the more disappointing aspects of the novel: The partial tearing down of the Holmesian persona as a nearly infallible detective, and Meyers' revelation of the always elusive Moriarty (Olivier wasted in this role). I won't go into great detail to spoil it for any prospective viewer, but the whole experience leaves one a bit uncomfortable, and not in a way that necessarily leads to enlightenment or profitable discussions. The visual style with which the story is presented, however, is one of the things that saves it (along with Williamson's portrayal of Holmes). The sets, costuming, and cinematography make for some breathtaking moments (the horse stampede being the most memorable), and these things ultimately push it from two stars to three for me. Definitely worth seeing once, for those Holmes fans who have not had the chance. Rent it, if possible, before you make a decision on purchasing.
| 
