I like Rathbone ofer Brett, who I find a bit over the top in the role. William Gillette offered an understated naturalistic portrayal.
English Bents, pre-1900, and Sherlock Holmes.
- Thread starter Bax Burley
- Start date
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Ian Richardson was great in many if not most of his roles. His Francis Urquhart was a tour de force.
You may very well think so, but I couldn’t possibly comment!
.gif)
I am very surprised no one has offered up Robert Stephens. I always found his portrayal as interesting as they come.
Billy Wilder‘s take on Holmes is truly unique and humanizing.
The Brett series is notable for being the closest to the original stories. Other than the first 2 movies all the Rathbone flicks were new stories set in modern times... but fun none the less.
The recent "Sherlock" series from the BBC is interesting and well casted. If you haven't seen any I recommend the first episode "A study in Pink". It's great, but I'm sorry to say, the following ones are not as good. The producers and writers just got too outlandish for my taste and each subsequent episode got weirder and weirder.
The recent "Sherlock" series from the BBC is interesting and well casted. If you haven't seen any I recommend the first episode "A study in Pink". It's great, but I'm sorry to say, the following ones are not as good. The producers and writers just got too outlandish for my taste and each subsequent episode got weirder and weirder.
Last edited:
A Scandal in Belgravia was pretty good, IMO, and offered up more of Irene Adler than the world had ever seen!The Brett series is notable for being the closest to the original stories. Other than the first 2 movies all the Rathbone flicks were new stories set in modern times... but fun none the less.
The recent "Sherlock" series from the BBC is interesting and well casted. If you haven't seen any I recommend the first episode "A study in Pink". It's great, but I'm sorry to say, the following ones are not as good. The producers and writers just got too outlandish for my taste and each subsequent episode got weirder and weirder.
At this point it’s redundant, but here’s a trade advertisement from the January 1, 1888 issue of Tobacco showing a nice GBD bent sans bling:
I kind of agree with you Sable.
I've been watching the old B&W Sherlock Holmes movies, with Rathbone, on YT and have really enjoyed them.
The recent "Sherlock" series from the BBC is interesting and well casted. If you haven't seen any I recommend the first episode "A study in Pink". It's great, but I'm sorry to say, the following ones are not as good. The producers and writers just got too outlandish for my taste and each subsequent episode got weirder and weirder.
Agreed, that seems to be a thing with Stephen Moffat.
This may not be a popular take, and is pretty out of scope for a pipe forum, but I really enjoyed Jonny Lee Miller's portrayal in the "Elementary" TV show.
The Brett portratals were really my favorite canonical portrayals of Holmes. Rathbone was excellent also but he had a non-canonical Watson and frequently worked outside the canon. Gillette was superb as Holmes and started many of the cliches that we see in his portrayals particularly the calabash pipe. There have been many excellent portrayals of Holmes that have been excellent but they lack the staying power of Rathbone and Brett.
I watched some of the "Elementary" series. It was somewhat entertaining, however, I did have a problem with a female Watson and I also found it difficult to understand Miller's accent. Nothings perfect.
Recently watched "The Crucifer of Blood" which is a very liberal take off on "The Sign of Four". Charlton Heston plays Homes. He was a good actor but I have a problem seeing him as Homes.
I'm beginning to think this forum needs a Homes thread......
