The only difference is Robert Conrad and Ross Martin were much more glib and entertaining. There was even a significant portion of the story on a train.
My question, however, is has anyone associated with these movies ever actually read an Arthur Conan Doyle Sherlock Holmes story? Obviously, they are using the names and the time period to produce whatever movie they please regardless of the actual characters.
I had much the same feeling. This movie felt like a couple different screenplays stuck together.
"I said no camels, that's five camels, can't you count?"
Interestingly, this version of Holmes is closer to the original stories than many other, more accepted interpretations. Doyle's Holmes is a master of disguise, a fighter, a drug user, socially inept, a sporadic and annoying violin player, a heavy smoker, and regularly visits London's seedy underside for information. Watson is an intelligent bad ass, not a portly buffoon.
The question is, have you read the original stories?
Exactly.
share