Il fratello più furbo di Sherlock Holmes

Well, Gene Wilder assembled a fine cast for a comedy; some comedy arises - if fitfully - from their interactions. In their antics Wilder, Feldman and DeLuise are passable if hardly inspired and the venerable talents represented by John Le Mesurier and Leo McKern are scarcely touched upon, but Madeline Kahn is wonderfully oddball. This was the first time I had seen her in anything and, I must say, she is a wonderfully deft, uncanny comedienne; so singular and alluring. Glancing over her filmography, it seems a crying shame that she was continually relegated to supporting status and didn't get many - if any - genuine lead roles.

Whilst some relatively unconnected hi-jinks do impress, the film's Achilles heel is that there is little structure, with gags of almost exclusively physical nature dominating - perhaps overbalancing the brew - and the odd non sequitur impressing. The use of song and such like is undeniably similar to that of Mel Brooks, and indeed the numbers accorded Ms Kahn are appropriately exuberant. But, Wilder's script and, shall we say, laissez faire direction, are ultimately to blame for the film's failings: the use of the Sherlock Holmes mythos is rather too minimal and little impression or flavour is given of the Holmes stories, in what purports to be a spoof.

Leo McKern, a quite splendid actor, does very well with what he is given, but what he is given is scant, and he is seldom gainfully employed; it is a shame that more room in the film could not have been allocated to such an enjoyable, twinklingly august actor. Roughly the same goes for Le Mesurier. What does, however, impress is a certain degree of comic aptitude, displayed *just enough* by the cast, making hay with the isolated flashes of inspiration in the script.

The film indeed never quite outstays its welcome, although at times is tiresome when gags fall flat - as too often they do. So often it is terribly frustrating, when considering the calibre of those involved, to think of the film this could well have been... As it stands it is merely a mildly enjoyable, amiable film; 'inconsequential and slapdash' some sharp pens would justifiably inscribe, but I feel it deserves my indulgence - most specifically because of the glorious Madeline Kahn.

Gene Wilder became the first (soon to be followed by Marty Feldman and Dom DeLuise) to jump into the director's chair after successful collaborations with Mel Brooks. His debut as writer/director is "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes' Smarter Brother" which is a hit and miss comedy with more misses then hits.

The idea is interesting enough with the great detective having a younger, jealous brother. Sigi (Wilder) refers to his famous older brother as Sheer-luck and it's a classic moment that makes one yearn for more throughout. Wilder certainly borrows enough from Brooks (characters break out in song unexpectedly; modern items pop up in this period piece) but he strains to get the laughs. Marty Feldman is amusing as Sigi's sidekick but Madeline Kahn is wasted as the heroine.

The other major flaw is the story itself. The mystery isn't much of one in the first place so we never really get caught up in it. Wilder relies too much on the sight gags to sustain ones interest.

The bottom line is Wilder has made a lesser Mel Brooks film when he should have brought Brooks on board and perhaps turned this mediocre comedy into something more. As it is it may be amusing but without Brooks at his side amusing just isn't enough.

When papers of supreme importance to the crown are stolen, Sherlock Holmes gets involved in the case. However to divert attention he gives the case to his younger brother, Sigerson Holmes while he and Watson pretend to go away for a holiday. Sigerson takes up the case with the help of Sgt Sacker of Scotland Yard and follows a trail that begins with a mysterious, deceitful music hall singer and leads all the way to his brother's nemesis, Professor Moriarty.

I do enjoy the movies of Gene Wilder, while he has been in some real dogs, I do like his sense of humour and love some of his `classics' with Mel Brooks. So the couple of times I have sat down to watch this I have always assumed that it will be better than it actually is. The plot doesn't really matter but wouldn't stand up if it was put in a serious film, the film seems to be a lot more free flowing and just tries to touch on plot points to try and keep some sort of informal structure to it. While this sort of comedy can survive with a dodgy plot, it cannot survive without good jokes and regular laughs – neither of which it has in sufficient quantities.

There are very funny bits and it all has a comic feel but I didn't laugh out loud very often and too often was sitting waiting fore the next joke for too long. The general comic tone helps make it watchable but I suspect most people would be hoping for something a lot funnier considering some of the work of the cast before (and around this time period). In fairness the cast do do a good job. Wilder is his usual self and does the self-important-fool thing sort of like he did in Young Frankenstein (if you know what I mean). Feldman is OK but not hilarious and his `photographic hearing' gag doesn't really work. Kahn is good and her songs are quite amusing (but not compared to her effort in Blazing Saddles) and the support cast have a few good faces and characters (including an eccentric Moriarty).

However, overall this just isn't funny enough to cut the mustard for me. I had hopes for a good spoof but it only occasionally reached the level where it was funny and it couldn't sustain this. It does have moments where it sends up the Holmes legend well (especially the Rathbone/Bruce film versions) but not often enough. It passed the time for me but to be honest I felt let down that the film had failed to do more with the idea.

Well, I can see that this movie really didn't get the best reviews, which surprised me as it is one of my favorite movies ever.

I thought back on it while posting my 9 out of 10 review and I can see how others might not enjoy this style of humor, as it does take getting used to and not everyone gets that chance because the movie is rarely played.

If you are a Gene Wilder fan, a Marty Feldman fan, a Madeline Kahn (sp?) fan, or a fan of sherlock holmes, then this movie is for you. Yes, it's a bit dry in places, and yes it can be a bit flighty, but if you can stick it out and just turn off the logical part of your mind for a bit and go along with the wild ride, I think that in the end, you'll buy a ticket and ask to go on the ride again.

The singing numbers, the wild looks of Kahn, Wilder and of course my buggy eyed friend, Feldman, help to make this movie quirky and humorous at the same time. The dark London (I think it's in London) streets and the perpetual night helps to make this a very fun period piece with humor at every step.

For someone such as myself who does enjoy a good Sherlock Holmes story, I truly loved the way that our main character (Wilder) is constantly getting things so way off. Such as when he thinks he is describing the person on the other side of the door based on the clues he has and then he is so way off that it's hilarious.

See this movie, and if you need to watch it again to fully enjoy it, give it about a week and then see it again. It's worth the multiple viewings.

The other reviewer on this site clearly doesn't understand the subtleties of the comic genius of Gene Wilder (Sigerson Holmes), Madeline Kahn (Jenny Hill, or should I say Bessie Besswood), Marty Feldman (Sgt. Sacker of Scotland Yard) and the rest of the cast of this too little known classic! It's pithy and witty and clever and tips its hat to Conan Doyle at every turn. The Kangaroo Hop, Hop will have you hopping around the living room, and Madeline Kahn outdoes herself. It's right up there with Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein, and I'm waiting oh so patiently for it to be released on DVD! A must see for fans of the subtle and smart in comedy.