The Many Faces of Sherlock Holmes
Over 50 different actors have portrayed the famous detective on the big screen, from Basil Rathbone to Robert Downey, Jr.
(04:50)
Produced by: Abby Callard
Photos courtesy of: The Internet Archive; Mary Evans/Ronald Grant/Everett Collection; TM and © 20th Century Fox Film Corp. All rights reserved, Courtesy: Everett Collection; © United Artists/courtesy Everett Collection; © Paramount/ Courtesy: Everett Collection; © Orion Pictures/courtesy Everett Collection; Everett Collection
Email
Comments (4) 
RSS
Comments (4)
While you have given us many Holmes there were unfamiliar to myself, I find the presentation to be lacking. You have included theatre, but not television. I agree with Mr Horner, we could definitely have lived without the tacking on of "Kangaroo Hop"
Posted by Marc on March 23,2012 | 04:48 PM
The omission of Brett is a real major definciency. After he realized that Holmes wasn't as one-dimensional as listed by Watson in Scarlet, he became outstanding. The plots and sets were much truer to the Conan-Doyle stories. Too bad he got sick and gained weight for the later shows in the series. Rathbone's speaking style is still the standard. All of his movies' plots deviated from the stories, especially the later ones. Their moving Holmes into the 1940's is not to be denigrated in my view. Not to be minimized, is the importance of the actor portraying Watson. Bruce, who could have been great, always slipped into his buffoon characterization (from, "Suspicion", for example) which tended to ruin his Watson. Under appreciated is James Mason's portrayal.
Posted by artcohn on January 25,2011 | 12:43 AM
I completely agree re. Brett, but to be fair to this site, it appears that they are looking at a) only film, not TV b) have cherry picked even from films: no Peter Cushing, for example
Posted by Rufus on September 18,2010 | 05:23 PM
Your presentation is rather deficient.
You indicate that Basil Rathbone is the standard by which other Holmes characterizations are measured. That's questionable since most of his characterizations take place in the 1940s, not the 1890s. Granted these were fun movies but not really standard-setters.
You leave off the standard-setter that many regard as the best, the late Jeremy Brett. The plots were accurate to the stories as were the sets and costumes to the correct era. In that you've included the latest movie representation (really a weird one), I have to figure you either forgot Brett or, for some illogical reason, purposely left him out. Either way, this is a major omission on your part. I can't believe this from Smithsonian.com
[BTW, I think you could have left out the "Kangaroo Hop;" really]
Posted by Allen Horner on May 26,2010 | 02:13 PM