Add me to the Jeremy Brett bandwagon. As for why, not only did Brett perfectly capture the character, but the entire production perfectly captured the feel of the original stories.
As for “camp,” I always thought there was a bit of camp in the original Doyle stories, and the Brett productions had just the right matching amount.
I like Elementary. Every other version I have ever seen has been just too --cheesy-- and spoiled by the flabby inaccuracy of the “authentic” recreations.
[Where everyone is well fed. The smog is white. No-one is barefoot. The cities are quiet.]
Which has become increasingly incongruous as the production values have improved.
Not to say that Elementary is perfect: the back story for Watson is foolish, the police department is straight out of a TV show, and there is only one plot. But then the original stories weren’t sustained very well either.
I actuallu love Aiden Quinn’s take on Lestrade - playing him, essentially, as a character on the original Law & Order.
I think it’s interesting that the three current Sherlocks (Cumberbatch, Miller and Downey) each emphasize and illuminate a different aspect of the Holmsian personality. Downey is his manic-depressive side; Cumberbatch, his sociopathic nature; and Miller represents his addictive personality. Each of them are valid interpretations of the character.
Ditto.
I dislike ELEMENTARY, because I thought it deviated too much from Holmes. As rowrrbazzle implied, if you want to make a detective show with a Holmes-like detective, go ahead… just don’t call him “Sherlock Holmes.” A fine example was the MONK series, very Holmes-like in many ways, or HOUSE, ditto. But not Holmes, a different guy. So with the ELEMENTARY cast; they’re very different characters, given the old names. Bah. (I admit, we gave up watching middle of episode 2.)
I read most of the Holmes stories when quite young & can’t pick one adaptation. Jeremy Brett is my favorite “traditional” Holmes. But I’m totally enamoured of the Cumberbatch/Freeman team; the showrunners obviously love the original stories.
Other adaptations have their good points. Robert Downey Jr is not Holmes to me, but I’ll gladly accept the movies as Tony Stark’s Steampunk Adventures. (Jude Law is a very good Watson.)
There were a few good moments, but Watson was such a dummy in that one it was annoying. Plus, no chemistry between Holmes/Watson, and to me it’s the characters and their byplay that makes for a good story. Plot is secondary.
I’ve never actually seen Brett. I guess I will have to.
I won’t watch Elementary at all, but I wouldn’t watch an American take on a stereotypically British thing anyway. I love British stuff too much.
I also like Downey and Law a lot - again because of the chemistry between the actors. They become more action adventure flicks, but the actors do so wonderfully together I love it.
Yes.
And, as others have said, the entire production of that series was, in most cases, spot-on. I own it on DVD and watch episodes with some regularity. Brett is truly captivating.
Clive Merrison as Holmes and Michael Williams as Dr. Watson in the BBC radio adaptation. Clive Merrison is reportedly the only actor to have ever played Holmes in all of Doyle’s stories, which is rather neat. What I liked best about the series is Watson isn’t a complete dingbat, which is the most annoying feature of the Basil Rathbone/Nigel Bruce series.
For Television, Jeremy Brett for the win.
Give it a second chance - while the setting is different, Holmes is still very much Holmes; change his clothing and he’d fit perfectly in Victorian London.
By and large, Peter Ustinov is only capable of playing…Peter Ustinov! He injects himself into damn near all of his roles. But…in Murder on the Nile, he limits this more than in most others of his roles.
My first exposure to Poirot was Albert Finney in Murder on the Orient Express. I thought (and still think) his portrayal was brilliant.
(Deeply embarrassed to say I’ve never read any of the books… At risk of brief highjack, which book should I start with?)
The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, the first Poirot and the book that cemented Christie’s reputation as a mystery writer.
I’ve been watching this series lately. I like Jonny Lee Miller (and he’s had better roles, honestly), and Lucy Liu is really lovely in this (and not just in the sense that she’s a striking woman). I will say, granted it’s US television, with the very long potboilery seasons, but the scripts are occasionally dire. I think there was one week that was just headslappingly silly; followed by another one where Holmes and Watson chased the less obvious motive for a third of the show, neglecting the obvious one. I’m not accustomed to being quite so far ahead of Holmes.
I keep threatening to quit on it (again), but I really do like Joan Watson as a character.
Mysterious Affair At Styles came first, but isn’t as good.
Still, just make sure not to do what I did by starting with Curtain.
Philistine!!!
Thank’ee! It’s now on my list! (I have a reading stack about as tall as I am…)
Brett/Hardwicke for classic Holmes, Cumberbatch/Freeman for adapted Holmes.
Also, props to Michael Caine and Ben Kingsley in my favorite comedy Holmes, “Without a Clue”. Love that film.
No love for Without a Clue? 
Only from us, Quartz. But the love is deep and abiding.
I liked “Without a Clue,” but, then, I also liked “Sherlock Holmes’ Smarter Brother.” Far from great, but worth seeing for larfs.
SHSB is particularly noteworthy for that one, brief rooftop scene where Wilder drops the mask of pretense, and lets his character’s inner pain show. For just one brief few seconds. One of the most poignant “serious” moments in the heart of a comedy movie I can think of.
Then…he starts pulling duplicate scrolls of paper out of his coat, like Harpo with the silverware. Elegant.