CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
3.4/10
2.2 k
TU CALIFICACIÓN
Agrega una trama en tu idiomaSherlock Holmes and Watson are on the trail of a criminal and scientific mastermind who seems to control monsters and creations which defy belief.Sherlock Holmes and Watson are on the trail of a criminal and scientific mastermind who seems to control monsters and creations which defy belief.Sherlock Holmes and Watson are on the trail of a criminal and scientific mastermind who seems to control monsters and creations which defy belief.
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Opiniones destacadas
Okay, Asylum. We know your routine. Get some public domain property to do a "Mockbuster" of a new release, put a washed up star in a minor role so you can put his name first on the cover, proceed to decorate with cheap CGI.
Usually, what you get is pretty contemptible, like Hunter v. Alien or King of the Lost World. This, on the other hand, was actually okay.
First, they were truer to the character of Holmes and Watson than the Guy Ritchie abortion recently released. It would appear the writers actually READ something by Arthur Conan Doyle. Okay, maybe the story was a tad far-fetched. (Mechanical monsters in 1882 London? For that matter, Telephones in 1882 London, and ones that looked more like c. 1930 models.) But the relationship between Holmes, Watson and Lestrade was about right. They also didn't go for the cheap shot of making Moriarity the villain.
The only letdown is the actor who played Holmes. His voice was a bit too high and his mannerisms a bit too effeminate, compared to let's say Basil Rathbone or Jeremy Brett. But the very fact I feel the need to make those comparisons is really a step up for the Asylum...
One more note. The whole movie seems to have been filmed through a sepia filter. I guess that was the only way they could make it look more old time than it would otherwise.
Usually, what you get is pretty contemptible, like Hunter v. Alien or King of the Lost World. This, on the other hand, was actually okay.
First, they were truer to the character of Holmes and Watson than the Guy Ritchie abortion recently released. It would appear the writers actually READ something by Arthur Conan Doyle. Okay, maybe the story was a tad far-fetched. (Mechanical monsters in 1882 London? For that matter, Telephones in 1882 London, and ones that looked more like c. 1930 models.) But the relationship between Holmes, Watson and Lestrade was about right. They also didn't go for the cheap shot of making Moriarity the villain.
The only letdown is the actor who played Holmes. His voice was a bit too high and his mannerisms a bit too effeminate, compared to let's say Basil Rathbone or Jeremy Brett. But the very fact I feel the need to make those comparisons is really a step up for the Asylum...
One more note. The whole movie seems to have been filmed through a sepia filter. I guess that was the only way they could make it look more old time than it would otherwise.
This is a movie about one man - Ben Syder and his destruction of the character of Sherlock Holmes. I am astonished and appalled that such a hopelessly poor actor should have made it through the initial casting process. He would have been laughed out of any amateur audition. Forget the height, voice and mannerisms, just focus on the terrible, terrible acting. I can honestly say it's the worst I have ever seen.
And this is a great pity as the filming, sets, costumes and indeed, the other actors, are all very good.
Someone else suggested that he may well be the Director's son - I only hope he has that excuse.
And this is a great pity as the filming, sets, costumes and indeed, the other actors, are all very good.
Someone else suggested that he may well be the Director's son - I only hope he has that excuse.
This is an astounding terrible movie which obviously had a pretty significant budget
To be fair here are some good points, effects, filming and sets.
Everything else was painful to watch without fast forwarding Pointless dialog Completely wrong casting for Sherlock Holmes Plot with so many holes discontinuities and absurdities Editing. If this film was edited at all it would be about 30 min long. It has many pointless scenes which add nothing to the story Bizarre non-Sherlock Holmes characters... like a brother named Thorpe who worked with Lestrade???
Definitely one of the worse movies I have ever seen and it isn't even bad in a good way, just tedious and dumb.
To be fair here are some good points, effects, filming and sets.
Everything else was painful to watch without fast forwarding Pointless dialog Completely wrong casting for Sherlock Holmes Plot with so many holes discontinuities and absurdities Editing. If this film was edited at all it would be about 30 min long. It has many pointless scenes which add nothing to the story Bizarre non-Sherlock Holmes characters... like a brother named Thorpe who worked with Lestrade???
Definitely one of the worse movies I have ever seen and it isn't even bad in a good way, just tedious and dumb.
Sherlock Holmes is not a good movie by a long shot, but in comparison to some of the other movies Asylum has churned out it is not that bad either.
I do agree it does have its problems. The film is low budget, and some of it does show, as some of the production values while not terrible are not great. Some of the editing could have been better, while the film is dully lit and some of the sets, locations and costumes are just okay if somewhat uninteresting. The dinosaur and dragon are quite good though. The film is too short, and I think too rushed as well, and while it was nice to listen to the soundtrack was forgettable soon after. Ben Syder does do what he can with the iconic detective known as Sherlock Holmes but I couldn't help thinking in terms of mannerisms and appearance he was miscast.
However, the direction was decent, as was the script which had some nice touches without being entirely exceptional. While it does have its holes and quite strange in its feel, the story is an interesting one and entertaining enough if you don't think about it too much, the villain is enjoyable and there are some good performances from Gareth David as a more quiet and composed Watson and Dominic Keating. Elizabeth Arends is lovely, and the climax was diverting and much better than I expected.
Overall, there is nothing outstanding on display, and those who are looking for a faithful adaptation will be disappointed. But it is mildly entertaining with some good things if you don't take it too seriously. 5/10 Bethany Cox
I do agree it does have its problems. The film is low budget, and some of it does show, as some of the production values while not terrible are not great. Some of the editing could have been better, while the film is dully lit and some of the sets, locations and costumes are just okay if somewhat uninteresting. The dinosaur and dragon are quite good though. The film is too short, and I think too rushed as well, and while it was nice to listen to the soundtrack was forgettable soon after. Ben Syder does do what he can with the iconic detective known as Sherlock Holmes but I couldn't help thinking in terms of mannerisms and appearance he was miscast.
However, the direction was decent, as was the script which had some nice touches without being entirely exceptional. While it does have its holes and quite strange in its feel, the story is an interesting one and entertaining enough if you don't think about it too much, the villain is enjoyable and there are some good performances from Gareth David as a more quiet and composed Watson and Dominic Keating. Elizabeth Arends is lovely, and the climax was diverting and much better than I expected.
Overall, there is nothing outstanding on display, and those who are looking for a faithful adaptation will be disappointed. But it is mildly entertaining with some good things if you don't take it too seriously. 5/10 Bethany Cox
-which is not to say it is actually much good either.....
This film currently has a 3.7 rating on IMDB and I think it (maybe, just,) deserves another star. In terms of quality per £ spent, it mayn't be that bad in fact.
There have been many Sherlock Holmes adaptations over the years and this is definitely one of the less good ones in absolute terms. However it is quite watchable (if unintentionally funny in places) and perhaps serves mainly to show how good some of the other adaptations are.
This film currently has a 3.7 rating on IMDB and I think it (maybe, just,) deserves another star. In terms of quality per £ spent, it mayn't be that bad in fact.
There have been many Sherlock Holmes adaptations over the years and this is definitely one of the less good ones in absolute terms. However it is quite watchable (if unintentionally funny in places) and perhaps serves mainly to show how good some of the other adaptations are.
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaThe "Mockbuster" rival edition of the Guy Ritchie blockbuster with the same title, following the tradition established by The Asylum (2000).
- ErroresIn the opening autopsy scene, Holmes states that it is ten o'clock. Yet the clock on the wall reads 8:05.
- Citas
Sherlock Holmes: My given name is Robert Sherlock Holmes. But who would ever remember a detective called Robert Holmes?
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- País de origen
- Idioma
- También se conoce como
- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes
- Locaciones de filmación
- Productoras
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- USD 1,000,000 (estimado)
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 29 minutos
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 1.78 : 1
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta