Sherlock Holmes

When I rented this Sherlock Holmes film from Netflix, I just naturally assumed it would be like most Holmes films--either a retelling of an original Conan Doyle tale or perhaps a story inspired by the originals. However, when I received the disc and read through the summary, I was shocked to see that it involved dinosaurs, monsters and other fantastic things--stuff I thought I'd NEVER find in a Sherlock Holmes story! Now I am a purist--so much so that I won't even watch the new Robert Downey Jr. Holmes films. To me, Jeremy Brett is THE Sherlock Holmes, as he's very close to the Holmes of the original stories. So, I immediately thought of just sending this bizarre new version back without watching it--but, against my better judgment, I decided to watch it. And, sadly, I now feel a bit stupider from the experience.

In "Sherlock Holmes", Holmes and Watson look nothing I had ever imagined them. Both were awfully young and could have used haircuts. But, at least this Holmes didn't smoke the stereotypical style pipe or wear the dearstalker cap--things not found in the Conan Doyle stories--so I'll bump its score to a generous 2. But as for the rest, it didn't impress me. Holmes seemed to have little regard for Watson and he seemed to care little about risking his associate's life--something very atypical for the character. In the stories, Watson was neither a slave, pet or expendable--he was Holmes' friend and never would Holmes have so cavalierly risked his friend's life. And, for some bizarre reason, Sherlock's brother is NOT Mycroft (like he was in the stories) and he calls his famous detective brother 'Robert'. Huh?! Now I am, perhaps, focusing on unimportant details. After all, while the characters are NOT done correctly, it's a minor problem when you think about EVERYTHING ELSE IN THIS MOVIE!!! To say it's a bit anachronistic is like saying WWII was a bit of a tiff! It even made the horrible film "The Wild, Wild West" look reasonable in comparison!! It seems that a mad man has come up with all sorts of cool things--like a robot suit, immunosuppressants (and they actually use this very modern medical term in the film), giant flying monsters, discussions of neurons and a whole of other crap that made absolutely no sense in the 19th century. Plus, Watson's revolver can fire at least 7 shots without being reloaded--because the film folks never bothered to count the shots to make sure it made any sense. Probably this is because either they didn't care or they were all using LSD. Either way, NOTHING about the film makes sense, none of it is good and it's all a horrid little mess designed to be enjoyed by incredibly stupid people. Dumb and a waste of time from start to finish. Some people should really feel ashamed for having produced this mess.

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.

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.

-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.

I wouldn't call this a good film but I found it to be charming in an amateurish way. It's rather like watching 1960's Star Trek or Doctor Who with modern-day eyes - it's corny and the special effects aren't great but it can be entertaining if you know you're not watching modern-day entertainment.

The production values, dialogue and direction aren't great and there isn't much in the way of dramatic acting until the climax of the film - the actor playing Holmes is particularly un-dramatic and speaks too softly for a leading man - but both Holmes and Watson are charming in their own way and have a playful chemistry together. Gareth David-Lloyd makes a sweet but quiet Watson who's a bit slow as times (though he gets to help save the day in small ways) and Dominic Keating isn't used all that much until the final 30 minutes of the film but he gives the strongest performance of all the actors involved.

The story wasn't too bad if you don't think about it too much - the bad guy (partly out of revenge) wants to use steam punk monsters to wreak havoc on London - but it is over-the-top at times (especially the part involving a hot-air ballon) and I wouldn't buy this film for the story alone. I have to say that I understood the story more on second viewing.

So overall, I wouldn't advise people to buy this film if they're looking for a professional movie to watch but if you're in the mood to watch something silly with friends that involves Sherlock Holmes, mechanical monsters and a cheap 19th century backdrop (and you don't mind films that have a cheap feel to them) give this a go.

For a mock-buster film, I'd give this 6 out of 10. For a film in general, I'd give it 3 out of 10.