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.

What an odd, odd little film. It's one of those where as you watch it you wonder how the producers raised the money to make it, but yet you are sort of glad they did. Two of the most notable characters, Sherlock Holmes himself, played by Ben Syder, and the intriguing, interesting Elizabeth Arends, have very thin CVs, this being their first commercial film, are actors I hope to see again in future films simply based on their performance here. Not all actors in this creatively low-budget flick are new comers. Gareth David-Lloyd who plays Watson, and Dominic Keating, who plays Holmes brother, are both established actors with substantial bodies of work. It is puzzling that screenwriter Paul Bales (100 Million BC and Reasonable Doubt) named Holmes' brother Thorp. Conan Doyle named Sherlock's brother Mycroft. Mostly, though, the story is consistent with details established by Conan Doyle. This story has nothing to do with stories written by Conan Doyle and the basis for the plot seems an insoluble enigma in offering an explanation for notable events in London of 1882 that in reality never happened. The film is short enough to remain interesting and entertaining. Don't take it too seriously, sit back and be enjoyably baffled by this cinematic curiosity.

Well, I have to say this one was actually a nice surprise. I'd give any movie a chance, and even after I've seen some really bad stuff from Asylum (famous for their , I still keep an eye on whatever they come up with.

"Princess of Mars" was a step forward, could be good, it had not bad SFX and kinda retro Flash Gordon atmosphere, but Traci Lords as a princess... Give me a break! Well, this Holmes movie, as far as it is from anything Holmes written by Arthur Conan Doyle, is actually pretty entertaining and looks very good! I'd say it's a really decent production, with good actors and very good effects, given its low budget. It's not cutting edge CGI, but it does the trick and creates a certain feel to the whole thing. What you see on screen is as good as the BBC or Hallmark adventure movies from the beginning of the 2000s. The script could use some polishing, but I won't grumble about it. If you chose to see a Sherlock Holmes movie with a giant octopus, a dragon and a Tyranosaurus on the cover, what the hell did you expect? I admit, I had low expectations, but I couldn't resist that poster, so I just had to give it a try... and I don't regret! Speampunk flavored mystery with a twist ending :) Don't expect a masterpiece, but enjoy the movie for what it is!

I would compare this movie to pond scum, if not for the fact that it would be an insult to pond scum.

The acting is terrible, and - worse - the plot is nonsensical. Silly plot points are particularly troubling for a Sherlock Homes film, as the stories typically rely on intellectual consistency and insights. The fact that this film involves monsters and the White Chapel murders means it's not even suitable for children. As such, it's difficult to imagine how production was ever financed. A rich relative or generous government subsidies, perhaps? Ben Snyder's take on Sherlock Holmes is insipid ... but he certainly isn't helped by the stiff dialog.

-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.