User reviews

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.

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.

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.

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

-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 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.

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.

I agree with most of the other 1 star comments. The high ratings must have been written by friends of friends.

Bad cast, silly plot, poor script and a complete waste of time. The only reason I watched it was because I have to watch all the Holmes films. I think the caste must all be friends of friends. Sherlock did not have any gravitas. He was smaller than Watson, too soft spoken and looks like a cockney gangster. Modern actors just can't do convincing posh accents any more. Rubbish diction and even more rubbish script.

If it was a parody or a comedy it would merit 3 or 4 stars. As an example of a naff film it gets 10.

When you have so many great and good productions to compete with you have to produce something that gets close to the required standards of excellence. And this does not get anywhere near.

If this had been made by a competent production team it could easily have been shown on BBC or ITV as a Holmes special BUT it wasn't and it is so badly made that it could be used to show film students classic mistakes to avoid. The main problem is the lighting which is so poor it is hard often to see what is going on, not much better is the sound which is muffled so you can't make out the dialogue, the sets and costumes are historically inaccurate etc etc. On the plus side the acting isn't too bad, the plot is no more preposterous than your average episode of Dr Who but really save yourself 90 mins - watch a Jeremy Brett or even a Rathbone

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.

Really bad, not even funny. Bad acting, bad writing, bad special effects. I gave it two stars because some of the steam-punk-style gear and gadgets were kind of cool. But not even remotely enough to save a film with little discernible storyline. Our motivation-less villain hammed it up to the point of silliness, Watson did not seem to have read the script and had no idea what was going on (neither did the audience!), and Holmes was phoning in this performance. Now, I didn't expect much from this production company (it is a low-budget schlock-shop), but usually I get a story I can follow. The Asylum really slipped up this time.

I can't say it's a disappointment because I had no particular expectations, so I couldn't have been disappointed. Yet there were too many odd elements in the film. It was disturbing, really.

First, and most important, Ben Snyder as Sherlock Holmes doesn't pack enough juice into the role. It's not that he gives a poor performance, just that he's miscast. It's easy to be spoiled after a diet of Basil Rathbone and Jeremy Brett, true, but Snyder is too short, a little frail, and has a high piping voice that, with the aid of the poor sound, tends to cloak the dialog. He's not Sherlock Holmes, although he'd probably make a fine subordinate character -- not a greengrocer, maybe, but a greengrocer's shop assistant. Gareth David-Lloyd does better with Dr. Watson and Lestrade is about right.

It was directed by Rachel Goldenberg. Along with her DP, she decided to shoot it all in a kind of gloomy sepia atmosphere, in a London where the sun never shines. Lots of old-fashioned industrial junk in the settings, giant gears wheels, walking beams, and perambulating mechanical dinosaurs. She spends about ten minutes on a scene of Watson clambering up and down the face of a cliff that would have been more effective in half that time. There are some noisy clashing flashbacks to events that last only an instant and come straight from CSI. And there are a few insignificant anachronisms. (The telephone wasn't widely accepted in 1888; it came into use after it was adopted by Queen Victoria later.) It owes little to Conan-Doyle except the handful of principal characters. Holmes gets to pull of two or three of his amazing deductive stunts, including diagnosing a case of mercury poisoning (or something) in a cadaver he's no more than glanced at. Even here, Mycroft has become Thorpe, for some reason. It isn't insulting, an offense to one's sensibilities.

If there's nothing else on, and if you're not a purist, it's worth watching, but it's not worth seeking out.