Sherlock Holmes (2010 Video) User Reviews

As if a Sherlock Holmes story was written by someone on LSD.

[planktonrules · 2/10 · 4 February 2013]

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.

Sure like this Sherlock! Wait, no I don't! No, wait, I do! I think...

[mikemdp · 3/10 · 20 January 2012]

OK, so maybe this "Sherlock" is really named "Robert." Maybe he never says Sherlocky things like "Elementary, my dear Watson," never wears a double-brimmed cap, and is built like a one of those little lawn jockey guys who hold the lantern.

So maybe there's a giant, metal dragon, dinosaurs that walk around and roar and that's about it, a kraken (!) for no discernible reason and some flying creatures that appear in the trailer but I don't remember actually showing up in the film.

So maybe this Sherlock (sorry, "Robert") never actually deduces anything, never solves a mystery, never uses a magnifying glass to look at a clue. Maybe all he does is fly around in a hot air balloon and fight a guy in a metal suit that producers must have thought looks cool like "Iron Man" but is more humorously reminiscent of some 1950s B-movie robot.

Let's say all of this is true. Because it is. Does all that necessarily make it a bad movie? No! Absolutely not! I mean, yes! Absolutely so! I mean... I mean...

I mean, it's really hard to think now that this movie has turned my brain into Dippin' Dots.

Strange film, not very good but sort of entertaining.

[poolandrews · 4/10 · 23 April 2010]

Sherlock Holmes starts in the English Channel as a ship called the Corronett is sunk by what looks like a huge Octopus, the lone survivor is interviewed by Inspector LeStrade (William Huw) & the world's foremost detective Sherlock Holmes (Ben Syder) & his trusty sidekick Doctor Watson (Gareth David-Lloyd). LeStarde & Watson believe the babblings of sea monsters to be nonsense but Holmes is not so sure, then after reading an article in a local paper about a monster attacking a prostitute & her client Holmes starts to wonder. Holmes investigates & uncovers a diabolical plot by a madman to blow up Buckingham Palace & kill the Queen while destroying London using robotic monsters & Dinosaur's, it's up to Holmes & Watson to prevent the total destruction of London & save the lives of those who live there...

Directed by Rachel Goldenberg this was The Asylum's attempt to cash-in on the big budget Hollywood flick Sherlock Holmes (2209) with Robert Downey Jr. as the famous detective created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, as far as Mockbusters go this is quite entertaining in a really daft sort of way but it still has many flaws & ultimately is a bit of a mess. As well as creating the worlds most famous detective Sherlock Holmes author Doyle also wrote The Lost World which featured monsters & Dinosaur's much like this film does & I am wondering if the makers just combined Doyle's two most famous literally works to come up with this & somehow create a world modelled on Doyle's novels, or then again maybe it's to appeal to the Sci-Fi Channel crowd. The script is a bit of a mess really, from monsters to robots to bizarre plans to blow up the Queen & destroy London by an ex-policeman who miraculously turned into a complete genius & created a living robotic suit, a full on perfect android & huge mechanical monsters to a huge robotic Dragon flying around London at the end which is destroyed by a hot air balloon. Sherlock Holmes has a sense of fun adventure running through it but all the plot holes & weak narrative doesn't help you get involved in the story or character's. How did an ordinary policeman become an absolute genius? What was in the syringe that Watson stuck in that robot woman's neck? Why did stop the bomb going off? How could this guy build huge monsters without anyone noticing? Despite being one of the smartest people alive Sherlock Holmes lets his best friend Watson hang over the side of a cliff with nothing more than a rope loosely tied around him & I can't believe no-one (IE the British public & that woman at the start in a prologue set a few years in the future as Watson is an old man) would not notice or remember a huge fire breathing flying Dragon destroying London. It's the sort of thing people would probably remember. The Sherlock character is pretty much wasted here, he doesn't do much detective work & all the answers fall on his lap & the plot twist about halfway through is far too predictable. At a shade under 90 minutes it moves along at a decent pace & is one of the better rip-off's from The Asylum but that's hardly any sort of recommendation, is it? The script retains various points & people from the original novels including Inspector LeStrade, Baker Street & Watson.

This is maybe the best looking film from The Asylum, shot here in the UK in Wales it looks pretty nice actually although the makers obviously know nothing of the geography of Buckingham Palace & it's surroundings. There's a giant Octopus, a T-Rex type Dinosaur & a really rather cool looking chrome metallic fire breathing Dragon in this, the CGI computer effects are much better than usual for The Asylum & some are actually fairly decent, a few of the Dragon shots in particular as it flies around Big Ben setting the surrounding buildings on fire are fairy impressive. I wonder if the giant Octopus at the start is a cheeky little in-house reference to The Asylum's notoriously bad Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus (2009)? Rated PG this is mild stuff, when people are shot there's no blood for instance & the violence is kept to a minimum.

Probably filmed on a low budget by general film standards but fairly high with regard to The Asylum's usual output this doesn't look too bad with decent effects & some nice production design. The acting isn't great, Ben Syder as Holmes is very flat, Watson has more personality as Watson while the main villain really hams it up.

Sherlock Holmes was only made because of the big budget Hollywood flick & as such is a cheap cash-in but it does have a certain unusual charm in it's oddness, part detective story, part fantasy, part action adventure & part drama this strange adaptation of Sherlock Holmes is a likable if not exactly brilliant curiosity.

What did I just watch

[michael_frame · 1/10 · 18 January 2011]

You know when you're bored and it's time to watch a movie, yet there's nothing on the box and you're fed up watching Scarface for the 67th time, what do you do? Pop over to your neighbours and ask him if he's anything to watch. I did just that, and guess what he gave me? Yes, you guessed correctly: Sherlock Holmes. "But that's not Jude Law and RDJ" I said, to which my neighbour replied, "no, it's not" OK, let's give it a try. I popped the kettle on, made a brew, sat back and pressed play on my remote control... to quote Jack Lemmon: "It's magic time" Sadly, it quickly became 'Tragic time' I got past the opening scene, and then onto the scene where Holmes enters the room where Watson is about to cut into the corpse, Holmes mentions that it is ten o clock, you can actually see Holmes eyes looking up and to his right at the clock and you'll notice that the hands on the clock suggest that it's actually 25mins to 2. I got no further than that. Enough said. I thank you.

P S - My neighbour told me to throw it in the bin after I'd watched it.

Horrific choice for Sherlock Holmes

[pennygerken · 1/10 · 6 July 2010]

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.

Another beautiful mess from The Asylum

[ersinkdotcom · 5/10 · 26 February 2010]

What does a mini Tyrannosaurus rex, a giant squid, a steampunk mistress, and Iron Man all have in common with Sherlock Holmes? You can't really think of anything or a way they could mix together? Well, neither could I, until I saw The Asylum's version of Sherlock Holmes.

As is usual with The Asylum releases, this came out about three days after Guy Ritchie's Sherlock Holmes. Obviously, it's a completely different animal than the theatrical film. This is a crazy mix of Sherlock Holmes, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and the Wild, Wild West movie with Will Smith. Still not excited? The cinematography is what I've come to expect. A lot of odd close-up shots during action sequences, sometimes to help keep the special effects budget down. There's a lot of monster point-of-view where the camera barrels through the forest, chasing Holmes and Watson or attacking someone.

The acting is not too bad. First-timer Ben Snyder plays Holmes, and he kind of just literally walks through his part. He walks through the woods, the streets of London, the backalleys of the slums, the seaside, you name it. Other than that, he pretty much relies on Watson (played by Torchwood's Gareth David-Lloyd) to do all his dirty work. That dirty work includes an extremely overlong repelling trip down the side of a cliff which was obviously meant to create tension and put you on the edge of your seat, but ends up taking so long and being so over-dramatic you actually start hoping he'll just fall. Surprisingly, David-Lloyd must have gotten paid enough to be in the entire film since he actually figures into almost every scene.

Besides Gareth David-Lloyd, there's another genre-related "big name" actor that is added to the cast to help attract fans to to the movie. They must have really had to push the budget to get two relatively "big" actors in one film. This time, it's Dominic Keating from Enterprise, Beowulf, and Heroes. He plays Sherlock Holmes' brother, who also goes by the name of Spring-Heeled Jack (seeming to have no connection to the character of folklore). No, it's not Mycroft. Apparently another brother we've never heard of who was injured in the line of duty exists and now has a robot / steampunk-looking body that is reminiscent of Iron Man. He barely ever wears the helmet for the suit, but it really does look kind of cool. Of course, it feels like Keating did just enough work to merit him being featured on the cover of the DVD to help promote it.

The special effects and makeup work all look pretty good. It's a little bizarre seeing a mini T-rex running around the London redlight district. The giant octopus tentacles that destroy the ship at the beginning of the movie look strangely similar to the ones used in Mega Shark VS Giant Octopus.

The "Making-of" featurette was actually pretty cool. It gave me a little more appreciation for The Asylum films. It really does appear that the filmmakers actually care about their little movies. It seems like they're handed a script, told how long they have to shoot (in this case 13 days), and bang out the films with little or no pre-production. The guys that do the makeup and costumes actually put quite a bit of work into their individual tasks for the film.

This flick will fit nicely on SyFy's Saturday night line-up, which is where The Asylum has it custom-fitted for. It's definitely no worse than anything else shown in that time slot. It's crazy, but I actually think these films are fun and look forward to them. My wife, who can't stand B-flicks, even sat through this. That is a living testament alone.

To call it "bad" is charitable

[steven_hill · 25 October 2011]

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.

Not the worst I've seen Asylum do...but still only passably decent

[Jan-lissens-725-159271 · 5/10 · 29 April 2010]

As a devout fan of this immortal Conan Doyle character, one would think that I would be happy with two adaptations in the same year...

The Guy Ritchie film had a large budget, terrific actors...and was horrible. This movie had no budget, newbie actors...and rather managed to come off slightly less horrible.

**** Minor Spoilers ahead ******** The plot was decent enough, if not far-fetched, but the mechanical monsters were a bit too cyberpunk for a good Holmes story. Special effects were cheap but passable and within the line of expectations for an this kind of production.

Inventing a new brother for Sherlock was a mistake, but I could have accepted it for this movie and then have forgotten about him.

The scenery and photography was actually quite good. Visually, the movie was above parr for Asylum. Accents and local traits were well-portrayed, if not a tad on the charicatural side. Acting was acceptable, except for...

The extremely poor, horrible choice for the actor playing Sherlock. Not that he didn't try, but he was absolutely and horribly miscast. His Holmes was anything but, he was to short, had all the wrong looks ans the wrong attitude...the list goes on.This was the only thing that really turned me off the movie. I admit to being difficult in this respect, measuring every actor that plays Holmes to the IMHO immortal performances of the likes of Sir Basil Rathbone and especially Jeremy Brett. To Snyder's defense: Robert Downey portrayed an equally disappointing Holmes in the Ritchie movie. If it had had an even passable Holmes, I would have actually liked the movie.

Still, I would not want to turn anyone off it. Go and see it, make up your own mind. Don't shoot anyone if you don't like it. Nobody ever said this is supposed to be Oscar material...It has its good points, and if you can get beyond the totally un-Holmes-like Holmes, you might even like it.

Not even bad in a good way, just tedious and dumb

[adamwho · 1/10 · 27 January 2010]

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.

Not a good movie, but not a bad one either

[TheLittleSongbird · 5/10 · 9 March 2011]

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

Atrocious... in every conceivable way

[Sjhm · 1/10 · 19 June 2010]

Unfortunately, this website does not permit a minus rating, nor even a Turkey (0) rating. The part that is really infuriating was that I could see places where, with a soupçon more effort and a better script, this might actually have been quite exciting.

The monsters simply weren't. The opening sequence had really nothing to do with the rest of the story, apart from introducing the concept of monsters. The dinosaur was ludicrous and there was no real sense of menace, the dragon marginally better, but still seriously flawed.

The action sequences looked and felt as if they had been gathered up from the cutting room floor where they had spliced together an episode of Dr Who, followed by The League of ExtraOrdinary Gentlemen.

The cast wandered aimlessly about in this mess, the script started ideas and then abandoned them, I wondered if there was a director at one point.

The worst fault of all was in the casting of Holmes. Ben Snyder simply did not have the gravitas, the authority, to carry off the character of Holmes. The character which has something of a reputation for absorbing the lives of the actors who play him was simply flat and lifeless in Mr Snyder's hands. In the end, I could not decide if I was annoyed or merely depressed by this film. Since I normally like this sort of thing that is a sad reflection to have.

Sherlock and Watson tackle an evil plot that strikes very close to home.

[hopehoover · 10/10 · 28 July 2010]

This movie is ripe for a complete giggle, (cause who doesn't love giant mechanical Velociraptors running murderously amok in Victorian England) I HIGHLY suggest this very camp movie. It features Gareth David-Lloyd (Ianto on Torchwood) playing a very long-suffering Watson. The actor playing Holmes (Ben Syder), couldn't act his way out of a wet paper sack in the beginning. But that awkwardness actually worked for this production. Ben had all the introductory charm and skill of Zooey Deschanel in part 1 of "Tin Man" (WHich is to say he had none at all) But he eventually warmed into the silliest, most foible ridden and yet valiant version of Holmes. And I came to really like him in the role--delicate, skinny thing that he is. (Really, do men actually have bones that tiny!!!!) It was a shocker at first. Ben Syder walks in as Holmes, and you think "He's got the nose, he's got the thin build." But then Ben opens his mouth on screen for the first time and I was like "Oh Noes! Holmes must have lost his testicles in a freak lab accident!"

All the same, there's many reasons to love this movie--not the least of which is that one just can't seem to not laugh... HARD! In the end, it was truly Wonderful stuff! The plot(lessness) was such steampunk hilarity that it is truly a 'must see' for a lighthearted Holmesian experience. (A creepy mechanical nurse, an evil Thorpe Holmes(read Mycroft)--that is worse than Moriarty could ever be, and a poor, unfortunate LeStrade bound intractably to Thorpe!Mycroft's terrible past finish out this amazingly weird, quirky jaunt into utter spoofery.)

Did I mention the "sort of" durigible, the steam-driven dragon, the "maybe" Kraken, the convenient castle with the laboratory, the mechanical suit of armor, the highly improbable (yet perfectly delicious)science, the six pence whore, and lots of explosions? This movie was obviously made by dedicated fans of Sherlock Holmes who were also on the shallow end of the Steampunk pool. They had more budget than they deserved and less than they needed and I hug my copy of this riotous mess of a movie every week. I love it!

The horrid effects aren't that horrid when you look back at movies of the past. We're just a bit spoiled on big budget CGI these days.

Just be prepared to hand over your willing suspension of disbelief to one of Scotland Yard's finest to stuff in a bag and beat to death with a stick. You'll be fine.

A Mockbuster better than most

[JoeB131 · 6/10 · 13 February 2010]

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.

Totally Awful

[bogiegal · 1/10 · 26 March 2010]

I watched this on Movies on Demand at home. Even with the sound set at 98, I could not hear nor could I understand the actors. The lighting was so poor I could not make out at least 70% of the scenes. The plot line was so hard to follow (the sound was part of that). I never understood where the brother got the money to build the sea monster, or if he built his robot girlfriend. Instead of spending all the budget on special effects that didn't add much to the movie as a whole, they should have invested more in the staging. I chose this movie because so many of the other selections seemed shallow. The fact is, this movie was trite, and wouldn't end. Proceed at your own peril.

Sherlock Holmes and the case of 'what were they thinking'

[littleblackjcb · 1/10 · 21 May 2010]

Watson is more assertive and the stronger character than Holmes, I hope the casting manager cashed the cheque for casting Holmes quickly; Lestrade sounds as if he has escaped from a bad episode of 'East Enders'; the dialogue is frequently drowned out and inaudible over the scene music. On the up side the scenery and sets were excellent, effects good but storyline with another Holmes brother being a police officer weak. Definitely a rent and not buy movie, if you are really stuck for making up a fourth film to get the 4 for 3 rentals deal. The sleeve comment from Blockbuster UK " In an EXtraordinary league of it own" is true, this film is just too bad to even put with 'The Postman'. The trailer is the best part of the film.

An insult to Sir Arthur

[daswitzer · 1/10 · 18 October 2019]

As a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes movies, this film disgusted me. I only finished it because like others on here, I want to watch every Sherlock Holmes movie. I just hope that this film is not the only Holmes movies that new watchers see and get the idea that this is what a Sherlock Holmes movie is supposed to be like. And where was the mystery in all of this hogwash? Ridiculous in every way. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle along with Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce, whom I consider the best Holmes/Watson duo would all turn over in their graves at this monstrosity.

Once seen, never forgotten - not neccessarily in a good way!

[one9eighty · 4/10 · 14 March 2018]

OMG this has to be one of the best bad films I've seen in a while!!

As well as Sherlock Holmes expect to see a Velociraptor, a giant squid, a bit of steampunk, a prototype Iron Man suit, spring-heeled Jack (not THE spring heeled jack - random brother of Holmes that nobody has ever heard of) and a lot more bonkers in this Asylum film.

Ben Snyder is cast as the central hero in the film, basically everything about the film is set up to be a vehicle for him - unfortunately he won't be winning any pats on the back, he's awful, and its the others in the cast that save him at times. His cockiness becomes down right annoying and my TV was lucky not to have been smashed up as a result of his levels of smug. Bearing in mind that there are dinosaurs and steampunk elements don't expect an accurate portrayal of the time it's set in - heck, don't expect the plot to be any good either. You'll spend my time confuddled that in enjoyment, but it's not the worst Asylum film I've seen this year!!! I can only assume this film was created to cash in on other Holmes based films which have been launched at around the same time. Might be worth a watch if you are drunk or maybe if you enjoy bad films, if you expect a vehicle to suspend your disbelief look elsewhere. 4/10 is generous.

not quite as bad as you might think

[Brucey_D · 5/10 · 28 August 2018]

-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.

Just Plain Bad

[Polychrome9 · 2/10 · 1 September 2013]

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.

An Unmitigated Mess

[Abbykat · 1/10 · 30 January 2010]

If you're looking for a Sherlock Holmes adventure... this is not one.

Don't get me wrong, in some ways it's an admirable effort for an Asylum production - they actually have a costume budget, for one thing. Ben Syder makes a good effort at portraying Holmes, but his reedy voice makes him hard to take seriously in the role, even before the plot goes off the rails. As for the plot, Holmes' skills as a detective don't end up counting for much, given that the most crucial elements of the mystery take him entirely by surprise and he ends up resolving matters mostly by way of an aerial battle between a clockwork dragon and a super-powered hot air balloon with an on-board Gatling gun.

Anachronisms abound, but there's no point in getting worked up about them in a movie that features dinosaur attacks on the streets of Whitechapel. It would never have been a serious movie, but it could have been effective as pure over-the-top entertainment if anyone involved in writing the plot had actually read a Sherlock Holmes story at any point. Instead, the plot hinges upon Holmes having an older brother named Thorpe who was once a Scotland Yard inspector. Don't look for him in any of the books; they made him up out of nowhere. Also, Holmes' name is Robert for some reason.

And then there's also the problem that most plot elements are never explained. Once the movie has successfully gotten to its action stage, all bets are off, and the audience is left to speculate for themselves as to how things are supposed to fit together. Which would be forgivable in a pure action flick, but just doesn't work in a mystery, especially not one ostensibly starring Sherlock Holmes.

You've got to be kidding!!

[kjruk · 1/10 · 2 May 2010]

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.

Good view of the late 19th Century

[jeremy3 · 8/10 · 15 February 2022]

Although the movie was fanatastic, I feel that this film keeps within the spirit of what life was like over a century ago. The setting looks authentically like things probably looked like back then. Also, by the late 19th Century, the World was modernizing quite rapidly. There already had been balloons since the late 18th Century, and a flying machine was the obsession. All the crafts were part of the dreams of the time. I also think that the relationship between Holnes and Watson was very authentic. Of course, I love the Rathbone-Bruce films, but Rathbone was a dramatic stage actor. Bruce's caricturization of Holmes was pleasant, but flaky. This Holmes was much more of an equal to Holmes. Holmes was portrayed more like a gentleman policeman. He was not as charming and witty as Rathbone's portrayal, but instead had a rather cold, methodical intelligence. Overall, I was surprised how good this film is.

What an odd, odd little film!

[profligate · 7/10 · 7 February 2010]

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.

Bad casting, awful script, cheap attempt at capitalizing off of recent blockbuster

[daniel-l-kelly · 1/10 · 5 February 2010]

Yeah this script sucks and is a cheap attempt at capitalizing off of the recent Sherlock Holmes blockbuster.

The acting isn't all that bad, in fact that's the best part of it.

The casting for Holmes is a girly guy that has no ability to project a forceful voice. He speaks fast and under his breath and it's usually impossible to tell what he's saying. Watson's actor is a better cast but still speaks too fast on occasion. Lestrade is poorly cast as well.

The Script? So laughable. It would have us believe, that in 1880 the following technologies were available:

Flying machine that flys by flapping wings and has an enormous body and tail, contains a flame thrower and air to ground missiles. Power source unknown. It looks like a full blown dragon and flys like one as well.

Another flying machine that is a combo hot air balloon / helicopter.

Submarine capable of deploying a giant sea monster automaton that is large enough to capture and crush a full size 3 mast sailing ship.

A robot/automaton powered by clockwork that has artificial intelligence capable of entering in intelligent conversation and beautiful enough for Watson to fall for, but yet not important enough that the villain uses it as a simple suicide bomber. Automaton also has tracking capability and AI enabling it to tell when it's master is in trouble and fire a gun at the perpetrator. Robot is still in operation 60 years later after original master is dead. (I guess it just winds itself eh?) Fire breathing T-Rex robot capable of jumping, and running fast enough to catch and kill people.

Don't waste your time on this and please don't pay to see this, no need to reward the imbeciles that subjected me to this.

Student Film

[ps-614-910386 · 1/10 · 1 May 2010]

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