Customer Reviews

Sherlock Holmes

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(9)
3 star:		(4)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(9)

 

 

...Sherlock Holmes versus giant monsters? Steampunk body armor? Spring Heeled Jack as the villain? It's a low-budget film that's at least as much about setting Buffy the Vampire Slayer into Victorian England as about the Sherlock Holmes character. As a movie, how is it though? Well, not bad, it's kinda fun, but you have to be willing to stomach the low-cost production (which shows all the way through), some rather campy acting (sorry guys!), and a ridiculous plot. But it is fun!

Negatives:

- Fundamentally dishonest in coming to market with a big Hollywood version of Sherlock Holmes in the theaters (and both versions have steampunked up Victorian London)

- Cheap, cheap, cheap

Positives:

- It's fun and funny

- Much in the tradition of Peter Cushing, Dr. Who, Quartermass, and Hammer Studios

- Do you like Buffy?

- Enormous monsters being fought by Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson (think of it as a reincarnation of the Godzilla vs. INSERT CREATURE HERE movies)

I can best sum this movie up as the Holmesian equivalent of Sharktopus.

If that sentence makes you shudder, for heaven's sake, go watch some Jeremy Brett, because Holmes purists will last about ten minutes before becoming very, very shouty. If it makes you perk up a little and say, "Oh yeah?" then read on.

Everything that can be wrong with a movie is wrong here. The budget is so low that Holmes and Watson get one suit each, and the whole thing appears to have been filmed on the grounds of a large dairy farm. Holmes canon is taken out back early on and shot, like Old Yeller, and it's not a clean kill. I would, in fact, bet money that the screenwriter has never read a Conan Doyle story. There's a dwarf rubber prostitute-eating T-Rex. There's a rubber Kraken -- heck, maybe it is Sharktopus, the lighting's not that great -- that surely cost more to construct than it earns from robbing ships. Did I mention the rubber Kraken robs ships? The rubber Kraken robs ships. I'm still not sure what the T-Rex is for. The historical details are weirdly, hilariously wrong -- London's East End, for example, appears to be both subterranean and lit by masses of candles, like a Sting video. Holmes is teeny and Watson is tall, and their Baker Street digs are within walking distance of a scary forest. There is a climactic aerial battle between a mechanical dragon, piloted by Holmes' evil brother Victorian Iron Man, and a heli-balloon. And Gareth David-Lloyd gives a good performance.

After 15 or 20 minutes, the whole thing becomes so improbable, wrong, and bad that it turns entertaining, and even endearing. I watched it at a big girls' slumber party, and we went from dead silence to delighted incredulity to rolling with laughter. ("It's terrible," said one friend, "but it doesn't hate life.") I suspect a little alcohol might improve the viewing experience even more, but alas, we're all lightweights. I also suspect we'll watch it again.

How "off" can a production get from a target? Well, if you're making this Sherlock Holmes film, I guess that we were lucky they spelled "Sherlock Holmes" correctly...

I actually WANTED to like this movie. I bought it sight unseen and without even any description of the movie (Amazon didn't provide one). I'm a Holmes fan and can find things to like about most productions. I thought that the opening sequence (Watson during the Blitz in the 1940s about to relate an untold Sherlock Holmes tale) was done well and set the tone perfectly.

But then it went downhill. Fast.

You have a Sherlock Holmes who is...well, MOUSEY. He certainly doesn't fit any idea that I've ever had for the character. Holmes wasn't the vibrant soul pushed to solve crimes that you might expect. The screenplay take all sorts of liberties with the Sherlockian history giving Holmes a different brother - a policeman who was paralyzed by a bullet to the back while breaking up a bank robbery with Lestrade as his partner, and (spoiler alert) Sherlock isn't Holmes' real name because who would pay attention to a detective named "Robert?" There is even a hint that it was Watson who started Holmes on the path to cocaine addiction.

The acting was fairly wooden, and the script plodding. That only made the pain last longer.

If there was one bright spot, it was the characterization of Watson. Well done.

All in all, it wasn't worth the watching. Something better just forgotten and move on. Don't buy this. If you feel the need, just rent it. Save your money for pretty much ANY other Holmes movie.

I'm a fan of steampunk. Almost all kinds of steampunk. So a well-executed steampunk retelling of Sherlock Holmes is something that I would normally look forward to...

... unless it was from the Asylum, peddlers of cash-in abominations like "Transmorphers" and "Almighty Thor." Yeah, I made a noise like a strangled squeaky toy when I saw that.

So guess what kind of quality you get in "Sherlock Holmes," which tries to spice up the canonical Holmes mythos with a "lost" tale of robots, dinosaurs, dragons and a giant octopus. The ridiculous sci-fi elements might have actually been entertaining if the acting weren't wretched, the story weren't as holey as moth-eaten lace, and it had a decent Sherlock.

The story is told by a dying Watson during the Blitz: strange animals like a giant octopus and a very small T-rex are popping up around England, and Holmes decides that they must be artificial (since the T-rex stole mechanical components). Somehow this ends up leading them to the Victorian urban legend Spring-Heeled Jack, a person very close to Holmes whose revenge scheme may destroy all of London.

"Sherlock Holmes" is painful to watch, all the more so because it actually could have been fun in a stupid way if a FEW things had been done right. The entire premise is a ridiculous hodgepodge of everything the Asylum thought would be "cool" -- monsters, robots, Spring-Heeled Jack, and a steampunk "Iron Man." And, well, it could have been fun.

Buuuuuttt.... they do everything spectacularly wrong. The direction and cinematography are pretty clumsy and sometimes amateurish, the comic relief is PAINFUL, and the story is brain-meltingly stupid (so... Holmes somehow kept the entire story a closely-guarded secret, even though it involves ships, factories and PARLIAMENT being destroyed by robot monsters?!). And since this is the Asylum, the monsters are about as convincing as Chinese street dragons, but less fun to watch.

But the biggest problem by far is Ben Syder. Who is Ben Syder? Well, you probably have never heard of him, because this is his first, last and only role in ANYTHING. And I can't imagine a LESS convincing Sherlock Holmes. Syder is short, weedy, thin-voiced, hyperactive and completely lacking in charisma, like an annoying cousin who keeps dragging you into bad situations.

For some reason, Dominic Keating and Gareth David Lloyd -- both of whom have been in other movies and TV -- are stuck as the perpetually exasperated Watson, and the sleek Thorpe Holmes (yes, a Holmes brother we never heard of). Both look pretty miserable, and neither really tries that hard.

This "Sherlock Holmes" movie is probably the only one in existence that makes Guy Ritchie's look subtle and faithful to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's writings. It could have been fun steampunk schlock, but is too pitifully inept to manage it.

I had hoped "Can Holmes save London from dinosaurs?" would be a rip-off of a Professor Challenger tale with Holmes replacing Doyle's other series character. No such luck. The dinosaurs turn out to be robots created by a previously unknown brother of Holmes who also cured himself of paralysis by gadgetry that would cost a small fortune today, and now seeks revenge on ex-partner Lestrade.

Somehow Holmes knew this early on from staring at something on the ground.

There's no denying the ending is exciting, but it has no place in a Sherlock Holmes film. It's also is too similar to the one used in the far superior "Great Mouse Detective", which really was a cartoon.

I don't care if the producers were looking to cash in on the recent theatrical film or not. I only care if the film is good or not. This one is not.

Wasn't sure I would like this version but.....it didn't SUCK. The actor who portrayed Sherlock Holmes seemed miscast at first, seriously who could EVER fill Basil Rathbone's shoes, but he grew on me as the movie progressed. Same with Dr. Watson. It was nice to see him portrayed as someone who wasn't quite the 'buffoon' that Nigel Bruce played it.

Although the story line was simply implausible, a dinosaur, giant octopus, fire breathing dragon and a robot woman, wreaking havoc on London all in the name of REVENGE...the movie was non-the-less VERY entertaining. The acting is what made it worth watching. It left me hoping there would be another movie in the making. Not sure what they could come up with the next time though. I'd say it was worth your time to buy this and give it a go.

I love this kind of movie. Just a tiny bit hokey, but earnest with great chemistry between the actors.

Sherlock Holmes doesn't disappoint. Ben Syder and Gareth David-Lloyd work well together as Holmes and Watson, alternating between affectionate and snarky.

The Welsh locations double well for Victorian London. The scenery is often breathtakingly lovely.

The plot is interesting to say the least. There's a moment about three-fourths of the way through that had me reaching for the subtitle key (which there aren't any) to see if I'd heard it right. It was explained in the end. No, it wasn't a dialog blooper, and was pretty funny when the punchline was delivered.

Yes, there are monsters and some of the plot is pretty far fetched. But there are also some genuinely harrowing moments and clever dialog.

Enjoy.

This was a great movie especially. I was at first surprised then pleased that it was something different and unexpected. I usually think of the old Basil Rathbone's version of Sherlock Holmes and think of stuffy acting on both his character as well as Doctor Watson but I was pleased that this was different. The dinosaur took me aback but I did say "unexpected!" Gareth David-Lloyd was brilliant and a great actor, the guy playing Sherlock had to grow on me. Overall it isn't Masterpiece Theatre but a good exciting mystery romp!

Not sure why some people don't realize this is not the slick mainstream Hollywood studio production given there is a giant T-Rex on the cover!

I proudly own this film. I love good low budget horror, and it has a wonderful, sly performance by Torchwood's Gareth David Lloyd to boot. The effects are effective, it's very retro. I particularly loved the suit of armor.

Also it's shot on location in Wales so you have real scenery, not computer generated backdrops.

It's a fun film. I'm sure I'll play it for other people as well.

Mousey? Oh, I get it. Holmes should be played by Hulk Hogan, Brian Blessed, or Tor Johnson. So what if this film was made to capitalize on the Downey flick? Ben Snyder is a thousand times better as Holmes than Downey's Iron Man/Bruce Lee/rock star travesty. Sure, I admit the movie had a thousand faults (for example, mercury poisoning from seafood was unknown in 1882), but it was fun. At least I was going "ha ha" (or "yawn") every few minutes rather than "Eccch!"