Polychrome9 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.

MartinHafer 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.

Robert J. Maxwell 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.

mikemdp 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.