Runtime: 1 hour, 29 minutes
Director: Rachel Goldenberg
Starring: Ben Syder,Gareth David-Lloyd,Dominic Keating
Genres: Adventure, Action
Studio: Global Asylum
MPAA rating: NR (Not Rated)
Buy from Amazon
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s famous detective faces the ultimate challenge when enormous monsters attack London.
Sherlock and Watson tackle an evil plot that strikes very close to home.
This movie is ripe for a complete giggle, (cause who doesn’t love giantmechanical 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 actorplaying Holmes (Ben Syder), couldn’t act his way out of a wet papersack in the beginning. But that awkwardness actually worked for thisproduction. Ben had all the introductory charm and skill of ZooeyDeschanel 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 yetvaliant version of Holmes. And I came to really like him in therole–delicate, skinny thing that he is. (Really, do men actually havebones that tiny!!!!) It was a shocker at first. Ben Syder walks in asHolmes, and you think "He’s got the nose, he’s got the thin build." Butthen 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 ofwhich is that one just can’t seem to not laugh… HARD! In the end, itwas truly Wonderful stuff! The plot(lessness) was such steampunkhilarity that it is truly a ‘must see’ for a lighthearted Holmesianexperience. (A creepy mechanical nurse, an evil Thorpe Holmes(readMycroft)–that is worse than Moriarty could ever be, and a poor,unfortunate LeStrade bound intractably to Thorpe!Mycroft’s terriblepast finish out this amazingly weird, quirky jaunt into utterspoofery.)
Did I mention the "sort of" durigible, the steam-driven dragon, the"maybe" Kraken, the convenient castle with the laboratory, themechanical suit of armor, the highly improbable (yet perfectlydelicious)science, the six pence whore, and lots of explosions? Thismovie was obviously made by dedicated fans of Sherlock Holmes who werealso on the shallow end of the Steampunk pool. They had more budgetthan they deserved and less than they needed and I hug my copy of thisriotous mess of a movie every week. I love it!
The horrid effects aren’t that horrid when you look back at movies ofthe past. We’re just a bit spoiled on big budget CGI these days.
Just be prepared to hand over your willing suspension of disbelief toone of Scotland Yard’s finest to stuff in a bag and beat to death witha stick. You’ll be fine.
What an odd, odd little film!
What an odd, odd little film. It’s one of those where as you watch ityou wonder how the producers raised the money to make it, but yet youare sort of glad they did. Two of the most notable characters, SherlockHolmes himself, played by Ben Syder, and the intriguing, interestingElizabeth Arends, have very thin CVs, this being their first commercialfilm, are actors I hope to see again in future films simply based ontheir performance here. Not all actors in this creatively low-budgetflick are new comers. Gareth David-Lloyd who plays Watson, and DominicKeating, who plays Holmes brother, are both established actors withsubstantial 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 storyis consistent with details established by Conan Doyle. This story hasnothing to do with stories written by Conan Doyle and the basis for theplot seems an insoluble enigma in offering an explanation for notableevents in London of 1882 that in reality never happened. The film isshort enough to remain interesting and entertaining. Don’t take it tooseriously, sit back and be enjoyably baffled by this cinematiccuriosity.
Sherlock Holmes (2010)
WOW. I watched this as I hadn’t seen a bad film in quite a while, andAsylum never fail to disappoint. But here they did fail. It wasgenuinely well written and also a lot of damn fun. Watson recalls thestory of Sherlock that has never been told. After a number of monsterattacks around London, ranging from giant octopus to mini-tyrannosaur,Holmes is drafted in to solve the case. As always, the mystery mustcome to a logical conclusion of some sorts. So how did Asylum manage tocreate an impressive piece of entertainment? First of all, they managedto get some genuine talent. Snyder, David-Lloyd and Keating all givememorable performances and are faithful to their characters. They takeit seriously, but also have fun, but never forget that this is just aknock-off meant to cash in on the Hollywood release. The scriptdevelops the characters very well, and the villain has a reason to bethe way he is. It’s almost emotional at times. By the end, when a giantmechanical dragon takes to the skies, it completely had me. This hasthe same quality, in both writing and production, of a very good DoctorWho episode. I hope The Asylum put just as much effort into futurereleases.
I have seen quite a few low budget scifi/horror movies lately and aboutthe highest rating I gave any of them was a 3, but this Sherlock Holmeswas good, very good. I had never seen or heard of any of the actors,but they were all also very good, especially Watson who did a fine job.Holmes was as usual, quirky and arrogant, but then, that’s how he issupposed to be. The sets and settings were very nice and most of theoutdoor scenes were beautiful. But the best were the special effects:the monsters and the Rube Goldberg machines. My husband like the dragonbest, but as a dinosaur fan, my favorite was the so called raptor. Isay ‘so called’ because it did not look at all like a raptor, but itdid look like a beautifully done miniature T-Rex. We both liked all ofthe Rube Goldberg machinery used by the master criminal. If you get achance, watch this Sherlock Holmes. You’ll probably like it like wedid.
Considering the source,THIS IS very faithful !
Starring: Dominic Keating,Gareth David-Lloyd Written by : Paul BalesDirected by : Rachel Lee Goldenberg
A Movie well done & worth mentioning ! Cast and scenery seem perfectfor story,Filmed in Wales. Was really thrown off,When a RAPTOR wasspied and then the plot twist "NICE" ! Must admit the DRAGON andBALLOON fought for my attention,Great fight sequence. There is even areference to IRONMAN or is it SPRING HEEL JACK Loved this touch. Watsonagain,Has the most to do and maybe its best,After wife banned me fromwatching TORCHWOOD ! To sum up,YES This is entertainment,Like wehaven’t seen in a great while.
A Mockbuster better than most
Okay, Asylum. We know your routine. Get some public domain property todo a "Mockbuster" of a new release, put a washed up star in a minorrole so you can put his name first on the cover, proceed to decoratewith cheap CGI.
Usually, what you get is pretty contemptible, like Hunter v. Alien orKing of the Lost World. This, on the other hand, was actually okay.
First, they were truer to the character of Holmes and Watson than theGuy Ritchie abortion recently released. It would appear the writersactually READ something by Arthur Conan Doyle. Okay, maybe the storywas a tad far-fetched. (Mechanical monsters in 1882 London? For thatmatter, Telephones in 1882 London, and ones that looked more like c.1930 models.) But the relationship between Holmes, Watson and Lestradewas about right. They also didn’t go for the cheap shot of makingMoriarity the villain.
The only letdown is the actor who played Holmes. His voice was a bittoo high and his mannerisms a bit too effeminate, compared to let’s sayBasil Rathbone or Jeremy Brett. But the very fact I feel the need tomake those comparisons is really a step up for the Asylum…
One more note. The whole movie seems to have been filmed through asepia filter. I guess that was the only way they could make it lookmore old time than it would otherwise.
It’s not a good film but a charming film in an amateurish way
I wouldn’t call this a good film but I found it to be charming in anamateurish way. It’s rather like watching 1960’s Star Trek or DoctorWho with modern-day eyes – it’s corny and the special effects aren’tgreat but it can be entertaining if you know you’re not watchingmodern-day entertainment.
The production values, dialogue and direction aren’t great and thereisn’t much in the way of dramatic acting until the climax of the film -the actor playing Holmes is particularly un-dramatic and speaks toosoftly for a leading man – but both Holmes and Watson are charming intheir own way and have a playful chemistry together. Gareth David-Lloydmakes a sweet but quiet Watson who’s a bit slow as times (though hegets to help save the day in small ways) and Dominic Keating isn’t usedall that much until the final 30 minutes of the film but he gives thestrongest performance of all the actors involved.
The story wasn’t too bad if you don’t think about it too much – the badguy (partly out of revenge) wants to use steam punk monsters to wreakhavoc on London – but it is over-the-top at times (especially the partinvolving a hot-air ballon) and I wouldn’t buy this film for the storyalone. I have to say that I understood the story more on secondviewing.
So overall, I wouldn’t advise people to buy this film if they’relooking for a professional movie to watch but if you’re in the mood towatch something silly with friends that involves Sherlock Holmes,mechanical monsters and a cheap 19th century backdrop (and you don’tmind films that have a cheap feel to them) give this a go.
For a mock-buster film, I’d give this 6 out of 10. For a film ingeneral, I’d give it 3 out of 10.
A fantastic Holmes Adventure
This production offers serious Sherlockians relief from severalproblems that have plagued them for many years. There are few’Americanisms.’ Most of the actors have proper, if ‘regional,’ Britishaccents and the script is reasonably free of obvious anachronisms.Locations have a gritty, non-spiffed-up look and many of the charactersand extras look like real people, not idealized Victorian stereotypes.
The movie begins during the latter stage of ‘The Blitz’ in December,1940 London. An aged Dr. Watson asks his resident nurse to accept amanuscript and additional verbal notes about " his greatest and leastknown accomplishment." When the nurse asks "Who is he?" Watson replies,"Sherlock Holmes." This tale opens in the English Channel, in 1882 withthe destruction of an English transport returning "The Queen’sShilling" from the West Indies. The actual method of its destruction isone of the unresolved points in the movie. Various devices are neverexplained nor are their abilities described in any detail. In essence,the viewer is shown only the effects, never the means by which thoseeffects are achieved. If that is satisfying to you, then you willprobably enjoy the movie.
Eventually, we are introduced to Sherlock’s brother, retired DetectiveInspector Thorpe Holmes, who was severely injured seven years before inline of duty while pursuing criminals with his then-partner,now-inspector Lestrade. The story line is hard to follow, but isself-consistent and makes some sense in retrospect. One must acceptthat the villain is a scientific genius and his inventions can performin convincing fashion.
There remain a number of irritating anomalies. Watson’s 1882 officetelephone is a 1940’s model. Inspector Lestrade seems to go about armedin contradiction to standard British Police practice. The actor playingSherlock (Ben Syder) is two or three inches shorter than the actorplaying Dr. Watson (Gareth David-Lloyd). The ‘monsters’ are all treatedas constructs, but no effort is made to detail their capabilities orinner workings. The whole subject is simply left to the villain’smarvelous medical discoveries and techniques.
The final events contain several severe contradictions as regards whois where and how they got there. Time, distance and locations seem tobe ignored in the entire sequence of events leading up to the climax.Characters are moved around with no concern as to how they traveledfrom one place to another. It is possible that there are explanations,but none are offered in the cut I saw.
Reviewed by: Philip K. Jones, January, 2010.
Asylum’s best movie so far?
Well, I have to say this one was actually a nice surprise. I’d give anymovie a chance, and even after I’ve seen some really bad stuff fromAsylum (famous for their , I still keep an eye on whatever they come upwith.
"Princess of Mars" was a step forward, could be good, it had not badSFX and kinda retro Flash Gordon atmosphere, but Traci Lords as aprincess… Give me a break! Well, this Holmes movie, as far as it isfrom anything Holmes written by Arthur Conan Doyle, is actually prettyentertaining and looks very good! I’d say it’s a really decentproduction, with good actors and very good effects, given its lowbudget. It’s not cutting edge CGI, but it does the trick and creates acertain feel to the whole thing. What you see on screen is as good asthe BBC or Hallmark adventure movies from the beginning of the 2000s.The script could use some polishing, but I won’t grumble about it. Ifyou chose to see a Sherlock Holmes movie with a giant octopus, a dragonand 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 justhad to give it a try… and I don’t regret! Speampunk flavored mysterywith a twist ending Don’t expect a masterpiece, but enjoy the moviefor what it is!
Sherlock Holmes in on the Asylum.
First off, let’s start by letting you know that this ISN’T the GuyRitchie movie starring Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law. This is the,almost inevitable nowadays, "mockbuster" released by those purveyors oflow-quality cinema, The Asylum Home Entertainment. If you’re unfamiliarwith their work then titles like Transmorphers, The Day The EarthStopped and 2012: Supernova should give you enough of an idea as towhat to expect. Considering they also gave us the barmy and brilliant(in it’s own way) Mega Shark Vs. Giant Octopus it’s safe to say thatthey never seem to get sent an invite come Oscar time.
So this time they have a go at interpreting the world’s greatestdetective (played here by Ben Syder) and how do they do? Surprisingly,it’s not all that bad. The movie certainly has a standard of quality inmost of it’s scenes lacking in many of the company’s other releases.Syder is not the greatest actor in the world but the characterisationof Holmes isn’t a bad one at all many may actually prefer it to theblockbuster action hero version seen in Ritchie’s movie. GarethDavid-Lloyd is a suitable foil as Dr. Watson and Dominic Keating doeswell in his role. William Huw is pretty poor in the role of InspectorLestrade but, thankfully, we don’t have to see a lot of him anyway.Things move along quickly enough as Holmes begins to unravel a mysterythat includes a giant sea beast, a dinosaur and a number of otherthings that may seem illogical until our man puts his great mind touse.
Director Rachel Goldenberg, working from a decent screenplay by PaulBales, does okay with what she’s given. Yes, there are the usual numberof dodgy CGI effects and uninteresting shot choices we’ve come to knowand love from Asylum but they’re a) slightly better than they have beenin the past and b) servicing a story that has some genuine fun andentertainment at it’s core. The low budget and somewhat hasty feel ofthe thing stops it from being anything you’d enthusiastically recommendto people but as a fantastical "untold" Holmes tale and a callback tothe daring stories Sir Arthur Conan Doyle thrilled readers with manyyears ago . . . . . . it’s really not that bad.