Sherlock Holmes (2010)

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.

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.

With two alternative titles on the go, I can think of at least one more which, while it might be a more accurate description of this movie, certainly wouldn't be very flattering.Ben Syder may well be perfectly cast in other roles, but he struggles to gain the least bit of ground as a rather inadequate and completely unbelievable Holmes. Alongside him, the much taller and marginally less implausible Gareth David-Lloyd plays Dr Watson. The plot of this film is, let's face it, pretty easy to guess from the alternative title of Sherlock V Monsters. It's ridiculous, farcical and as un-Sherlock Holmes as you can get and even if you took Holmes and Watson out of the equation and played it for laughs, it'd still be pretty dire. How the producers had the gall to add Conan Doyle's name to the title is quite beyond belief. However, if accuracy and originality is not your thing, and you enjoy explosions, annoying musical scores and bad haircuts, then this might be just the movie for you.

If you are like me and enjoy Sir A. C. Doyle's version of Holmes and the other characters in the Holmes stories and how they contribute immensely tot he stories, then you may want to pass on this movie. On the other hand,I have read every story ever written by Doyle, Day, and L. King... and I can never get enough Holmes. If this sounds like you too, then it might be worth a gander. I will not ruin it for you by telling you what happens, but about 3/4 of the way through, there is a huge twist in the story...Don't worry.. you wont miss it... and for that reason, Idisliked the movie. This was only because I am such a nitpicker about accuracy when it comes to following Doyle's work. However... if you enjoy Holmes stories, and you like it when they are told in a different light than that of Doyle's (like Laurie King does, who.. If I may contradict myself a little... is my favorite writer) then you may like this movie. Personally it was ruined for me because of it's inaccuracy's But, if you don't mind that, and you are like me and want to see everything you can with Holmes in it, then watch and (hopefully)enjoy. As for the special effects that others have commented on in other reviews... What do you expect, it is only a "B" movie... and it was made in England! (Not that I do not agree with the others when Isay that the effects suck, but they do not ruin the movie) Lastly, I wanted to add that I gave the movie a 3 out of 10 rating because of My own experience with it and how I felt. Coincidently, you may have a different opinion on the movie if you can look past the movies inaccuracies like I cant.