Sherlock Holmes (2010)

Very very predictable, including the post credit scene !!!

I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Good movie but grossly overrated

The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.

not memorable, not good or bad. only a form of amusement who use parts from Conan Doyle 's work for an easy game. the result is predictable, the story is fragile, the acting not special but decent. a film about Sherlock Holmes who has not revelations, new ideas or ambition to be an event. only entertainment without any complication. and that purpose is the best virtue. because the script or the cast are far to do a special movie about the legendary detective but are magnificent choice for a not complicated exercise to remind Holmes and Watson. and that could be a good point in the war of adaptations. because it is that kind of film who reminds the comfort of an evening after a long and hard work day.

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.

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.

This video release was produced by The Asylum, and when I saw it on TV, I had nothing but the lowest expectations, so my disappointment was not gigantic (i.e. I never even remotely expected anything like the Downey/Law movies or the Cumberbatch/Freeman TV series). This said, I was wondering whether some capable screenwriter, a good director, and actors like Downey and Law might not be able to extract something usable from this movie. There is, of course, the obvious fun of having one Downey character (Holmes) face off with another (Iron Man), but I think, with state-of-the-art special effects and a few improvements, this story might be turned into a decent, very entertaining movie, with lots of action and humor. The seed is there! If you watch it under this aspect, you might agree. I am sure much worse scripts have been handed to producers/directors and eventually, with a lot of rewrites and other improvements, been turned into quite decent movies.