As a devout fan of this immortal Conan Doyle character, one would think that I would be happy with two adaptations in the same year...
The Guy Ritchie film had a large budget, terrific actors...and was horrible. This movie had no budget, newbie actors...and rather managed to come off slightly less horrible.
**** Minor Spoilers ahead ******** The plot was decent enough, if not far-fetched, but the mechanical monsters were a bit too cyberpunk for a good Holmes story. Special effects were cheap but passable and within the line of expectations for an this kind of production.
Inventing a new brother for Sherlock was a mistake, but I could have accepted it for this movie and then have forgotten about him.
The scenery and photography was actually quite good. Visually, the movie was above parr for Asylum. Accents and local traits were well-portrayed, if not a tad on the charicatural side. Acting was acceptable, except for...
The extremely poor, horrible choice for the actor playing Sherlock. Not that he didn't try, but he was absolutely and horribly miscast. His Holmes was anything but, he was to short, had all the wrong looks ans the wrong attitude...the list goes on.This was the only thing that really turned me off the movie. I admit to being difficult in this respect, measuring every actor that plays Holmes to the IMHO immortal performances of the likes of Sir Basil Rathbone and especially Jeremy Brett. To Snyder's defense: Robert Downey portrayed an equally disappointing Holmes in the Ritchie movie. If it had had an even passable Holmes, I would have actually liked the movie.
Still, I would not want to turn anyone off it. Go and see it, make up your own mind. Don't shoot anyone if you don't like it. Nobody ever said this is supposed to be Oscar material...It has its good points, and if you can get beyond the totally un-Holmes-like Holmes, you might even like it.
The Guy Ritchie film had a large budget, terrific actors...and was horrible. This movie had no budget, newbie actors...and rather managed to come off slightly less horrible.
**** Minor Spoilers ahead ******** The plot was decent enough, if not far-fetched, but the mechanical monsters were a bit too cyberpunk for a good Holmes story. Special effects were cheap but passable and within the line of expectations for an this kind of production.
Inventing a new brother for Sherlock was a mistake, but I could have accepted it for this movie and then have forgotten about him.
The scenery and photography was actually quite good. Visually, the movie was above parr for Asylum. Accents and local traits were well-portrayed, if not a tad on the charicatural side. Acting was acceptable, except for...
The extremely poor, horrible choice for the actor playing Sherlock. Not that he didn't try, but he was absolutely and horribly miscast. His Holmes was anything but, he was to short, had all the wrong looks ans the wrong attitude...the list goes on.This was the only thing that really turned me off the movie. I admit to being difficult in this respect, measuring every actor that plays Holmes to the IMHO immortal performances of the likes of Sir Basil Rathbone and especially Jeremy Brett. To Snyder's defense: Robert Downey portrayed an equally disappointing Holmes in the Ritchie movie. If it had had an even passable Holmes, I would have actually liked the movie.
Still, I would not want to turn anyone off it. Go and see it, make up your own mind. Don't shoot anyone if you don't like it. Nobody ever said this is supposed to be Oscar material...It has its good points, and if you can get beyond the totally un-Holmes-like Holmes, you might even like it.