Sherlock Holmes and the Shadow Watchers (2011) User Reviews

Obviously "Layman" Production...Ed Wood Congrats For "Blind Ambition"...Noble Try

[LeonLouisRicci · 5/10 · 14 March 2023]

Credit Must be Given to Aspiring "Artists" that Despite All Odds Accomplish at Least a "Finished" Creation that will, No Doubt be "Sling-ed and Arrow-ed" to Death with Unkind, Sadistic Critics that will Give No Quarter.

This Could be Called a "Fan-Effort", and what can be Gleaned from the Limited Background to this 1-HR Entry in the Still Growing Fascination and Work with Conan Doyle's "Consulting Detective",

it was Made by, Writer, Producer, Director, an Leading "Mann",

Anthony D. P. Mann (should look to his Namesake for inspiration), Cobbled this Together with Friends and Willing Participants for $3,500.

Few "Professionals" were Involved, Making this "Amature-Hour", but Not Without some "Labor of Love" Appearing and Apparent in the Effort.

Taken with a "Context-is-Everything" Attitude, this can be an Instructive Effort for Film-Fans, Despite the Lack of Polish and Professionalism on Screen.

Did Someone Say "Primitive Art?".

Talk about a "Penny Dreadful"

[Captain_Roberts · 1/10 · 21 December 2011]

Seriously, this must be the worst Holmes production ever made. While Terry Wade plays a nice Dr. Watson, he stands heads and shoulders over what can only politely be called the "performances" of the rest of the cast. That these people were even allowed near a camera is a frightening concept indeed.

Arthur Mann overacts his way through his "Mary Sue" portrayal as Holmes, certainly only cast in the role because he's responsible for the film. His rendition of Holmes playing Paganini is to crudely screech his way through scales on a violin...painfully. To say that his acting is often over the top would be to put it mildly. Our introduction to Holmes was almost enough to make us give up right there. If only we had...

Each subsequent performer we are introduced to is horrid, from a Cardinal who wishes to be Emperor Palpatine, to a killer who is trying to channel Alex from a Clockwork Orange. But none are so unforgivably bad as Richard W. Kerr's Inspector Lestrade. Each moment with him on screen is a pain that viewers are forced to endure. Wooden delivery, mixed with a horribly unbelievable accent and crappy dialog makes for an unforgettable mess.

Where the acting is bad, the script is even worse. Typical fanwank such as referencing the Strand Magazine, and name-dropping Basil Rathbone, flit about in the poorly written script. Compounding matters, the film can't even decide if it should be taken seriously. When the killers find a target has already committed suicide their leader exclaims, "Let's go get cake." Honestly, one of the rare, redeeming qualities of the movie (other than that it mercifully has an end) is the music. However, while every extra in the movie is listed in the credits, no information on the source of the music is given.

The concept of the movie is...interesting.Three or four editing passes on the script, and a very different cast (keeping only Terry Wade as Watson) would've made for a MUCH better film.

This is an hour of your life you will not get back. You have been warned.

Fiddling Around

[tedg · 28 February 2015]

When you get something like this, you have to give allowances. No money was spent; friends did the acting. Production is brusque.

What you have to look for is the intent of the writer/director/main actor. If he could have, would he have delivered a film that mattered? Well, he started with Holmes, one of the best places to start. And he enters what already qualifies as a subgenre of Holmes solving the Jack the Ripper case.

But alas, the story template is rolled out from the many previous films with nothing new. The perspective has no folds, no irony, comment or annotation. It really seems as if he wanted to create a genuine Holmes detective story.

There is essentially no deduction here, only discovery. We see little of what develops in terms of cause; it is explained instead. This filmmaker is off to a poor start, I am afraid and is likely to be an early, gruesome victim of the business.

Amateur effort - and it shows

[charlesadamek · 2/10 · 13 January 2019]

Particularly wooden acting, continuity rife with errors, not worth your time. There are so many other Sherlock Holmes movies why would you sit thru this one?

Sherlack of

[brycefiona · 2/10 · 4 June 2018]

Oh my god indeed you predictable church members! Sadly the director cast a weird ensemble of hits and misses. However crime of high darkness was casting someone similar to an Irish nearly made it ex boy band member as the key reality character Inspector. Long scruff hair and sweetly high pitch voice asks too much for suspension of disbelief that this leprechaun could ever get to pound around Scotland Yard. Grated. Script holes as big as Sherlock's magnifying glass and tedious sound imbalance makes the good as dribbled out treat. Just no my dear Watson.

Can't Say Enough About This Being Bad

[boblipton · 1/10 · 8 May 2024]

The audience gets to see the murder of a young woman by a man, while people dressed in black cloaks and masks -- looking a good deal like the ghost in Spirited Away -- watch. Soon, Inspector Lestrade, sporting an accent that varies over the shop, shows up at the home of Sherlock Holmes, as portrayed by the film's writer and director, Anthony D. P. Mann. They have a newspaper reporter in custody because his paper published his story on the murder before it took place. Of course, he refuses to reveal his sources.

'Amateurish' is the first word that springs to mind in describing this movie. The second is 'inept' and the third is 'awful.' None of the performers, with the exception of Terry Wade as Watson, can speak more than two words at a time without pausing. Few of them have appeared in any movies save Mann's productions.

Every once in a while, someone shows up with enough money to produce a movie, but with no talent. Here's an example of that.

Much better than you'd expect

[tripleb221 · 8/10 · 20 September 2014]

I purchased a copy of this DVD because I am an avid collector of all things pertaining to Sherlock Holmes; that includes the good and the bad. In reading the reviews for this film, I was expecting bad. I was much relieved to find what I'd purchased was a delightful 70 minutes of simple fun. Sure, the acting isn't completely professional, there are problems with the script, and the solution relies on an accidental discovery rather than Holmes's keen observation. However, you can tell everyone involved in this little production is having a ball. According to the director's comments this film only cost $3500 to produce. That is amazing considering what they were able to do to stretch each penny. The interior Baker Street set is a delight (just look at all the little details), the crew found cobblestone streets and a makeshift jail cell for some other locations. The costumes and outdoor scenes seem to give the impression that London is a small hamlet rather than a bustling city, but it's forgivable considering this is pretty much a fan film. I've seen the Robert Downey Jr. films. I liked the first one very much and have watched it a number of times, but that second one was so nonsensical as to make it nearly unwatchable. I saw it in theaters and bought the DVD (as I said, good AND bad) but I have yet been able to sit through it a second time. I know that SHADOW WATCHERS will be seen again and again over the years. According to the DVD a sequel is planned. I will be a customer for that film as well. Good job overall. Fun for most Sherlock fans as long as you don't take yourselves too seriously.

Great story, good effort by non-professionals, but not ready for the big screen

[MegaritzMom · 6/10 · 31 December 2017]

I loved the story line! This was a brand-new story, not written by Conan Doyle. The script needs a little more work though to make the lines flow better. There seems to be an error in the number of murders that were done prior to the one in the opening scene. At one point, it said there were two, at another point, it said three. I would like to have seen more deduction in the story rather than explaining afterward.

The first scene was so badly done that I almost turned it off, but I'm glad I resisted that urge and watched the whole thing.

If I were reviewing this with professional actors, I would be rather cruel about the acting, but since they are not professionals, the performances were reasonable. In the beginning Holmes was overacting and his eyes certainly got too big in one early scene, but he got somewhat better as the story went on. I really wish they had dubbed in the violin music; it was bad. Dr. Watson's performance was great! The newspaper man was very good, and his lover was also good. I did not like LaStrade's accent at all; it was very distracting. Everyone needs more experience in acting on camera. Many of them would be fine on the local stage, but the camera is unforgiving because it records every little thing.

The murder in the first scene continues for much too long and is rather ridiculous on the overacted knife scene in the shadows. The camera work in that first scene is also very much overdone in looking up at the watchers. After that, the camera work gets better.

I am glad I watched this. Those who expect perfection should not watch it, but those who love new Holmes stories should definitely see it.

Suzy Oliver

Really good effort,With some nice surprises

[guestar57 · 7/10 · 8 September 2014]

a Anthony D.P. Mann flick.

You know what,This was a pleasant diversion to our viewing needs.

Anthony as Holmes is no Robert Downey Jr,But Ironman has claimed Robert's public image and Anthony seems more like Sherlock should be ! The bad guys The Shadow Watchers reminds us of another fringe – flick of genre fare,DARK WATCHERS : Women In Black ' A kind of homage to Men in Black films'.Both groups are cunning and cool.

The casting of Sherlock,Mr Watson and the Inspector -Richard W. Kerr.

The Strangler as a bad guy is used as a clever pawn for the despicable well-to-do .