Reactions to some Sherlock Holmes films I've seen recently.

Over the weekend I watched two film adaptations of Sherlock Holmes - one from 2009/10 and the other from 1993. 

The 2009 adaptation, it turns out, was produced by a studio called Asylum that only produces films straight to DVD that copy the most popular films in any given year.  The hope is that people browsing at a store might mistakenly buy a DVD with a similar title or cover art.  This particular film was trying to cash in on the Guy Ritchie adaptation starring Robert Downey Jr. 

Both films are simply titled Sherlock Holmes.  This consumer phenomenon is fascinating on its own, but what was interesting was just how different the look-alike film treated the supernatural.  There were dinosaurs and sea monsters, and they were REAL.  We never got an explanation for the dinosaurs; they were just wandering around London, attacking prostitutes and street urchins.  There was also the invention of Holmes' long lost recluse brother who decides to cure his paralysis with a robot body.  WHAT?!  This film was so over the top and so not in the tradition of Sherlock Holmes.  This is, I guess, where the line between the use of the supernatural I'm talking about and just pure B-movie horror or SF.

The other film, on the other hand, was in the exact opposite direction in terms of using the supernatural.  The plot reminded me of Wilkie Collins' The Woman in White because it relied heavily on the woman committed to a mental institution trope (can I call this a trope as long as I see it in more than one place?).  There are three "Ann Cathericks" in this narrative, establishing a serial pattern of crime.  (A nobleman keeps marrying women and disposing of them just to steal their fortunes and keep his estate alive.)