Laikals
The greatest movie ever made..!
Quiet Muffin
This movie tries so hard to be funny, yet it falls flat every time. Just another example of recycled ideas repackaged with women in an attempt to appeal to a certain audience.
Sarita Rafferty
There are moments that feel comical, some horrific, and some downright inspiring but the tonal shifts hardly matter as the end results come to a film that's perfect for this time.
Leofwine_draca
Not a bad film per se, YOUNG SHERLOCK HOLMES has absolutely nothing to do with the writings of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. It's instead an American fantasy adventure film that imagines Holmes and Watson in their youthful days at boarding school, where they encounter a sinister Egyptian death cult and must battle to save their loved ones. The film is set in England with that loving depiction of the country that only exists in Hollywood. Of course, in the literary Holmes world, the two characters didn't meet until middle age, so it's best to take the entire thing with a pinch of salt.This is also one of those films that makes no effort to characterise Holmes as a detective either; instead he's a fencing whiz here, an action hero full of intrepidness and courage. Aside from his token introductory scene he does none of his famous detection. Watson is even further away from his literary depiction and the writers of this forget that he was a war hero, instead depicting him as a slightly pudgy, food-loving goofball. I found the actors below par and uninspiring, although at least there are a few distinguished faces in support.The plot is quite ridiculous although it does act as a template for plenty of outlandish moments and action scenes. The use of drugs to cause hallucinations allows for a series of fantasy set-pieces involving a stained glass knight coming to life as well as characters attacked by miniature monsters and the like. The effects are a mix of early CGI and stop motion. Spielberg acted as executive producer and his fingerprints are all over this, with enduring sentimentality and scenes copied from GREMLINS, E.T., and most notably INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM. Interestingly, the screenplay was written by Chris Columbus, who used this as a huge inspiration for HARRY POTTER AND THE PHILOSOPHER'S STONE, particularly the look and character of Watson which is near identical to Daniel Radcliffe's Harry in that film.
leplatypus
It's really surprising to see that such a rather unknown movie can list such big names : Sherlock Holmes, Spielberg, Columbus, Levinson, Pixar (then, a Lucasfilm (!) property). And all this with an anonymous but cool cast that stays indeed anonymous after the release ! So, is this movie a stinker ? well, not exactly : the production is really beautiful between British architecture and Egyptian folklore. The depicting of Sherlock and Watson is truthful as it sticks on the basics (deduction) unlike Downey's eccentricities and plays with the mythology of the character. But, this is also my limit of expertise as Sherlock is still a mystery (no pun wanted !) for me : I haven't read yet Doyle's adventures so i can't say how this detective usually wraps his cases ? In Downey's movies, he acts like a James Bond. Here, it's more Indiana Jones as when the team follows the Egyptian clues, they stumble onto a ceremony that looks exactly like the « temple of doom » ! The beginning of the movie is interesting as it focuses on living in the school : the writer is the future director of « Harry Potter » so the parallels are evident ! So yesterday, Indy, today, Harry Potter, that's maybe the problem with the movie : It can't be enjoyed as a simple Sherlock story in spite of what its title said !
mike48128
There is a lot to like and dislike in this ambitious effort by Steven Spielberg and Chris Columbus. What I most dislike are the overly vivid hallucinations that the victims of the blow-gun attacks experience. They have a nightmarish quality that borders on that of a horror film, which a Sherlock Holmes movie should never be. I do not object to the blow-gun poison as a plot device, as it is used in the early Fox-Universal films as well--more than once. I must confess that I have seen more than have read most of the Sherlock Holmes stories, and most Sherlock movies are not at all true to A. Conan Doyle's written pages.However, the introduction of characters in this film is brilliant, showing both Holmes and Watson as adolescents. Introducing the headmaster who later assumes the identity of "Moriarity" is beyond belief, yet somehow credible here. In this film, Sherlock loses his first love, Elizabeth, and, at least in the movies, it appears that having Holmes as a love interest leads to a short life-span, just like with the James Bond Girls. Sophie Ward plays Elizabeth, and she is amazingly beautiful, young, and innocent. (This tradition continues even in the new Robert Downey Jr. series.) Note also that this "Moriarity" is not the "Napoleon of Crime" but rather a tall, aristocratic-looking individual. (Anthony Higgins)A most enjoyable film in spite of its excesses, it is more entertaining than it should be. There is a great enthusiasm to the direction, and never a dull moment. My other complaint: While watching the human sacrifice temple scenes, it seems more like an Indiana Jones action movie than a Sherlock Holmes film. Be sure to watch the film, to it's entire conclusion through the ending titles, for a surprise twist.DVD review: The 2010-reissued DVD has no special features at all! Not even a trailer! A sloppy Paramount-DVD transfer with negative scratches and film dust.
Gavin Cresswell (gavin-thelordofthefu-48-460297)
I've seen most mystery films that included Sherlock Holmes (the Robert Downey Jr. version and the Disney version) and I think that this is the best Sherlock Holmes film to date. It stays true to the spirit and imagination of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and I was surprised that this was being produced by the same guys who would later Home Alone (Chris Columbus) and Jurassic Park (Steven Spielberg) and directed by Barry Levinson (Diner and would later direct Disclosure).I should give those guys an award for capturing the tone and characters of Sir Arthur's work because this movie has everything that makes it worth watching. The sets/costume designs are well-done and the scenery is beautiful to look at. The special effects are particularly good and this was the first film to feature Industrial Light and Magic's CGI effects before some of them were used for Pixar's Toy Story.The strongest aspects goes to the riveting action sequences, the rousing music score from Bruce Broughton, and the top notch cast. Nicholas Rowe did a great job as the teenage Sherlock Holmes and the characterization/friendship with the teenage Watson played by Alan Cox was fun and creative. Some of the other actors including Freddie Jones and the beautiful Sophie Ward have done well with the other characters in this movie, but I think that the evil Professor Rathe (who later became Professor Moriarty after the ending credits of the film) played by Anthony Higgins steals the show and is the most diabolical villain in the history of cinema.The reason why I'm giving this a 9/10 is not because of the story (I thought it was very engaging), but since this had a PG-13 rating, it does have some intense and violent moments in some of the scenes and would frighten younger kids before the adults will let them see it.Despite that, this is an enjoyable and engaging Sherlock Holmes film to date and is Barry Levinson's incredible achievement and thanks to the help of Steven Spielberg, Chris Columbus, and Henry Winkler.
