trevorwomble Despite remembering this film being released as a mid teenager in 1986 I never saw it until it showed up on tv just recently, a third of a century later. Out of curiosity I finally watched it and was ever so slightly disappointed with it and here is why.I think primarily the problem is the script and the screenplay. There is a great concept here, and I think the intention was to create a franchise. Alan Cox and Nicholas Rowe are both fine in their roles but Sophie Ward's character is given little to do other than to be Sherlock's romantic interest. And whereas Raiders of the Lost Ark and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (which this film is trying to capture the feel of) had memorable action set pieces and humour galore, this film lacks both. Barry Levinson is a fine director and although this film isn't a bad one, it feels strangely subdued and predictable in comparison.The film did have high production values for it's time, even if it looks ever so slightly dated now. It had one of the earliest CGI scenes ever which must have looked great at the time but other than that the film doesn't really have many surprises for the audience and you can just feel how the story will unfold.Therefore, I think this film will be fine either as a nostalgia trip or to 12 year olds but it wasn't quite the film I was expecting it to be.

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.

Robert J. Maxwell Way back in 1983, critics were disappointed in "Something Wicked This Way Comes" because they'd expected a lot of computer-generated images and, except for a brief shot of an incoming train, they didn't get any.They got their wish finally. My wish is that their wish hadn't been so fulsomely fulfilled.Not only are there multiple monsters hopping around but the plot is out of "Raiders of the Lost Ark," except that instead of going to Egypt, Egypt is brought to the heroes -- young Holmes (Nicholas Rowe) and Watson (Alan Cox). The epilogue tells us that this is how the two might have first met, as fellow students in an English public school, but that's not true. We know from Conan-Doyle that they were strangers until they decided to share digs on Baker Street as adults.No sense explaining the plot. We can put it this way. If you liked "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and its many sequels and clones, you'll like this. If you like CGIs, you'll like this. If you like Karl Orff's "Carmina Burana", you'll like this.If you -- well, nope. I guess that's about it.

Prismark10 A combination of writer Chris Columbus, director Barry Levinson and Executive Producer Steven Spielberg gives us Young Sherlock Holmes. A re-imagining of when Holmes and Watson met at boarding school.Columbus who went on to direct the first Harry Potter film very much had in his mind an almost prototype Harry Potter feel years before JK Rowling wrote the books!In dastardly Victorian London a young Watson arrives at boarding school and meets a brilliant student named Sherlock Holmes. However there are strange deaths going on near the school with people having frightening hallucinations before dying. Holmes sets about to investigate and uncovers a bizarre Egyptian cult and wrongdoings leading to the school itself.The film was known for some state of the art digital effects such as the stained glass knight. The plot does feel like an American take on a Sherlock Holmes story complete with a young but still bumbling and slightly chubby Watson. Its a light plot mixed with story lines from previous Spielberg films such as Indiana Jones The filmmakers want to have reverence to Conan Doyle but as the BBC series of the modern Sherlock has shown, it would had been possible to have a radical take of Young Sherlock Holmes if they had pushed the envelope a bit further and had gone for a slightly different and zippy characterisation of the two main characters.