Wow! Such a good movie.

I saw this movie before reading any reviews, and I thought it was very funny. I was very surprised to see the overwhelmingly negative reviews this film received from critics.

Mostly, the movie is committed to the value of a good time.

Close shines in drama with strong language, adult themes.

Am a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes and get a lot of enjoyment out of Arthur Conan Doyle's stories. Also love Basil Rathbone's and especially Jeremy Brett's interpretations to death. So would naturally see any Sherlock Holmes adaptation that comes my way, regardless of its reception.Moreover, interest in seeing early films based on Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories and wanting to see as many adaptations of any Sherlock Holmes stories as possible sparked my interest in seeing 'Young Sherlock Holmes'. Thought that with such great talent on board in front of and behind the camera that it couldn't fail.Fail 'Young Sherlock Holmes' does not. It is not perfect and is not quite great, but it is hugely entertaining and hard to dislike. It is not one of the all-time Holmes adaptations or one of the worst (nothing's worse than Peter Cook's/Dudley Moore's 'The Hound of the Baskervilles'), and of the Sherlock Holmes films seen recently it is along with 'The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes' the best. It may not be Conan Doyle, and how Holmes and Watson meet here is contradictory to 'A Study in Scarlet', but as a standalone it delivers on the entertainment value.'Young Sherlock Holmes' can get pretty silly at times, with the last act being over-the-top nonsense and in a way that is not in keeping with the rest of the story, which took a fun and light-hearted approach often but never to extremes. There are times where it does feel like it was trying to do too much.Also found a few cast members to be on the hammy side, Freddie Jones goes overboard a bit. Otherwise there is not an awful lot to dislike about 'Young Sherlock Holmes'. It still holds up as a great looking film, it is beautifully and atmospherically shot but the stars are the set design for Baker Street and the imaginative special effects (the knight is a standout). The direction is efficient and at ease with the material on the most part. Bruce Broughton's music score is like a character of its own and adds so much character to the film. The writing is playful and witty while also intelligent and thought-provoking. The story throughout goes at a lively pace and is so much fun to watch, with a mystery that intrigues hugely. There are even some wonderfully strange moments, Watson's hallucination is one of the most bizarre on film but it's great fun to watch and imaginatively handled.Nicholas Rowe displays much charisma as Holmes, with even in youth shades of the detective's iconic character traits. Alan Cox is a loyal and amusing Watson and the chemistry between them is charming. Sophie Ward exudes charm and class and Anthony Higgins has a whale of a time. In summary, not great or perfect but a huge amount of fun. 7/10 Bethany Cox

Young Sherlock Holmes (1985) is a typical "modern" movie in which special effects are king and the story is constructed to serve the effects, rather than vice versa. The plot, of course, is full of holes, but trifles like that did not worry 1985's picture-goers. Admittedly, the movie is super- spectacular, over-poweringly so at times, and sufficiently well acted to get us involved in the story before the next bout of special effects takes us back to fantasy land. Needless to say, this picture was extremely popular when first released back in 1985.But it now seems to be forgotten by the corduroy set. In fact, I'd completely forgotten it myself until I stumbled across a few paragraphs I wrote for "The Hollywood Reporter".(Available on a 10/10 Paramount DVD).

And that's the answer to the question :"What have I gotten myself into?" This is a sublime exchange and even more when you know it's between a young Watson and the titular "Young Sherlock Holmes". I never forgot these lines ever since I saw the film with my Dad on a Sunday night when I was 10. These lines encapsulates everything Spielberg movies are about. Yes, the director is Barry Levinson but Steven Spielberg was the only name that could ring a bell for me at that time, as it was popping out in the credits of every movie that targeted my age-group, "Who Framed Roger Rabbit", "Back to the Future" or "The Goonies". His name carried great premises of adventures, special effects, and kids trapped in extraordinary situations… adventures of a lifetime indeed.But it was the French version I saw and the tile was "The Secret of the Pyramid", so it's not until John Watson (Alan Cox) and Sherlock Holmes (Nicholas Rowe) met that I realized the film would also feature a duo I was very familiar with. Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson are among these myths it is impossible to overlook as a kid, or at least at that time, I grew up with the Manga dog-themed cartoon of "Sherlock Holmes" and the cliché of the detective wearing the Holmes' hat, carrying the magnifying glass was printed in my mind, not to mention the "elementary" line. So I didn't expect the film to be about Holmes but his presence was the icing on the cake and made the story twice more captivating.But time has a strange effect and while I loved the adventure and the mystery behind these hallucination-driven murders, now, I wish there was more of the typical Holmes and Watson relationship and mystery-solving. The memorable introduction of Holmes and Watson in the college, the great dialogues involving riddles, and the magic art of deduction and a mentor-master relationship made of fascination and admiration, matched the original books' spirit, and making Watson a chubby teenager admiring the slender, intuitive prodigy is the stuff gutsy screenplays are made of, but then with all the special effects and the supernatural elements, the film ventures into familiar territories, with thrilling sequences tailor-made for the 80's, and sometimes ahead of their time.The film is pretty creative when it comes to the murders sequences and the hallucinations make an efficient precocious use of computer imagery, especially with that knight coming out the stained glass, and these scary and nightmarish gargoyles or pheasants, and we also have investigation leading to a mysterious sect whose setting and penetrating chants remind of the Temple of Doom just like a flight sequence near Big Ben is an obvious homage to "E.T". This is Steven Spielberg at the pinnacle his career, but then the film teeters on the brink of the supernatural adventure genre than keeping solidly rooted to its mystery basis, which could have been acceptable if it didn't have to be at the expenses of realism and common sense. And I'm not even talking of the dreadful pastry sequences that definitely belonged to another movie. My problem was with the characterization.Watson might not be as bright as Holmes but I couldn't buy that after a series of strange deadly incidents, he couldn't trust Holmes' intuition. Near the end, they are looking for a way to save his love interest Elizabeth (Sophie Ward), and Holmes' idea is to make a diversion, wasn't it the most obvious thing to do? The question should have been: how can I make a diversion? The film features so many brilliant parts, that some are harder to accept. For instance, when one of the suspects says an insect has just bitten him, why didn't they guess it was the effect of the poisoned dart? These bits of lazy writing, I suspect, are due to the difficulty of swinging back and forth between the requirements of the adventure genre and yet keeping the characterization consistent.Still, Chris Columbus manages to maintain our interest on the duo and the story serves their friendship, never the opposite. The acting helps and it comes to the point even the romantic subplot never feels forced and adds a new dimension to Sherlock Holmes. But this is a project that had so much to offer that its choice to play on the safe side canceled its chances for posterity and it's not surprising that it isn't celebrated like "The Goonies" or "Back to the Future", it is an underrated gem to the best, but the "adventure of a lifetime" deserved better, maybe they should have stuck to their guns and keep it an adventure of Sherlock Holmes and who knows what good could have been brought. Or maybe it was just… too ahead of its time and had the same film been released today, with all the special effects, CGI-craze and traditional myths' exploitation, it might have scored better. Still, Nicholas Rowe and Alan Cox are such great younger counterparts to their iconic characters that I wish they could have other adventures to share.But the film was indeed meant as a tender homage to the two icons rather than non-canon adventure. It opens with one disclaimer insisting that the film is not based on Arthur Conan Doyle's adventure but it feels the need to mention it again in the ending credits, as to make sure there would be no connection whatsoever between these two universes. I'm still glad they choose to end it with Sherlock wearing his trademark cloak, glass, hat and smoking pipe. Now, did Columbus make something different to mark a clearer distance from the book or did he take this artistic license in order to make something different, now, this is a riddle on the same vein than the egg or the chicken, and it'll take more than a Sherlock to solve it.

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 !