Thiel-a-Vision Review: Young Sherlock Holmes

I find it difficult to figure out exactly where to come down on Young Sherlock Holmes. Some aspects of it seem very out of place in a Victorian-era mystery story, yet others are so very right that I'm almost able to overlook the faults.

This is a "what if?" story that posits that the first meeting between the famous detective and his faithful Watson occurred when they were teenagers at an English boarding school. Because everyone "knows" that in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's original stories the duo first teamed up in adulthood, the movie begins by apologizing for itself so as not to irritate Holmesian purists. Why they should be upset is anyone's guess, since there are already many Doyle pastiches placing Holmes in different times and settings. 

With Chris Columbus as the writer, Young Sherlock Holmes comes off in hindsight as sort of a dry run for his work on the much-later Harry Potter films, which also recount fanciful stories in a boarding school setting. It also reminds of the opening sequence in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, in which young Indiana is seen receiving his trademark hat, first using a bullwhip, etc. 

Over the course of this film, many of Holmes' trademarks are introduced: his pipe, his deerstalker hat (actually a trait of Basil Rathbone's film portrayal), and his aversion to the fairer sex. (Here, it's not because of his traditional asexuality, but because his first real love is murdered in the final reel.) Sometimes it seems like a bit much; why should nearly every one of his well-known character traits develop in the space of a few short weeks?

That said, the young actors portraying Holmes and Watson are excellent and believable, even if the young Doctor-in-training is expected to engage in some Nigel Bruce-style comic relief. Their friendship is unforced and their rapport strong. I could easily see them playing the adult versions of the characters. 

The production designs are also very good, and the film does well at evoking Victorian London. There is, however, a bit too much reliance on special effects sequences which seem wrong in such a setting.

If I have a complaint about the film, it's that the plot--involving an Egyptian cult using hallucinogenic blow darts on their victims--plays much more like a standard '80s adventure than a Sherlock Holmes film. The hallucinations (including stop-motion animated gargoyles and the very first CGI character in a major movie, a stained-glass knight) allow for numerous special effects scenes which, although effective, seem misplaced. (And the walking desserts really are a bit much.) Furthermore, a visit to the cult's secret lair results in a sacrifice sequence lifted almost entirely from the previous year's Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

Still, the movie is a lot of fun overall, with good humor and likable characters, and it holds together even today.

(Side note: This is the first film I can recall with a post-credits scene. While both The Muppet Movie and Ferris Bueller's Day Off ended with their respective characters telling the audience to "go home," Young Sherlock Holmes has a full-fledged, albeit brief, sequence with a character revelation that's a "gotcha" for Holmes buffs, even if it is a bit hard to swallow. Moriarty was Egyptian?)

This page, and all associated text pieces and photos are © David Thiel, unless otherwise noted. Do not reproduce or distribute this material without express written permission from the author.