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.

generationofswine The '80s did this thing where they had age regression on a lot of established characters in lit and film...this is one of those and thank God they weren't babies.But otherwise...Movies like this were awesome...huge from the Golden Age of the Silver Screen into the '90s when they started to peter out until, well, until they vanished leaving us with nothing but Super Hero films to fill the void......I have nothing against Super Hero films, but I love adventure films too.I can see where folks would not like it, especially the people that take themselves too seriously. It is stuck in a genera that is at once extremely pulp and kind of serialized. Even if it's not a sequel, you know the story.The Goonies, Nate and Hayes, Jake Speed, Firewalker, Vibes, Big Trouble in Little China, Romancing the Stone...and of course the crown, the king, the Indiana Jones movies.They are all close enough to one another to really fit into the same mold. The characters change, the concepts stay the same and....we love it.Enter the Roguish hero and the damsel in distress in an exotic location to find X marking the MacGuffin, but first they have to work their way through obstacles both natural and man made in the form of a nasty antagonist and a couple of henchmen. Throw in a semi-bumbling sidekick and you have what I like to call "High Adventure." "Young Sherlock Holmes" follows that outline and if you are the kind of individual that is still young enough at heart to love adventure films...you will inevitably like this movie.If you are the kind of man or woman that takes everything extremely seriously and refuses to play at all, not matter what it is. If you are the type that would use the word "compete" instead of "play" or "game" than you are going to hate this movie.

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.