Young Sherlock Holmes (1985)

Introduction:

I never really asked myself the question, what was Sherlock Holmes like as a youth. Well that might have been because I had only ever read one Sherlock Holmes story. But someone must have asked this question – because they made a whole movie about it!

Summary:

John Watson (Alan Cox) arrives at his new school in London a bit nervous but ready to make new friends. The first bloke he meets is Sherlock Holmes (Nicholas Rowe) a rather aloof chap who has keen powers of deduction. The two become good friends, and spent their spare time hanging out with Elizabeth (Sophie Ward) and her oddball uncle Professor Waxflatter (Nigel Stock). But Waxflatter is embroiled in a mystery as one by one former colleges die under mysterious circumstances. Holmes and Watson start to investigate, but soon find that the answer to the mystery is tangled in a web of revenge, cultists and a mind almost as keen as the one possessed by “Young Sherlock Holmes”.

Good Points:

• The script and the acting for Holmes and Watson are well executed
• The production for Victorian England is top notch
• The musical score by Bruce Broughton is a forgotten gem of the 80’s

Bad Points:

• Hard core Holmes fans are going to shudder in horror at the changes to the characters
• Has a serious 80’s Spielberg touch to it
• Not so much a mystery as it’s more of an adventure film

Overall:

While the plot maybe outrageous and the coincidences laughable, this movie has a wonderful spirit of fun to it. The whole relationship between Holmes and Watson and how it may have been forged in their youth is handled really well. It carries the movie past the more ridiculous moments. As far as pure entertainment goes, this movie is a solid pick.

Scores (out of 5)

Visual: 5

Sound: 4

Music: 5

Acting: 4

Script: 4

Direction: 4

Entertainment: 5

Total: 4

In Depth Review

There’s an odd set of connections between “Young Sherlock Holmes” and “Harry Potter”. First off, both films feature a supporting antagonist named Dudley. Chris Columbus wrote the screenplay for the 1985 film and directed the first two Harry Potter films. Both films take place in and around a boarding school. Both films have a Victorian feel to them (especially obvious in “Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone”). Both films feature insane cult leaders bent on revenge. Ok, maybe I’m stretching it a bit, but I always found it funny that whenever I hear the name Dudley the first thing I think of is the slimy jerk in “Young Sherlock Holmes”.

Let me get this out of the way. I grew up with this movie. My sister and I really enjoyed watching it as kids, and it was on regular rotation on our VCR back in the day. We liked the adventure, the bizarre hallucinations and the fact that there was a dog named Uncas in it. So it’s a bit tough for me to view the film completely objectively. So if this review sounds a bit too fond… well you know why.

The main issue I see raised against this film is Chris Columbus’ over the top script. It isn’t good enough for Holmes to solve murders, these have to be completely insane murders conducted by a Egyptian cult that practices their death religion in a giant wooden pyramid. The movie never takes the leap into fantasy. The strange imagery you do see is because the victims are hallucinating. But the film really stretches credibility when you see a huge bald killer chasing kids through a cemetery while wielding a sword. No one notices this or thinks it’s odd?

But check it out, Columbus wrote this screenplay right after he wrote “Gremlins” and “The Goonies”. Steven Spielberg was on the production credits for all three films, and I think its safe to say that he had some input into how the story was going to play out. It explains why this film could easily be called “Sherlock Holmes and the Temple of Doom” a name a few critics gave it. Or maybe you prefer “Sherlock Holmes and the Pyramid of Death” which is the films name in some international markets. That oh so 80’s Spielberg touch is all over the film, even if Barry Levinson was helming it.

Levinson does a good job with the film balancing the large set pieces and special effect heavy scenes with the intimate character scenes between Holmes, Watson and Elizabeth. The character interaction is essential for the film to work. Holmes and Watson must have that warmth and understanding of each other’s talents or else it will feel wrong. Rowe and Cox do a great job, each one nailing their characters as well as creating a valid friendship. Sure the Watson of this film is more Nigel Bruce than David Burke, but it still works well. On the other hand Ward is a little flat as Elizabeth. The part is underwritten, but Rowe’s reactions to her make the connection between them work.

The supporting cast is very good all around. Of special note is Freddie Jones as Chester Cragwitch. This poor man is saddled with a large chunk of exposition, but his great voice combined with his off beat performance makes it all work. Also key to the film is Anthony Higgins as Professor Rathe, Holmes fencing teacher and mentor. Rathe seems to really like Holmes even when events take a turn that pits them against each other. When things get serious, Higgins is able to turn the man into a much darker character, one consumed by hate and willing to do anything to achieve his ends. It’s a good villainous performance.

The large set pieces including the ones revolving around the ceremonies in the pyramid are staged well and filmed with skill. The sets and location shooting in general is top notch and really adds to the film. But Levinson makes sure the action sequences are clear and easy to follow. But one of my favorite sequences is when Holmes accepts Dudley’s challenge to find a lost statue. Levinson takes us all around the school editing together a montage of deduction that leads up to the resolution of the mystery. Combined with Bruce Broughton’s score, it’s a great scene.

Broughton isn’t known to most moviegoers and that’s a shame. He’s done some wonderful work, especially in the Western genre (his scores for “Silverado” and “Tombstone” are excellent). But this is one of the few times he delved into this type of adventure scoring and he does an amazing job. He takes some of the styling of John Williams and combines it with a very English tone and creates a superb musical adventure. There are two main themes that appear in the film, one that surrounds the mystery sequences and seems connected to Holmes. The other is linked more to the friendship sequences and seems connected to Watson. These two fuse together to create a wonderful musical cue that can be enjoyed during the end credits. I also have to mention the choral powerhouse of the Ceremonial chant that is heard twice in the film and is warped into the villain theme by the end of the film. Great stuff. I heartily recommend this score to fans of big adventure music in a John Williams style. This is an 80’s classic.

This was a visual effects movie in many respects and most of it’s notoriety today is based on the fact that the first completely computer generated character was created for this film. During one of the hallucination scenes, a stain glass window of a sword wielding knight leaps from the window to threaten a priest. Back in 1985 this effect was jaw dropping. On top of that all kinds of other effects were used, including stop motion creatures as well as traditional blue screen and miniatures. Using this vast array of effects keeps things from looking too over top and lets them blend into the film.

Here’s what it boils down to: the film is fun. It was made to entertain and it does just that. All the production elements work well together and while it wears its oh so 80’s heart on its sleeve, it never really was shooting for anything more than that. I recently revisited the film and had a blast watching it again. Yes nostalgia played a part in my enjoyment, but I also think that this is just a well-made adventure film. If you’ve never seen it, give it a shot. At the very least you’ll enjoy a great musical score and see some pioneering visual effects from the day. At the most you’ll have a great movie to watch on a wintery weekend.

Sherlock Holmes (2009)

Introduction:

When I caught the trailer for this movie I was a little disturbed. Sherlock Holmes beating the crap out of people? Quick cuts? Robert Downey Jr. nude and handcuffed on a bed with only a pillow hiding little Bobby from us. Um, who’s idea was this.

Then I saw that it was a Guy Ritchie film and it all made sense.

Summary:

Famous London detective Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) and his partner Dr. John Watson (Jude Law) track down and apprehend Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) a murderer who’s actions are driven by the occult. Before Blackwood is hung he vows that he will return and that Holmes will be unable to stop him. Soon enough the prophesy comes true.

To complicate matters further the lovely con artist Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) returns to London and enlists Holmes help in a different matter. As the mystery thickens Holmes discovers that he has multiple adversaries out for him. Will he and Watson survive long enough to stop Blackwood?

Good Points:

• Downey Jr. and Law make a good team
• Period detail and atmosphere are effective
• Ritchie keeps things moving

Bad Points:

• Sherlock Holmes the super hero?
• Rachel McAdams felt out of place
• Ritchie gets a bit too creative for his own good

Overall:

Forget your typical mystery and prepare yourself for Holmes in a more James Bond type role, and you’ll actually have a good time. All the production elements are top notch and make for a good popcorn movie on a Friday night.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 4

Sound: 4

Music: 4

Acting: 4

Script: 3

Direction: 3

Entertainment: 3

Overall: 3

In Depth Review:

The more I thought about it, the concept had merit. Sherlock Holmes is a character that gets revisited on a regular basis, like Dracula or James Bond. Why not bring him back and try something a little different. With Guy Ritchie aboard it would at least be interesting to look at. Robert Downey Jr. could bring a lot to the part. Lets take a look at the results.

The main idea behind this film is to take Sherlock Holmes: detective and turn him into Sherlock Holmes: superhero. The script does this by widening the threat of Blackwood. Instead of being a simple murderer he’s now into world domination. He even makes your typical Bond villain monologue explaining his evil plan.

The script also introduces a buddy picture element. Watson wants to wed the lovely Mary Morstan (Kelly Reilly), but Holmes is unable to reconcile this. Holmes needs Watson, not only as a partner, but also as a friend. Watson needs Holmes as a friend, but also as a source of adventure. This dynamic results in some of the funniest parts of the movie. Each man does his best to outmaneuver the other and make it look like he’s not trying to outmaneuver him.

The actors know exactly how to play the parts. Robert Downey Jr. locks onto Holmes typical eccentricities, but adds a spin of mental instability. This man’s mind is in constant overdrive. Without a case to focus on, he becomes a shut-in constantly searching for new mental stimulus. Holmes can be a bit annoying, but Downey Jr. allows us to see deeper into the character.

Jude Law surprised me the most as Watson. According to my wife (who enjoyed the Sherlock Holmes stories in her youth) Law is one of the best Watson’s she’s seen, very close to his literary version in appearance and demeanor. I found his performance to be very warm and engaging, a perfect counter to Holmes and a vast contrast to the standard take on Watson as the buffoon.

Mark Strong certainly has presence as the diabolical Lord Blackwood. He appearances are kept to a minimum but when he’s on screen he projects menace. But I never felt that he was a real threat to Holmes. Just like most Bond villains, we know pretty early on that he’s not as clever as he thinks he is.

Rachel McAdams is a bit of a puzzle for me. Her character is interesting. Her acting is fine. She looks great in the costumes. But for some reason I was pulled out of the film when she was on screen. Maybe it was the American accent (explained away conveniently enough), or maybe she’s one of those actresses that doesn’t seem to fit in period films. Her part isn’t especially large, but it is important and it did end up affecting my enjoyment of the film.

The rest of the movie falls in line to make the superhero angle work.

The setting is dank and dirty reminding me more of Gotham city than the typical film representation of Victorian London. There is an added realism to the city from the sets down to the costumes. On top of that the movie has a grey color scheme, giving everything a slightly washed out look. This makes the explosions and blood stand out a bit more.

Ritchie does a lot of interesting things with the camera, especially when he jumps into Holmes head. During certain fight sequences, we see Holmes plan out his attack in detail. The camera shows each action in deliberate slowness as Holmes explains why he’ll attack and what the affect will be. Then the attack is executed in a stutter of real time and slow motion. It’s an interesting approach that gives us a peak into the mind of our lead character and punches up the action scenes.

The rest of the set pieces are filmed with skill, keeping everything clear while moving the sequence forward at a crisp pace. The sound effects play a big part in these sequences providing pop to keep things exciting.

Hans Zimmer who provided Batman with his most recent musical scores is on hand for this film. It’s an eclectic blend of musical styles, straying far from the more classical approach we’d expect. It lacks a true super hero theme, but it works wonderfully in the film, supporting the action as well as the quieter moments.

The movie felt a little too manufactured. It tired hard to be something new, a little too hard. Maybe if it had toned down the style a bit, let us settle into the world a little more, I would have found it more engaging. Part of this may be Ritchie’s direction, but I’m not sure if I’m sold completely on this concept of Sherlock Holmes

Sherlock Holmes as a superhero is an interesting idea and the concept works better than I thought it would. This makes for a solid nights entertainment, but it’s not a knock out of the park.

Study in Scarlet (1933)

Introduction:

I'm familiar with Reginald Owen from his work on "The Christmas Carol". I was intrigued by the idea of him taking on Sherlock Holmes. I'm not familiar with the original story that this film is based on, but things start off with murder - so the film makers are at least on the right track. Lets see how this latest offering from the 100 Mystery Classics box set stacks up.

Summary:

When a widow comes to Sherlock Holmes (Reginald Owen) complaining that her husband died and all of his estate was going to a mysterious group called The Scarlet Circle, Holmes is intrigued. Turns out he already has suspicions about the sleazy lawyer Merrydew (Allan Dinehart). The plot thickens as more deaths occur and the lovely young Eileen (June Clyde) may be a witness. Holmes tracks down clues, dons disguises and even draws a pistol in his attempt to save lives and solve the mystery of the "Study in Scarlet".

Good Points:

• Retains the personality and feel of Sherlock Holmes from the works of Doyle.
• Moves at a pretty good pace
• The ending held a few surprises

Bad Points:

• Some of the humor falls flat
• Owen's portrayal makes Holmes too cold
• Watson seems to be a third wheel for most of the film.

Overall:

This movie presented an intriguing mystery that did a good job of putting a good twist at the end. It was easy to spot the villain, but I didn't figure the entire mystery out. A few of the comic sequences didn't work for me and ended up slowing the film down a bit, but other than that this is an interesting take on the classic character. Worth seeking out if you can enjoy 30's style mystery.

Scores (out of 5)

Visuals: 3

Sound: 2

Music: n/a

Acting: 3

Script: 4

Direction: 3

Entertainment: 3

Overall: 3

In-Depth Review

While I've never been a huge fan of Sherlock Holmes, it's hard to not to be familiar with his adventures and perhaps seen some of his film or television exploits. My wife is the one who's read all of the Holmes stories and is fairly familiar with most of the incarnations of the detective. But she had never seen Owen's take on the character.

The first thing she pointed out was that Owen has Holmes smoking the type of pipe described in the books. The familiar curved pipe does not appear in the stories and was an addition made by a famous stage production. This was continued by Basil Rathbone in his movies and became the accepted type of pipe used nearly all incarnations of the character. But this 30's version uses the straight pipe from the books. Don’t you feel better now that you know that?

Things continue in that fashion from there. Owen makes Holmes brusque, calculating and a bit on the snobby side. He moves around the sets looking for clues like a hunter, moving from place to place with precision and determination. While he doesn't taunt Dr. Watson (Warburton Gamble) or treat him like an imbecile, he does give off an air of superiority. He basically treats Watson like an apprentice of sorts. It's an interesting portrayal, and one that isn't too far from what I'm familiar with. My only issue is that this incarnation of Holmes may be too cold and even intimidating at times. Not the kind of man you'd feel comfortable hiring. I find Rathbone's take on the character a bit more engaging.

For the most part the rest of the cast is good. Dinehart provides us with a sleazy villain that you just want to get nabbed. If he had a moustache, he'd be twirling it. Gamble isn't given too much to do as Watson, but he doesn't play him like an idiot (as I've seen in several incarnations), so that's a step in the right direction. On the other hand, he doesn't really help too much either. He's just kind of there, taking up space. June Clyde is all right as Eileen Forrester, our damousel in distress. She's bland, but again, there isn't much for her to actually do. I was honestly surprised to see Anna May Wong playing Mrs. Pyke. It's not often you see actual Asian actresses in 30's movies. She's cast as the femme fatale, unfortunately she's not very good in the role.

One of the interesting points is that "A Study in Scarlet" is actually a contemporary take on Holmes. That means the movie takes place in 1933, so all the Victorian trappings are gone. All the men are wearing fedoras and the ladies look very nice in their depression era hats. Maybe this was done for budgetary reasons, and it proves an interesting point that Holmes as a character can work in any environment. For the most part the production level is solid visually, it's just a little odd to not have those Victorian touches.

The sound is a little rougher. Most of the time dialogue was clear, but there seemed to be issues with the microphones picking up every little creak in the set or squeak of a boot. This could make a few scenes tough to hear. On top of that, there is no score outside opening and closing titles. This is typical of 30's movies and I don't allow it to affect the score.

The script was interesting. According to IMDB, the plot for this movie has nothing to do with the actual story by Arthur Conan Doyle. Instead the writers come up with an interesting mystery that kept me guessing. It's obvious very quickly that Merrydew is up to no good. But it’s difficult to see just how he is involved. Once Holmes reveals the solution at the end, I saw how it all fit together, but the writers did a good job throwing you and Watson off the scent (but there are couple cheats here and there). The dialogue is pretty good, with the only weak part being the humor. Again with the comedy of booze. This seems to be a staple of 30's flicks and I have yet to find it funny. It shows up here and it does slow down the film a bit.

The direction is solid, with Edwin Marin keeping things moving and allowing the mystery to play out clearly enough so the audience can follow it. Things never get too inventive with camera angles or lighting, so atmosphere isn't a big deal here. It's a solid job, one that doesn't really hurt the film, but makes you wish a little style had been added.

The movie was entertaining, a good weekend movie for a lazy Sunday. While it may not be the quickest paced film, or even the most ingenious of mysteries, the final product will scratch that itch for Sherlock Holmes. Anyone looking for a change of pace should check out Reginald Owen's take on the famous detective.

James Lileks wasn't so hot on this one. Check out his review here.