Siskel & Ebert At the Movies 1985-Young Sherlock Holmes
Top Comments
All Comments (30)
-
@petercharleskrug they were suppose to be, moriarity was a villan and drugging them, he wasnt suppose to give nice wonderfull hallucinations lol.
-
as usualy siskel missed this flick. they should remake it with daniel radcliff from harry potter.
-
I don't think the FX overwhelmed the movie
-
@cecinid My problem with this movie was the nightmare hallucinations. To me those scenes felt more like they belonged in a horror movie rather than a Sherlock Holmes movie.
-
They weren't poison darts they were heroin tipped darts.
-
It's telling how far off the track movies have come since then. Both men (somewhat justifiably) grant that the special effects were great. And at the time, I'm sure such things like the stained-glass knight could be unapologetically thought of as positives. Now? I feel, like possibly everyone else, special effects are something to roll your eyes over. Oh, it's got a scene with cool effects? Who cares? These days it more than likely means the movie has no atmosphere, warmth, or characters.
-
@cecinid I agree---
-
@KtheMasterG Yeah, it is strange. But the Goonies was based on a story by Spielberg, while Young Sherlock Holmes was a distillation of numerous different books which were then deconstructed and made into this film.ITs not an awful film, but sadly, its lacking.
Still,the stained glass knight was really cool, and broke new ground.
-
funny...both were written by the same guy..Chris columbus
Siskel was way off on this one (I rarely agreed with him anyway)...this was a WONDERFUL film, brilliant writing, FX and score...vastly underrated, I highly recommend it...
cecinid 2 years ago 10
Went to see it as a kid and for a PG it was kind of dark and scary...well that's how I remember it.
nookie077 2 years ago 5