It makes complete sense to me now why Chris Columbus was tapped to direct Harry Potter. For years I had held this weird grudge that Terry Gilliam had been passed over for the director’s chair – how could Columbus possibly have a better grasp of the Potter’s world. Now after watching Young Sherlock Holmes, I can see that the framework for the Harry Potter movies had been constructed long before Columbus was ever handed the project, all it had to do was wait for a character to come along to fill out the protagonists role. As the writer of Young Sherlock Holmes, and also The Goonies, it was clear he had the chops to handle such a prolific character like Harry Potter.
Anything look familiar?
The common indicators are numerous, including the melange of main characters: two boys and a girl, shepherded by a quirky old man. It takes place at a British prep school, with a large common eating area and shared sleeping quarters, frequented by an arrogant blond-haired snob. There’s even a clubhouse area, complete with all kinds of curios and gewgaws, just like Hagrid’s hut or Dumbledore’s office. The kick of it is that the apparent magic and wonder of Young Sherlock Holmes, which were nominated for an Oscar by the way, is mostly drug induced.
It has also likely eluded nobody that both films are based on incredibly popular literary characters, although Young Sherlock Holmes takes great liberties with the subject matter and has disclaimers at both the beginning and the end of the film to apologize for this. Yes, yes, we’re all aware that Holmes and Watson never met when they were kids… I find it hard to believe that someone named Sherlock Holmes ever was a kid.
The decision to go ahead with the production of a movie is based on risk. That risk is mitigated by each similar film that preceded it, so long as they were well received. With that in mind many of today’s movies owe a debt of gratitude to their predecessors for their very existence. This might explain the general absence of originality in Hollywood, but it also means that just as Batman Begins should thank Unbreakable for laying the groundwork for a dark and serious superhero film, so should Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone thank Young Sherlock Holmes for its chance to appear on the big screen.
I find it so hard to believe that I never watched this movie the first time around when I was 11. It seems like the kind of thing I’d be into, and if it had been in my repertoire, I might have grown up to be an entirely different person.
Excellent review, because I never even knew YSH was written by future director of Harry Potter – and, man your correlations are spot-on, to use your vernacular. I was 11 when this movie came out, and was a HUGE fan of The Goonies, yet another that escaped me at the time – who at 11 really cares who the director is? We only relish the one-liners and colorful characters. YSH had some dynamic, deep and darker themes than most stuff I watched at that age, and even tugged at my heart strings. “I only ever saw Holmes cry twice in my life . . . ” YSH is one of those films that I HAVE to watch when I see it is on the ol’ idiot box. BTW, what the HELL is a gewgaw?
You know, it never occurred to me until now that it looks like I’m writing like a British person in that review. Man, that movie must have made an impression.
I’ve just looked down my nose at Chris Columbus for so long – his involvement in Home Alone was reason enough… until you get reminded that Home Alone was written by John Hughes and then you see in a different kind of “grown up” light. While I might not like his reliably “Hollywood” tone, his knack for “whimsical adventure” is unquestionable.
BTW: I totally could have interchanged gewgaw for knick-knack, but Comic Book Guy uses the term in the Mutton Chop Murderer Simpsons episode and it sounds too silly not to use.
[...] thefilmcynics.com [...]