Guy Ritchie has returned to the world of Sherlock Holmes and gods help us all. Young Sherlock (2026-) isn’t exactly terrible, provided you enjoy Guy Ritchie films on some level, but it does feel a bit disorienting to be so flagrantly self-indulgent to decide that he wants to explore the origin stories, not of Holmes and Watson, but of Holmes and Moriarty some 17 years after his first bombastic attempt to turn Sherlock Holmes into a Victorian crime fighting superhero.
Look, I enjoyed Sherlock Holmes (2009) and its 2011 sequel well enough, but it feels really strange to suddenly be hauled back into Ritchie’s version of Doyle’s over-starched world. Mainly because this was a project that missed its window of opportunity by a good decade. If this series had come out at any point prior to 2015, at the very least it wouldn’t appear as though Ritchie is so desperately keen to stay relevant. Since the last Guy Ritchie Holmes film graced the big screen, there’s been a veritable explosion of Sherlockian films and TV shows, so this effort feels regressive instead of progressive. Ritchie self-referencing Ritchie, after a decade and a half of other directors and showrunners referencing Ritchie.
That said, I don’t hate it.
While I do question “why now,” I gotta admit that that Guy Ritchie is basically a god when it comes to a show populated with good actors, tight scripting, great cinematography, excellent fight choreography, and a truly banging soundtrack. It might even challenge you intellectually in ways you least expect. Or it might not. Doesn’t matter, because he seems to have the formula figured out. So, if you’re looking for my recommendation on whether or not Young Sherlock is worth the watch…? Well, if you like Guy Ritchie, you’ll like this. And I like Guy Ritchie, so despite my best efforts to be a cynical purist about everything anachronistic thing he’s done with the Sherlock Holmes oeuvre, despite my desperate wish to hate it because I can’t figure out when it’s actually set, historically speaking — I … I like it.
So, we should probably discuss the costumes, right? Jany Temime, who did every Harry Potter film except the first one, and who has an extensive Marvel Cinematic Universe background as well, designed the costumes for Young Sherlock. Overall, they are very good costumes. That said, it will not surprise you that I had some Issues™. This series takes place when Sherlock is 19 and attending Oxford. Which, if we are to apply our critical thinking skills, means that it should be set sometime in the 1860s. Which it very much isn’t. Like, not even vaguely.
I had to really dig into some deep lore here because in my head cannon, Sherlock exists around 1890, but according to my internet research, the earliest books are set around 1880, and then they go up to approximately 1914. Clearly Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was writing contemporaneously to his own time, and if we deduce that Holmes is about 30 when we first meet him in the earliest stories, that means that 19-year-old Oxford student Holmes existed at the absolute earliest in like 1869. Why is this a problem for all of us reading this blog? Because the main female character, played by the extremely captivating Zine Tseng, is Chinese and she’s shown wearing a qipao, which did not exist before 1920.
Another issue is that there are basically zero bustles in view at any time on any of the women.
Bottom line, if you’re not thinking too hard about this show (which, honestly, you probably shouldn’t be doing with any Guy Ritchie film — just let the art wash over you), it’s a fun romp. But if you’re like anyone reading this blog, you’re going to run into some Problems™ because it’s not sticking to the Doyle’s timeline, let alone the timeline established by Guy Ritchie 17 years ago. Are the costumes good? Yes. Are they historically accurate? Lol, no. Do you like Guy Ritchie? Yes? Then totally go for it and enjoy the shit out of it.
Did you like Young Sherlock? Tell us in the comments!
Find this frock flick at:
We’re enjoying it, but it is definitely in a “turn your brain off it’s Guy Ritchie” way.
And I can’t help but notice some parallels between the main plot point driving the series of crimes and that in Barry Levinson’s 1985 “Young Sherlock Holmes” even though there it’s Holmes and Watson. (Not being more specific because Spoilers)
Not a bustle, right. 1900 But I do like these women’s tailor suits!
Colin Firth looks perfect for the period now that he’s older and bulkier (or dressed to seem so). By the way, according to founders of the Baker Street Irregulars, Holmes was born on January 6, 1854.
I wasn’t too far off in my age calculation, then! Thanks!
The episode where they go to Paris places the time at 1871 during the Paris Commune if that helps the timeline at all.
I do like shows like this that are fun. I don’t think we should be too hard on ourselves about liking things that are just fun, unless of course they are problematic (at which point I think there are levels.) I haven’t watched this yet but I absolutely will. With how our world is right now, I think taking a few hours to just veg with something light is good. Recharge for the next battle.
Wait, are we in the 90s? Uneducated me would have put it in the early 1900s.
I wouldn’t.
Funny show! I do not need accuracy when watching stuff like this – I just enjoy
Hello there. Sorry to lean into accuracy, but Jany Temime was head Costume Designer on the Harry Potter films, but from film 3 onwards, with Lindy Hemming doing the first two in the series. Also, her involvement with the Marvel Universe – although not to be understated, of course – is a single film in the series, being Black Widow