--- title: "Holmes & Watson" year: 2018 kind: "film" canonical: "https://film.one/film/holmes-and-watson" fi1m_score: 24 critics_score: 25 critics_reviews: 16 published: "2026-09-16T15:23:50.194469+00:00" updated: "2026-09-16T15:24:15.906049+00:00" region: "US" licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Holmes & Watson (2018) Directed by Etan Cohen · 1h 30m · MPA PG-13 · Comedy, Mystery, Crime **Fi1m score: 24** · Critics 25 from 16 reviews *In a sentence:* Two detectives put on the accents and wait for the jokes to turn up > Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly bring little warmth to a Sherlock Holmes spoof that mistakes strained accents and anachronisms for jokes. A few supporting performances offer relief, but this is a wearying use of 90 minutes. ## Synopsis Sherlock Holmes (Will Ferrell) and Dr. Watson (John C. Reilly) are the central pair in this comedy mystery. Inspector Lestrade (Rob Brydon), James Moriarty (Ralph Fiennes) and Queen Victoria (Pam Ferris) are among the people who figure in their story. Rebecca Hall plays Grace Hart, Kelly Macdonald plays Martha Hudson and Lauren Lapkus plays Millicent. The film mixes a mystery with physical comedy, period surroundings and modern references. Etan Cohen writes and directs; the running time is 90 minutes and the certificate is 12A. ## Review *Holmes & Watson* gives Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly a workable comic assignment: make Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson ridiculous while keeping their friendship worth watching. Etan Cohen, who writes and directs, gets the ridiculous part done early. This is a poor comedy, short of laughs and slow to move past the ones that fail. At 90 minutes, it ought to be a manageable dose of foolishness, but even that modest running time feels like an unreasonable demand. The first problem is how little there is beneath the performances. Will Ferrell makes Sherlock Holmes foolish, but the character’s certainty needs better jokes if it is going to carry scene after scene. John C. Reilly brings some warmth to Dr. Watson, though the friendship rarely develops beyond the pleasure of seeing these two actors together. We winced at the strained accents: both men keep making the delivery conspicuous when the words themselves give us so little to enjoy. Etan Cohen’s writing leans on anachronisms without establishing much comic logic for the world around them. A modern reference can be funny in period dress, but surprise alone will not sustain a succession of them. The gross-out material has the same problem: the provocation arrives, and then there is nowhere interesting for the joke to go. A detective spoof needs enough order for its stupidity to disrupt something, and this one seldom bothers to establish it. Oliver Wood’s cinematography leaves the picture murky, which does no favours to physical comedy already struggling to make itself clear. James Hambidge’s production design provides the period setting, but the film finds little comic use for those surroundings beyond making the modern references conspicuous. The performers need space and clarity for a gesture or reaction to register. Too often, the way the film looks adds to the general feeling of effort, rather than helping a joke along. Editors Erik Jessen and Dean Zimmerman never make the disconnected riffs feel as though they are gathering speed. Jokes linger beyond their small initial surprise, and the next one rarely gains anything from what came before. Mark Mothersbaugh supplies the music, but there is little a score can do when the dialogue and cutting keep missing the moment. So much of the silliness arrives without rhythm that even the more promising ideas struggle to produce a laugh. The supporting cast offers occasional relief. Lauren Lapkus, playing Millicent, gets more from physical comedy than the leads manage, while Rebecca Hall finds flickers of amusement as Grace Hart. These are small pleasures, but they suggest how much better the film might have worked with less insistence on every gag. Ralph Fiennes gets too little to do as James Moriarty, another performance left waiting for the writing to justify the casting. We do not need a Sherlock Holmes parody to treat its detective respectfully, or even to provide a particularly clever case. We do need the foolishness to build, the partnership to matter and the supporting players to have something worth doing. The scattered signs of comic life make the long stretches without it harder to excuse. Even an evening chosen purely for Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly would be better spent elsewhere. *Fi1m score 24, published 16 September 2026.* ## What the critics say The consensus is strongly negative: most critics find Holmes & Watson short of laughs, with a promising pairing let down by repetitive gags and weak material. Praise is scattered rather than shared widely, though some reviews find pleasure in Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly’s friendship and musical abilities. The supporting performers also earn occasional credit, particularly Lauren Lapkus’s physical comedy and Rebecca Hall’s efforts to bring some humour to the proceedings. The main divide concerns whether those moments offer much relief. Most reviews describe dated parody, strained performances and anachronisms that do little beyond announcing themselves; several also lament the wasted supporting cast. A few raise sharper objections to homophobia and the treatment of women. Polygon is more forgiving, finding enjoyment in the film’s weirdness and supporting players, while Vulture sees it settling into a silly groove after an inept start. Neither amounts to an unqualified endorsement. ### Reviews we read (16) - **Vulture**, David Edelstein (60/100, inferred): The critic notes it begins ineptly but settles into a silly groove, with some good moments like the musical number. They praise the audience enjoyment and Ferrell/Reilly's musical chops despite many awful jokes. [Read](https://www.vulture.com/2018/12/holmes-and-watson-review.html) - **The New York Times**, Ben Kenigsberg (45/100, inferred): The critic finds the film stagnant with insufficient laughs to overcome its dull routine, despite Sony's decision to release it without advance screenings. Intermittent joy comes from the autumnal bromance between Ferrell and Reilly, highlighted by a late musical duet. [Read](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/25/movies/holmes-and-watson-review.html) - **Los Angeles Times**, Noel Murray (40/100, inferred): The review calls the film a well-meaning misfire that occasionally clicks with raunchy '80s comedy energy and a Daffy Duck/Porky Pig dynamic between Ferrell and Reilly. It disappoints overall compared to the duo's stronger prior collaborations, with gags that often land flat. [Read](https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-holmes-and-watson-review-20181226-story.html) - **Variety**, Peter Debruge (25/100, inferred): The critic deems it a dud whose uninspired execution spoils the amusing premise of Ferrell and Reilly as Holmes and Watson. The parody feels off-brand and garden-variety, squandering a strong supporting cast while the leads' chemistry cannot salvage the lackluster material. [Read](https://variety.com/2018/film/reviews/holmes-and-watson-review-will-ferrell-1203095643/) - **Empire**, Nick de Semlyen (20/100, inferred): The film is a hit-and-miss comedy that fails due to its cretinous leads and lack of internal logic, relying on random riffs that mostly fall flat. It singles out a third-act song as one of the rare moments where it bursts into life, though even that does not reach the heights of the stars' better work. [Read](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/holmes-watson-review/) - **The AV Club**, Ignatiy Vishnevetsky (F): The critic calls it the worst feature-length film about Sherlock Holmes, with uncharacteristically unfunny performances from the leads and pure flopsweat. They complain about the laziness and dated parody. [Read](https://www.avclub.com/will-ferrell-and-john-c-reilly-hit-career-lows-in-the-1831309924) - **Sight and Sound**, Trevor Johnston (10/100, inferred): The critic finds the film a mirth-free comedic misfire with poor material and desperate cluelessness. They single out the waste of talented supporting actors like Ralph Fiennes and the glaring anachronisms for complaint. [Read](https://www.bfi.org.uk/sight-and-sound/reviews/holmes-watson-review-lumbering-sherlockian-knockdown) - **The Guardian**, Peter Bradshaw (10/100, inferred): The critic calls the film puerile, imbecilic and the nadir of Conan Doyle adaptations, full of casual homophobia and grossout gags. The performances by Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly are described as bare minimum and insulting, with a murky look and poor treatment of female characters. [Read](https://www.theguardian.com/film/2019/jan/06/holmes-and-watson-review-film-john-c-reilly-will-ferrell) - **The Hollywood Reporter**, Frank Scheck (10/100, inferred): The critic finds the film devastatingly unfunny, a Christmas turkey that wastes a talented cast in a feeble sendup of Sherlock Holmes. They single out the shoddy visuals and lame slapstick for complaint. [Read](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-reviews/holmes-watson-1171624/) - **The Telegraph**, Tim Robey (10/100, inferred): The critic deems the film very, very bad, a desperate period spoof with failed gags, strained performances and pointless anachronisms that no one in the audience found funny. It is portrayed as a crass, regressive mess that even Netflix rejected. [Read](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/0/curious-case-holmes-watson-just-bad-worst-movie-2018/) - **Time Out**, Joshua Rothkopf (10/100, inferred): The critic calls it a graceless, laughs-free experience showing the stars out of touch with their usual mania. They single out the charmless prissy accents, inept gags, and desperate anachronisms like the Titanic cameo for complaint. [Read](https://www.timeout.com/movies/holmes-watson) - **Polygon**, Karen Han (65/100, inferred): The critic finds Holmes & Watson not as bad as expected despite its flaws, noting it wrings some joy from elementary material. They single out the terrific supporting cast and the film's underlying weirdness for praise. [Read](https://www.polygon.com/2018/12/26/18156866/holmes-watson-review-will-ferrell-john-c-reilly/) - **Den of Geek**, Mark Harrison (2 out of 5): The critic finds it an underpowered Sherlock spoof with only a couple of inspired gags amid humdrum material. Lauren Lapkus's physical comedy performance stands out as a highlight. [Read](https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/holmes-and-watson-review/) - **The Playlist**, Cory Woodroof (30/100, inferred): The critic sees the film as a half-baked misfire that fails to capitalize on its premise of a dumb take on Sherlock Holmes, lacking the vision of prior Ferrell collaborations. It delights in its own stupidity but ultimately feels wayward and unsatisfying. [Read](https://theplaylist.net/holmes-watson-ferrell-reilly-review-20181227/) - **/Film**, Josh Spiegel (2/10): The critic finds the film an uninspired and hacky parody that arrives several years too late, with lazy one-note gags and inconsistent tone. The relationship between the leads and the supporting cast's wasted potential are highlighted as disappointments. [Read](https://www.slashfilm.com/563222/holmes-and-watson-review/) - **The Wrap** (10/100, inferred): The film is a thoroughly tedious and never-amusing Sherlock Holmes spoof that feels like an unfunny first draft. The critic singles out Rebecca Hall for eliciting the film's closest approximation to laughs as an American doctor. [Read](https://www.thewrap.com/holmes-and-watson-film-review-will-ferrel-john-c-reilly/) ## Details - **Director:** Etan Cohen - **Director:** Etan Cohen - **Writer:** Etan Cohen - **Cinematography:** Oliver Wood - **Editor:** Dean Zimmerman, Erik Jessen - **Music:** Mark Mothersbaugh - **Production design:** James Hambidge - **Producer:** Will Ferrell, Adam McKay, Jimmy Miller - **Cast:** Will Ferrell as Sherlock Holmes; John C. Reilly as Dr. Watson; Rebecca Hall as Grace Hart; Rob Brydon as Inspector Lestrade; Kelly Macdonald as Martha Hudson; Lauren Lapkus as Millicent; Pam Ferris as Queen Victoria; Ralph Fiennes as James Moriarty - **Runtime:** 1h 30m - **Certificate (MPA):** PG-13 - **Release (the US):** 25 December 2018 - **Genres:** Comedy, Mystery, Crime - **Budget:** $42 million - **Box office:** $40 million - **Trailer:** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDJBrRM12dU ## Where to watch in the US - Netflix: streaming - Pluto TV: free - Amazon Prime Video: rent $3.99, uhd - Apple TV: rent $3.99, hd - Amazon Prime Video: buy $12.99, uhd - Apple TV: buy $12.99, hd *Checked 2026-09-16.* Also available in: AE, AR, AT, AU, AZ, BE, BG, BR, CA, CH, CL, CO, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, GB, GR, HK, HU, ID, IE, IN, IS, IT, JP, KR, LT, MX, MY, NL, NO, NZ, PA, PH, PL, PT, RS, SE, SG, TH, TR, UA, US, VN, ZA. Add `?region=XX` to this URL for another country. ## Awards - Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Picture 2018: Golden Raspberry Award for Worst Picture (won) ## If you liked this - *Without a Clue* (1988): Another foolish Holmes, with a detective partnership that actually sustains the jokes - *The Other Guys* (2010): The same pleasure in incompetent men, with much firmer comic timing - *The Pink Panther* (1963): Detective incompetence handled with patience, giving the physical comedy room to breathe - *The Ladykillers* (1955): Criminal self-importance meets domestic inconvenience, with far more care over the details - *Le Dîner de cons* (1998): A French farce that understands how efficiently stupidity can wreck an evening --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Canonical: https://film.one/film/holmes-and-watson