Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Overstreet

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011)

Recommended Posts

In the Granada TV version of A Scandal in Bohemia, I thought Adler was given some Continental nationality or other. Or am I mistaken?

She's American in the Granada adaptation (specifically USian); about 4:30 in this clip they refer to her as having been born in New Jersey. As to the actress herself, Gayle Hunnicutt seems to have been born in Texas.

Of course (1) Adler is an international adventuress, and (2) the King of Bohemia met her in Warsaw, so it's not a stretch to suppose that she should seem more European. What that would do to her accent (and even what a native of New Jersey would have sounded like in eighteen ninety-something) is more than I could say, though.

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't have a thread on New Year's Eve, which is just as well, but I do want to note that one of the funnier things about that film is the way the wide shots of Times Square -- including the final shot (not counting end-credits outtakes), if memory serves -- include a giant poster for Sherlock Holmes 2, which was clearly added in later, digitally. More than a massive product placement, it's practically a Robert Downey Jr. cameo in itself, in a movie that is already replete with overblown cameos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Total Film:

[A]s close as Rob and Jude get as they pursue an international conspiracy from London and Paris to Switzerland, there’s an even more intriguing relationship in A Game Of Shadows: that between Sherlock and his fabled nemesis Moriarty, played with suavity and silky menace by Mad Men’s Jared Harris.

Not only does this ensure Holmes 2 is an improvement on its predecessor, it also lends welcome dramatic heft to a film that might otherwise be defined by its smirking insouciance – not to mention present Holmes with an adversary who is his intellectual as well as physical equal.

[snip]

Clocking in at 10 minutes over the two-hour mark, you might expect Shadows to drag. But the film romps along at a merry old clip, rarely pausing for breath as it speeds across Europe via car, boat and Shetland Pony.

Admittedly, you might wish Moriarty had a slightly more fiendish masterplan than the one he eventually details. But this is a minor blip in a higher-grade sequel that puts as few feet wrong as Sherlock does on the dance floor during the peace-summit finale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Almost every review I've read for this is saying that it's superior to and more traditional than the first film.

If I can be assured of the former eventuality, I will most cheerfully accept the latter.

Meanwhile, here's The Guardian, calling the movie "a rousing bit of slash fiction" and adding:

Chasing the trail of 2009's Sherlock Holmes, director Guy Ritchie isolates a subtext and then runs with it. His Holmes is not the cerebral, largely sedentary sleuth who holds court from the comfort of a Baker Street armchair. Instead, he gives us Holmes as seductive best mate; as martial arts adventurer; as the can-do hero of a tale that is colourful and boisterous, with barely an ounce of fat on its bones.

Meanwhile, Slant has this to say:

A Game of Shadows has no interest in anything other than simplistic storytelling devoid of authentic historical heft, falling back on bland war-profiteering as the driving aim of its ne'er-do-well villain and giving Holmes no motivation except his egomaniacal desire to prove his own intellectual acumen—narcissism that, unlike in Sherlock Holmes, comes off as a grating affectation courtesy of the film's inability to find a single scenario that ably exploits Downey Jr.'s gift for melding dashing confidence with roguish insouciance.

Collider:

But the real crime is wasting Moriarty, because villains can help illuminate our heroes. Moriarty is Holmes without conscience. He’s the only person on the planet who can challenge the great detective and A Game of Shadows makes a poor play by shuffling him off to the side. The intent is to make the villain’s presence felt even when he’s not on screen, but we got that in the first movie. Whenever Moriarty is on screen, Jared Harris steals the spotlight, which is impressive considering he has to contend with Downey, The Charisma Explosion. Matters are made worse when you realize there isn’t much of a “game” between the two in the first place.
Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to be putting together some long-form thoughts a little later, but I just wanted to drop a few points here:

1) Game of Shadows is definitely better than the first movie. Not because it's truer to the book, but because Holmes is given a reason to care that was lacking in the previous movie. Slant is wrong--Holmes is invested in this movie for two reasons, though only one of them (his concern for Watson) gets much play. What's more, the movie actually feels like the villain's plan is big, rather than assuring us that it is.

2) I take back what I said about McAdams. Her exchange with Holmes early in the movie is fun. SPOILER Then Moriarty kills her and--what? I was sure it was a ruse, that she would pull a Marion Ravenwood, but no. And the movie forgets her, more or less, though it's implied that she's part of Holmes' motivation right at the end. But--as with the next point--the movie couldn't quite embrace the emotions it evoked

3)The Holmes-Moriarty stuff is lots of fun to watch, and I love the fact that it's handled the way it's handled. Well, until a certain something happens at the end of the movie; again, when they get a chance for real emotion, the screenwriters flinch.

4) Stephen Fry was born to play Mycroft. Here's hoping he's got a bigger part in the next movie. And speaking of parts, I've got to say I missed Lestrade.

EDIT: One more thing: the climax is surprisingly low-key, compared to the first movie. It didn't hit me until after it was over, but it had the makings of a first-class suspense sequence. It doesn't quite gel, but it's nice to see Ritchie go for tension over bombast--particularly after the neverending forest chase.

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NBooth wrote:

: Stephen Fry was born to play Mycroft. Here's hoping he's got a bigger part in the next movie.

I don't care how big his, um, parts are, as long as they stay well, well out of the frame next time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
: Stephen Fry was born to play Mycroft. Here's hoping he's got a bigger part in the next movie.

I don't care how big his, um, parts are, as long as they stay well, well out of the frame next time.

laugh.gif

Yes, he's certainly not an actor who needs more exposure than he got here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, dang, guys... I really wanted to ignore this one. There are too many promising movies coming out right now, and I thought I could cross this off my priority list. You're not making that easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, dang, guys... I really wanted to ignore this one. There are too many promising movies coming out right now, and I thought I could cross this off my priority list. You're not making that easy.

You're getting the wrong impression, at least as far as I'm concerned.

You can ignore this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, dang, guys... I really wanted to ignore this one. There are too many promising movies coming out right now, and I thought I could cross this off my priority list. You're not making that easy.

You're getting the wrong impression, at least as far as I'm concerned.

You can ignore this one.

Did you catch the first one SDG?

FWIW, haven't been able to muster up much energy to see the first one myself

Edited by Benchwarmer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, dang, guys... I really wanted to ignore this one. There are too many promising movies coming out right now, and I thought I could cross this off my priority list. You're not making that easy.

You're getting the wrong impression, at least as far as I'm concerned.

You can ignore this one.

I liked it quite a bit, but if you didn't care for the first movie, this one is likely to leave you cold as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, considering our discussion in the Mission: Impossible thread re: whether or not that film compares to the "realism" of Raiders of the Lost Ark, I feel compelled to note that there are moments in the new Sherlock Holmes film which go the full Temple of Doom, or the full Last Crusade -- a camouflage outfit working because nobody notices the wrinkle in perspective, etc. So this film is certainly the more cartoonish of the two big action-franchise sequels this week. (I say two, rather than three, because I assume the new Alvin and the Chipmunks movie is not part of an action franchise.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With humility, my review.

I'm trying to reconcile my enthusiasm for certain aspects of the movie with an awareness that it almost certainly won't hold up to repeated viewings. It's a better movie than Sherlock Holmes but it can't quite commit itself to either the social commentary or the emotional stakes-raising--and that's the most maddening thing about it (more maddening than the never-ending chase through the forest).

If only it ended thirty seconds sooner, I would feel more comfortable committing to it. But alas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ach. And now Lyndsay Faye puts her finger on exactly what I like about the movie, but which somehow managed not to make it into my review:

No, where the camp leaves off being grotesque and becomes a study in loneliness, moments of actual poignancy are achieved in what is otherwise a powder keg full of glitter. Downey’s Holmes lives life on the razor edge of sanity and addiction and is nearly killed four or five times a day. When he asks Watson just before the stag party whether Watson’s absence means he’ll die alone, it’s no light question. He delivers Watson to his wedding hung over and bloody, but delivers him nevertheless, and watching him witness the marriage ceremony is ten times more excruciating than watching him dangle from a metal hook like a steer carcass.

Exactly. Downey does an unconventional and cartoonish Holmes, but those moments where he is allowed to quietly portray Holmes' loneliness are pretty solid.

EDIT: Apparently I'm the only person who enjoyed this, so I won't bump the thread again--but Baker Street Blog has a review that, again, pretty much sums up my reaction--down to the one of my biggest gripes:

The only issue I had with the film itself, outside of Canonical derivations, was one sequence in which the heroes and company are running through a forest and the slow-motion I had grown accustomed to seeing for the majority of Holmes’ fight scenes becomes so excessive it killed the momentum of the film at that point. Lots of explosions? Fine, it’s a Guy Ritchie film with anarchist bombers and steampunk weapon manufacturers (automatic pistol, anyone?), there will be lots of explosions. An over-the-top moment for the villain to torture his nemesis while singing along to opera? The cliche actually works well, which was somewhat surprising, thanks largely to the torture itself being relatively mild and Jared Harris obviously enjoying being evil so much. The slow-motion, however, works when Holmes is narrating his thought process for each fight, but to have an entire scene of running with explosions and trees shattering from artillery fire all done in jerky stop and go slow-motion is too much. They’re trying to escape - just let them run!
Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NBooth wrote:

: Exactly. Downey does an unconventional and cartoonish Holmes, but those moments where he is allowed to quietly portray Holmes' loneliness are pretty solid.

Absolutely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NBooth wrote:

: Exactly. Downey does an unconventional and cartoonish Holmes, but those moments where he is allowed to quietly portray Holmes' loneliness are pretty solid.

Absolutely.

While everyone else was seeing MI:IV and Tintin, I went back with a friend to see this again, and I'm almost prepared to go beyond the above statement and say that RDJ's Holmes is a better performance than his turn as Tony Stark. His Holmes is a clown, but even at his broadest there's a hint of desperation. In his exchange with Watson just before he goes to confront Moriarty at Reichenbach he [RDJ] does a lot with very little.

In some ways, A Game of Shadows is a character-study disguised as a rock-em sock-em action movie. Holmes is not just a man who not only cannot function without Watson--he is a man who doesn't want to. Other Holmeses have needed their Watson (think Jeremy Brett's dark, drug-addicted Holmes or even Cumberbatch's cold thinking-machine Holmes) but I can't think of one who depends on Watson to this extent. I know a lot of reviews have dwelt on the homoerotic subtext (and it's certainly there) but there's a sense in which the subtext is extraneous to what the movie's doing. However you slice it, Holmes is lost and alone without Watson, and his acting-out is a response to that.

Still hate that last gag, though. The ending was primed to elevate the entire movie into something more deeply felt than it had any right to be--and then the screenwriters spoiled it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just saw it. I agree with NBooth about the final gag; it definitely should have been left on the editing room floor. Ruined the mood.

I thought the movie was quite similar to the first one. I know that these movies have more than a few detractors, but I am absolutely among those who enjoyed them. As NBooth correctly notes, there is an awful lot of startlingly economical characterization in these movies, far too much for the movies to be dismissed as mere eye-candy. (And of course the performances by Downey, Law, and Harrison are stellar.) Probably the weakest point is that Guy Ritchie just doesn't have that many tricks in his bag, even if they are pretty good tricks, forcing him to repeat them rather more than he should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm almost finished with a review (in spite of constant holiday activity interruptions) that defends the film against the main criticism it is getting in the negative reviews.

Still hate that last gag, though. The ending was primed to elevate the entire movie into something more deeply felt than it had any right to be--and then the screenwriters spoiled it.

Would it have been better without it? Probably. But there are a few other things about it that make it understandable. Remember why Doyle wrote The Final Problem in the first place.

I highly enjoyed it, in spite of its imperfections.

1 - I'd suggest that Harris is the best Professor Moriarty in the history of Sherlock Holmes film. Jared Harris is less cartoonish than George Zucco and Henry Daniell. He's given far more to do than Eric Porter ever was, and thus appears more powerful and intimidating (like in the singing to himself in the mirror scene, other actors would have just made that seem corny, Harris gives it a touch of maniacal madness).

2 - I think Downey Jr.'s Holmes is, as some of you have pointed out, one of the most vulnerable and human Sherlocks that we've seen to date. Remember, this is a Holmes with possibly a touch of Asperger Syndrome. And it is made clear that his logical deductive superpowers have come at a great personal cost.

3 - All the criticism that this is a James Bond/untraditional story is ignoring the fact that The Final Problem is not set at 221 B or London. It's an international adventure, different from most of their stories. And it wasn't a who-dunnit type mystery as simply watching Holmes figure out how to fight against his intellectual equal.

4 - The fact that everything in the film was headed toward Switzerland is enough to keep up the suspense. The closer they get, the more the tension builds. When Holmes and Moriarty finally do find themselves facing one another at the top of the falls, Downey Jr. and Harris give us a climax far better than any Western at high noon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's good to see some other folks enjoying this movie; I'm cautious, given how poorly the original movie has aged for me, but I'm far more enthusiastic than not.

Ok, ASSUME SPOILERS. I'm going back and forth between the stories and the movie, and it's inevitable that anyone who's read the stories will be able to deduce certain key events from the movie.

Still hate that last gag, though. The ending was primed to elevate the entire movie into something more deeply felt than it had any right to be--and then the screenwriters spoiled it.

Would it have been better without it? Probably. But there are a few other things about it that make it understandable. Remember why Doyle wrote The Final Problem in the first place.

Not sure I follow. Doyle killed off Sherlock Holmes because he hated him, but it's a fantastic, um, cliffhanger and one that's set the standard for other "he's dead--no, he isn't" plot twists. Other adaptations have tackled "The Final Problem" and preserved the emotional sting--without winking or backing off (the radio version with Gielgud, the Brett version). There's no reason for A Game of Shadows to undermine its earned payoff with a cheap invisible man joke.

1 - I'd suggest that Harris is the best Professor Moriarty in the history of Sherlock Holmes film. Jared Harris is less cartoonish than George Zucco and Henry Daniell. He's given far more to do than Eric Porter ever was, and thus appears more powerful and intimidating (like in the singing to himself in the mirror scene, other actors would have just made that seem corny, Harris gives it a touch of maniacal madness).

I'm a fan of Daniell. He's deliciously reptilian and the closest thing I've found on film to Orson Welles' definitive portrayal in the radio version of "The Final Problem." But Harris is fantastic. That mirror scene is odd, though--but not in a bad way. It's staged like a minimalist play--just Holmes, Moriarty, and the hook. All the game imagery in the movie is to be expected, but between the lighting here and the red-herring in the Opera, I wonder if theater forms a second set of references (theater of war?).

2 - I think Downey Jr.'s Holmes is, as some of you have pointed out, one of the most vulnerable and human Sherlocks that we've seen to date. Remember, this is a Holmes with possibly a touch of Asperger Syndrome. And it is made clear that his logical deductive superpowers have come at a great personal cost.

"I see everything...that is my curse." The line was a little on-the-nose, but it gets to something central about this Holmes (I think a better scene for that, though, is the one in the first movie where Holmes is waiting for Watson and Mary at the restaurant).

And now: a tangent. The Holmes of public imagination, more than any other fictional character I can think of, is a weird assemblage of unconscious memories of Gillett, sideways-glimpses of Rathbone and half-remembered encounters with The Hound of the Baskervilles. Even fans of the stories cannot escape reading through Gillett-Rathbone-Brett-whoever else; my Holmes is a combination of the Sidney Paget illustrations, Jeremy Brett's inflections and John Gielgud's voice. All of which is to say that I'm really curious to see how people who are introduced to Holmes through the RDJ movies read the stories. If I could find a way to study it, I would--but I suspect that literary sociology isn't a well-populated field.

3 - All the criticism that this is a James Bond/untraditional story is ignoring the fact that The Final Problem is not set at 221 B or London. It's an international adventure, different from most of their stories. And it wasn't a who-dunnit type mystery as simply watching Holmes figure out how to fight against his intellectual equal.

Well, I think in my review I mentioned that Moriarty's plot is "James Bond villain bland" or something like that, but I immediately qualified it by suggesting that Moriarty is more interesting than any Bond villain of the past few years. Beyond that--agreed. The Holmes stories are far more varied than, say, the Poirot stories, and encompass the caper, the comic mystery, the murder mystery, Gothic thriller, and the spy story. There's no reason the movies can't imitate the stories.

4 - The fact that everything in the film was headed toward Switzerland is enough to keep up the suspense. The closer they get, the more the tension builds. When Holmes and Moriarty finally do find themselves facing one another at the top of the falls, Downey Jr. and Harris give us a climax far better than any Western at high noon.

Agreed. Compared to the last movie's climax, this one was surprisingly intimate and low-key.

EDIT: This post is already too long, but bowen raises a good point about Guy Ritchie's bag of tricks. The slow motion is fine in the pre-fight stuff but annoying in the forest escape, where it feels like exactly what it is: Ritchie trying to outdo himself by giving us more of the same but BIGGER. Hopefully he'll back off that in the next movie.

Oh, and one more thing: in a movie that consistently, almost obsessively, observes Chekhov's gun, there's one item in Holmes' flat that doesn't get a call-back: the dummy in the window. That, together with the fact that the scriptwriters went to the trouble to get Sebastian Moran's name right, suggests interesting possibilities for the follow up--though with a different screenwriter taking over, who knows if it'll actually pay off.

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure I follow. Doyle killed off Sherlock Holmes because he hated him, but it's a fantastic, um, cliffhanger and one that's set the standard for other "he's dead--no, he isn't" plot twists. Other adaptations have tackled "The Final Problem" and preserved the emotional sting--without winking or backing off (the radio version with Gielgud, the Brett version). There's no reason for A Game of Shadows to undermine its earned payoff with a cheap invisible man joke.

I understand your point. I think I'm just accepting enough of the humor in these films so that I thought that the last joke at the end was actually pretty funny. Jeremy Brett is still my favorite Holmes, and they do a by the book episode of The Final Problem perfectly. But A Game of Shadows has more time to build up to the ending so that when it comes it's complete awesomeness, for me at least, couldn't really be wrecked by more humor afterwards. Besides, they had the last joke set up pretty well with at least 3 different precursors earlier that should have given us an idea how he could expect to ... etc.

"I see everything...that is my curse." The line was a little on-the-nose, but it gets to something central about this Holmes (I think a better scene for that, though, is the one in the first movie where Holmes is waiting for Watson and Mary at the restaurant).

Exactly what I wrote in my review. Point being, this being a franchise series and all, you can't really understand and appreciate the Sherlock, Watson, Mary and Adler of A Game of Shadows without having seen the first film. The Holmes of the better second film is still the guy who probably has Asperger's Syndrome from the first.

... my Holmes is a combination of the Sidney Paget illustrations, Jeremy Brett's inflections and John Gielgud's voice. All of which is to say that I'm really curious to see how people who are introduced to Holmes through the RDJ movies read the stories. If I could find a way to study it, I would -- but I suspect that literary sociology isn't a well-populated field.

The Holmes I see and hear when I read the stories is 100% Jeremy Brett. But that doesn't mean I can't still enjoy the other good ones.

Compared to the last movie's climax, this one was surprisingly intimate and low-key.

And sometimes it is just tremendously satisfying to see a scene from literature that you have read and imagined over and over and over again as a child set magnificently on the big screen - especially when it involves a snowy and roaring waterfall.

And here then, is my review -

If you think about it, no matter how much you humanize Sherlock Holmes, it wouldn't really be a Sherlock Holmes film if the filmmakers allowed themselves to explore Holmes's feelings to the extent that they could for a regular protagonist. The point is to only see momentary glimpses. The Holmes romance with Adler is famous for it's rarity. A Game of Shadows might have achieved further emotional depth with prolonged scenes on how devastating it was for him to lose Watson to a happy marriage, on the other hand, Downey Jr. ultimately makes more with less - and keeps Sherlock as Sherlock at the same time. The scenes where he does show emotion for others are more valuable for being rare.

The strength of the film is that they show the momentary glimpses to let you know what's below the calm and imperturbable surface.

Finally, could the ending have been better if it was thirty seconds shorter? Probably, but honestly, it really only matters for those who have not read Doyle's stories. Those of us who regularly read the stories already understand what is supposed to happen. There would be more power to the climax without taking from other stories, but doing so was probably inevitable. Besides, Doyle himself did not write The Final Problem to develop any emotional attachments in the reader. Anyone with an IQ over 50 should know, watching this, that this is a franchise promising further multiple films. There is enough surprise at the ending that adding humor to the last few seconds doesn't eliminate how fantastic the Reichenbach scene still really is ...

A Game of Shadows is a good and enjoyable film because it takes this famous, larger-than-life, hero and humanizes him ... just enough for us to glimpse that he's still a man with weaknesses not unlike our own. In spite of his problems, he's still the one willing to take on anything the worst of criminal masterminds can throw at him. Since charity for others always places the good guy at the disadvantage because the villain is not bound by any concern for collateral damage in the achievement of his diabolical ends, Holmes also accounts for this additional fact in his plans. He steps in to the rescue of Watson and Mary with a sangfroid that lends confidence and dignity even to the most ridiculous of disguises.

This is why Guy Ritchie and Robert Downey Jr.'s Sherlock Holmes is more compelling, probably than the majority of Holmes portrayals on film, precisely because they keep the giant intellect of the character, but then explain the pain that he has to will himself to ignore in order to successfully achieve the necessary intellect capable of satisfying his intense love for hunting down the truth when it is hopelessly lost in the shadows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Compared to the last movie's climax, this one was surprisingly intimate and low-key.

And sometimes it is just tremendously satisfying to see a scene from literature that you have read and imagined over and over and over again as a child set magnificently on the big screen - especially when it involves a snowy and roaring waterfall.

Oh, no doubt. I meant what I said as praise.

Anyone with an IQ over 50 should know, watching this, that this is a franchise promising further multiple films. There is enough surprise at the ending that adding humor to the last few seconds doesn't eliminate how fantastic the Reichenbach scene still really is ...

Not to belabor the point, but the issue isn't not that it eliminates the scene; it's that it undercuts it. The obvious comparison is Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest; if the movie had ended with a thirty-second clip of Jack cavorting in the background it would have ruined the mood and undercut his big scene. And that's in spite of knowing that Jack's inevitably going to come back. It's a matter of having enough respect for your audience to allow them to both grieve a character and anticipate his/her return.

A Game of Shadows is a good and enjoyable film because it takes this famous, larger-than-life, hero and humanizes him ... just enough for us to glimpse that he's still a man with weaknesses not unlike our own. In spite of his problems, he's still the one willing to take on anything the worst of criminal masterminds can throw at him. Since charity for others always places the good guy at the disadvantage because the villain is not bound by any concern for collateral damage in the achievement of his diabolical ends, Holmes also accounts for this additional fact in his plans. He steps in to the rescue of Watson and Mary with a sangfroid that lends confidence and dignity even to the most ridiculous of disguises.

Agreed.

This is why Guy Ritchie and Robert Downey Jr.'s Sherlock Holmes is more compelling, probably than the majority of Holmes portrayals on film, precisely because they keep the giant intellect of the character, but then explain the pain that he has to will himself to ignore in order to successfully achieve the necessary intellect capable of satisfying his intense love for hunting down the truth when it is hopelessly lost in the shadows.

Good point. I think this is a common characteristic of the stronger Holmes portrayals--Brett, certainly, but Robert Stephens and (in a different way) Christopher Plummer.

Speaking of which.... Every time I hear the "RDJ is no Sherlock Holmes" thing, I think of this scene:

It's not difficult to see the cast of the new movies playing this scene (perhaps a bit more quickly, but still); Plummer and Mason are like older, slightly more settled versions of Downey and Law.

Edited by NBooth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, time for me to read this thread and catch up on what everybody thought.

For the record: First impressions...

Pretty good popcorn fun.

I'm glad they're reveling in the comedy and barely even trying to take the story seriously. There were some good laughs this time around. At this point, I'm hardly even thinking of Arthur Conan Doyle's Holmes stories. This is its own thing, and Guy Ritchie's steam-punk Holmes-world has its charms. I just wish he'd slow the #@$% down and let me enjoy the set designs once in a while.

Jared Harris is an excellent Moriarty. Intelligent, a pleasure to watch and listen to.

And Noomi Rapace was a pleasant surprise; I thought she was only involved as a kind of "cool factor" due to Dragon Tattoo popularity, but she was just fine.

As with the first film, Jude Law was the high point of the movie for me -- this character is bringing out the best in him.

It still irks me that RDJ's Holmes is pretty much a complete set of RDJ tics and idiosyncracies, but nevertheless he makes Holmes far more interesting to watch than most action heroes.

And I could watch 30 minutes of those end-credit graphics. They're neat-o.

All in all, one of those rare sequels that is better than its predecessor. I'll definitely be up for a third one.

Edited by Overstreet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All in all, one of those rare sequels that is better than its predecessor. I'll definitely be up for a third one.

I'm glad to hear that. I think that, in many ways, this is a far better movie than it has any right to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree. Only saw this because I had a free pass, and I wasn't looking forward to it.

But it's a lot of fun, even if I don't feel the need to see it again (although I would see a third one).

I love all of Holmes' disguises - that's good slapstick for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×