web
counter
 

Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows Review: The Wickedest Chess Match The World Has Seen

By TK | Posted Under Film Reviews | Comments (35)



Sherlock Holmes 2 First Official Look.jpg

Guy Ritchie struck gold with 2009’s Sherlock Holmes. Combining a fast-paced, modernized take on Arthur Conan Doyle’s legendary detective with the blossoming and revitalized post-Iron Man popularity of star Robert Downey, Jr., he successfully brought the character back to cinematic life and created a full-blown blockbuster. The film was, in retrospect, somewhat uneven, but was nevertheless an enjoyable romp that set itself up perfectly for a sequel. That sequel comes to us this week in the form of Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows, and it retains much of what made the first one so engaging, while bringing in new characters that elevate it beyond its predecessor.

The plot of A Game Of Shadows is a murky, labyrinthine beast, replete with anarchists, bombings, assassinations and a continent-spanning conspiracy to bring about world war, all deviously masterminded by the nefarious Professor Moriarty (Jared Harris). I’d be spoiling the fun if I went into it any further, but suffice it to say that the battle of wits, fists, firearms and ripostes between Holmes and Moriarty is handled with a devious cleverness. Their vainglorious yet deadly rivalry is handled with equal parts of Downey Jr.’s trademark wry banter, and a deadly serious, bitter contest of wills that quite literally holds the fate of the world in its balance. Harris’ turn as Moriarty is a genius slice of villainy — he’s a quiet, menacing schemer, but he’s no glib deliverer of one-liners. No, there’s no doubt that Moriarty is evil, a genuinely sociopathic maniac determined to destroy everything in his path in his quest to influence the world. Yet at the same time, its done with a subtle devilishness makes his character all the more terrifying, a true Machiavellian plotter who masterfully pulls the strings behind the scenes, a man so brilliantly devious that it’s obvious that no one but Holmes could ever hope to bring him down. It’s heady, enjoyable stuff, and far outstrips the banter and — much as I hate the word — bromance between Holmes and his steadfast and long-suffering sidekick John Watson (Jude Law).

That bond of friendship and brotherhood between Watson and Holmes is the other focal relationship in the film, and that’s where the film was a bit of a mixed bag. The repartee between the two was sharp and exhilarating in the first film, but it felt more forced and overwritten in the sequel. Part of that problem lies with the writers (Ritchie and siblings Michele and Kieran Mulroney), who ramped up Holmes’ eccentricities, but did so via an increase in silliness and a childish jealousy over Watson’s pending nuptials with the lovely (if underused) Mary (Kelly Reilly). Downey does himself no favors either, veering off from oddball genius to petulant ridiculousness. It felt akin to Johnny Depp’s Jack Sparrow evolution, a character that shone bright in its first iteration, but dimmed via excess in subsequent parts — and was strangely paralleled by the similarly frustrating arc of Tony Stark in Iron Man 2.

Yet their relationship and interactions were salvaged by the scenes where they get down to the business of detecting, and that’s where Ritchie’s film excels yet again. Despite the action-packed trailers, what makes Downey and Law so great together is their moments of clever investigative technique and their back-and-forth playing of ideas off of each other. Their yin-and-yang approach to solving the greatest mystery of their time is utterly engaging and joyous filmwatching, aided by Ritchie’s first rate use of innovative and wickedly smart zooming effects. CGI is used minimally, but when it is used, to bolster the whirling dervish that is Holmes’ thought processes, it’s marvelous.

The film has other supporting characters that turn in solid, entertaining performances, most notably a hysterically smug performance by Stephen Fry as Holmes’ secretive brother Mycroft. Fry is a slick counterpoint to Holmes, a whole other version of arrogant, brilliant bastard that was just as fun to observe. Noomi Rapace was solid as the quick-witted gypsy Simza Heron, but as with most women in the Holmes films, underused. It’s a boy’s night out in London (and Switzerland, and Turkey, and several other locales), and sadly the women felt a bit like window dressing for much of it.

The other great supporting role is Ritchie himself, who directs his ass off in the film, creating a gorgeously rendered window into another time. With a breathtaking attention to historical detail, every costume, set, vehicle and weapon (not to mention the stunningly rendered credit sequence) is a lavishly rendered ode to the turn of the century. He celebrates the characters and their settings with an outstanding ability to shoot an action scene, with explosive combinations of back-alley fisticuffs and frantic firefights, all interspersed with a solid understanding of when and how to utilize ultra-slow motion for added effect. The combination, particularly during a hectic firefight and chase through a forest, is dizzying in all the right ways.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows is, for the most part, an enjoyable combination of detective story, action movie, and period piece. The performances are resoundingly enjoyable, despite the occasionally glaring stumbles in Downey’s performance — more attributable to the writing than the actor, but blame can be passed all around. Yet with Ritchie’s slick, inventive direction and a well-scripted story of nefariousness and Holmes’ and Moriarty’s keen battle of wits, it overcomes its few missteps and outshines its predecessor.









Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance



Young Adult Review: We Don't Have to Change at All | We Bought a Zoo Review: Cameron Crowe Will Pull Your Melting Heart Out of Your Chest and Show It To You









Comments

Oh, YAY. I'm so glad that my husband, Robert Downey, Jr., will not be making me file for divorce because he messed up my other husband's (Guy Ritchie's) film.

Posted by: Jelinas at December 14, 2011 12:25 PM

Holy crap, it's actually good? I was expecting it to bomb terribly like most of the franchise sequels lately. Nice to know I have something else to watch after I'm done with Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.

Posted by: Vi at December 14, 2011 12:31 PM

I was expecting to grit my teeth during this sequel. Now, I can look forward to Sunday's outing with the family. Thanks!

Posted by: Reba at December 14, 2011 12:59 PM

Yay. I'm not ashamed to say I'm going to go watch it. Yay!

Posted by: Candee at December 14, 2011 1:15 PM

Oh thank Godtopus! I have been soooo looking forward to this and regardless of the review here was going to see it - but I am thrilled to find out it does not succumb to sequelitis. Yay! Definitely going to pony up the money to see it on the big screen!

Posted by: jmd at December 14, 2011 1:59 PM

I've read this review three times, and I still can't find any profanity. I think a nun hacked TK's account. Bitch-ass penguin, you don't belong here.

Posted by: Greedy at December 14, 2011 2:05 PM

". . . is a lavishly rendered ode to the turn of the century."

The turn of which century? The Belle Epoch or Y2K? Since I didn't see the first one, I'm not sure if this is a modern version like the TV show, or set in the Victorian era.

Posted by: BWeaves at December 14, 2011 5:21 PM

Oh, thank dog, it doesn't suck.

Posted by: idiosynchronic at December 14, 2011 5:39 PM

Brilliant! I was going to see it this weekend regardless, but I'm pretty darn happy to hear that it's actually good. Hell yeah.

Posted by: beckster at December 14, 2011 6:43 PM

It's weird. I'm not even slightly interested in this movie (I...liked the first one, I guess, but not that much), but I'd watch it just for Jared Harris alone. I love that guy after what he's done on Mad Men. I guess I'd watch it if someone else was paying for the ticket...

Posted by: figgy at December 14, 2011 9:44 PM

I'll definitely be going to see this. Nuff said.

Posted by: Mr X at December 15, 2011 12:22 AM

Even if I didn't already want to see this, I could not miss the perfect casting of Stephen Fry as Mycroft Holmes. And now its description as "hysterically smug" just makes me want to see Frycroft more.

Posted by: JH at December 15, 2011 5:32 PM

Frycroft: the mirror-universe Aqua Team Glutton Force.

I'd pay for cable for a month for that.

Posted by: idiosynchronic at December 16, 2011 12:11 PM

Figgy,

If you like Jared Harris in Mad Men, you'll love him in Igby Goes Down.

Posted by: John G. at December 16, 2011 5:58 PM

The wickedest chess game in the world is between Bobby Fischer and Boris Spasskij...Reykjavik 1972.
THAT is a fact....not the headline of this review.
Sorry...just saw "Bobby Fischer Against The World"
And it was fascinating.

Posted by: UncleKaiser at December 16, 2011 6:18 PM

Happy it got the seal of approval I so wanted it to be good.

SOLD!

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at December 16, 2011 8:18 PM

Noomi Rapace in the cast...the TRUE Lisbeth S
I don´t need to be a hipster swedophile...I am from Sweden
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4FV6DAoonM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZSl_IaIQOA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wTTODksGtA

You will feel the nordic melancholy for sure...

Posted by: UncleKaiser at December 16, 2011 9:01 PM

So. Happy.

I was really concerned that this was going to be shite. While the first one wasn't perfect, it was so much damn fun that I could easily overlook its flaws. Can't wait to see this one.

Posted by: Kala at December 16, 2011 10:57 PM

"You will feel the nordic melancholy for sure..."

That sounds like a threat.

Posted by: ZombieMedic at December 17, 2011 1:10 PM

Was anyone else disappointed with the first one? I frequently feel like I am alone in that.
I am not saying that I didn't enjoy the first movie, I did. I thought Jude Law was particularly good.

It just didn't think it felt anything like Sherlock Holmes. It felt more like watching a James Bond movie, set in the Victorian era. Look, fancy gadgets! Look, hot but potentially troublesome female! Look, overly long action sequence!

It was a huge relief to me when the BBC series came out, because even modernized it feels so much more like Sherlock Holmes.

Posted by: DominaNefret at December 17, 2011 2:05 PM

DominaNefret, I may love you. As a fan of the Sherlock Holmes books, I could never understand the love for the first movie. As you say, it was fun and imaginative, but it sure as hell wasn't Sherlock Holmes. If Guy Ritchie and cohorts had just made it an original property, I would have quite enjoyed it; as it was, I just couldn't get past the branding. Bah!

Posted by: Uriah Creep at December 17, 2011 10:56 PM

@ZombieMedic
Sorry for the pragmatic answer, but it´s actually invigorating.

Posted by: UncleKaiser at December 21, 2011 9:07 PM

It's difficult for me to criticize purists, being the Tolkien fanatic that I am, but I'm sick to death of criticism based on someone else's work or on the source material OR previous iterations of said material.

How many different friggin Holmes films and TV shows are there? And we're still bitching that this version "isn't Holmes enough"? And to top that, bring in your gripes about another film via this film's co-star, trashing your beloved original? Pointless and petty, imo.

I didn't like the first one much the first time I saw it, but with repeated viewings (since it was on every 15 minutes on cable), it's become a favorite to watch. The sequel, however... I saw it twice in two days.

I agree that the Holmes' jealousy regarding Watson's upcoming wedding was a bit overdone, but I didn't mind that thread at all. After all, Watson is his only friend. The scenes in which this happens are short and sweet and, even if overdone, handled well. Kind of a small emotional relief from that "cold detachment" that leaves you feeling that Holmes has no emotion.

My father had seen it before I had and his only complaint was with the psuedo-bullet time stuff. He felt they overdid it, which is one of my pet-peeves with all sequels - take whatever worked in the first film and drive it into the ground. The difference here is that, while Ritchie did revive the slo-mo, inside-Holmes'-thoughts scenes, he updated them in a surprising way, using it to illustrate that even the great Holmes can't see every path from here to there.

The big scene in the forest felt overlong the first time I watched it, but on a second viewing, I found myself wanting a little more, relishing in the details I had missed the first time out. Same with some of the dialogue, which I admit was a little hard to catch in places. Part of the problem there was more Downey's affected accent and his habit of talking too fast or mumbly. A minor annoyance. As I write this, I find myself wanting to head back to the theater to watch it again.

For me, the film is all about Holmes and Watson, Downey and Law. Thinking of the movie without those two, it wouldn't be nearly as engaging or entertaining. The story is interesting enough, without the labyrinthine twists and bends of the first but with much more suspense and action. The ciritcism that the female characters were hardly more than scenery is valid, but I would point out that, aside from Moriarty and maybe his aid/henchman, none of the other characters, male or female, had much more to do than be there to provide another clue or avenue to respond to said clues. Noomi and her gypsies are little more than plot devices themselves, left behind when not needed further, though Simza did manage to hang in till nearly the end. An ending which sealed my love for this film. Best ending I've seen in a long time.

Posted by: Protoguy at December 26, 2011 12:03 PM

The surprising thing to me was that Jude Law was so much more believable as an action hero than was Downey. And Noomi Rapace makes Nicold Kidman seem absolutely the life of the party.

The movie was fun enough, though. Some great action sequences.

Posted by: James at December 26, 2011 7:44 PM

Gotta agree on Noomi. Except for a couple of scenes, she looked like she'd never been in front of the camera before. Not bad acting per se, just kinda stiff.

Posted by: Protoguy at December 26, 2011 9:15 PM

It's difficult for me to criticize purists, being the Tolkien fanatic that I am, but I'm sick to death of criticism based on someone else's work or on the source material OR previous iterations of said material.

Indeed, after reading your in-depth criticisms of The Hobbit based on a trailer, I can't believe you don't understand our objections to bullet-time and steampunk gadgets galore being used in a Sherlock Holmes movie (not to mention the respected literary character kicking ass all over London.) Pot and kettle, you know?

Posted by: Uriah Creep at December 26, 2011 9:48 PM

Also, I guess you could say I'm "sick to death" of being told to "get over it" when classics are reinterpreted by "visionary" directors and producers.

Posted by: Uriah Creep at December 26, 2011 9:51 PM

"Downey does himself no favors either, veering off from oddball genius to petulant ridiculousness. It felt akin to Johnny Depp’s Jack Sparrow evolution, a character that shone bright in its first iteration, but dimmed via excess in subsequent parts."

For the first 45 minutes, all I could think was "he's gone Full Sparrow." Thankfully it seemed to go away altogether once the film got to the serious parts.

Posted by: Markus at December 27, 2011 9:50 AM

RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK was a very good movie, and would be a good movie even if the character's name had been Sherlock Holmes rather than Indiana Jones. But I think people would still have complained "Hey this isn't really Sherlock Holmes".
Anyway, I'm waiting for the martial arts version of Hercule Poirot - I see no reason why he couldn't be played by Jet Li.

Posted by: Pat C. at December 27, 2011 6:06 PM

As I said, I understand the hint of hypocrisy on my part, but the main difference is that I said I was tired of complaints about the numerous iterations and their altered realities.

It would be very different if this were the 6th attempt to "update" Tolkien with Sam and Frodo wandering around New York city looking for the Drainpipe of Doom to send the One Turd back to whence it came. This was the first real screen adaptation of the novels.

This Holmes is what, the 20th? At least. I'm sure a verbatim version of Doyle's novels would have been great, but it's been done and done and done. Kinda gotta wait until they do it a couple of times before they start transplanting Aragorn and the rest to Afghanistan or rural Alabama. Don't get lemon juice up in your eye there.

Posted by: Protoguy at December 28, 2011 2:13 AM

And I understand your objections, I think they're just kinda immature.

Posted by: Protoguy at December 28, 2011 2:16 AM

Wait, did anyone else think this movie sucked?!

Posted by: FatMac at December 29, 2011 1:58 AM

Seriously, how much stop-motion BS is enough! I think this review was hacked.....PERFIDY!!!!!

Posted by: FatMac at December 29, 2011 2:02 AM

I thought it was fun, but the ending sucked. I would go into detail, but I have no interest in being accused of spoiling anything. Let's talk again once everyone has seen it.

Posted by: Pfft at December 29, 2011 8:35 PM

I just saw it. Meh. Bits were fun, but after awhile it just got exhausting to watch, as one chase scene became another chase scene became a fight scene became explosions....I'm to' up.

Fucking fantastic costumes though. Gorgeous, gorgeous work. When the action got stupid, I looked at the lapels.

Posted by: Salieri2 at January 7, 2012 11:20 PM