I sympathize with the appeal of sequels. Good sequels raise the bar, elevating the stakes to make it more fun than the first film. Unfortunately, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is not one of those sequels.
Guy Ritchie’s bigger budgeted follow up to 2009’s Sherlock Holmes is a poorly done rehash that uses plot points as excuses to move from one piece of unoriginal slow motion fight choreography to the next. The ultra-slow-motion bullet shots are wow-inducing effects, but on the narrative level the film shoots blanks. To label Sherlock Holmes 2 as a bad movie would be harsh. It's not bad, just that it is an earth-shattering disappointment, a high gloss bore that gives you an ice cream headache.
The lack of novelty in this sequel is astounding. And the story is so convoluted I doubt that it’d make much sense even if you had the time or interest to concentrate. It is 1899, Watson (Jude Law) prepares to get married to his fiancé, and Holmes (Downey Jr) is obsessed with a Maths professor named Moriarty (Jared Harris), whom he believes to be responsible for the murders of a string of business magnates. Holmes intercepts a letter meant for fortune teller Madame Sizma (Noomi Rapace) that sends him and Watson on a quest to stop the bombing at a Switzerland peace summit, and quash Moriarty’s plan of jeopardizing the entire Western civilization. The first film was fascinating because of the supernaturally-inclined villain, but Moriarty in the sequel is merely a standard-issue conspiring bad guy with delusions of grandeur.
There is more CGI wizardry, more fights, more stunts, more back and forth between Holmes and Watson. But more, in this case, adds up to less, and Ritchie makes sure the audience is turned numb. The video game-like jump cutting punches and kicks get tedious, and it becomes hard to believe that they were choreographed by Guy Ritchie, even though he is to blame for the inception of this style. The 19th century London production design is amazing, but there is so much thrown at you with little plot payoff that it makes for an endless charade of pointless expensive buffoonery.
Just like in the first film, Sherlock Holmes 2 contains the crackerjack comic touch of its diminutive star Downey Jr. You’d have to be made of stone to not to be entertained by him. Jude Law is a lot more jaded, quite like the bloated, repetitive film. Noomi Rapace, the original Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is hilariously uncomfortable in her English speaking role. Eddie Marsan as Lestrade, Rachel McAdams as Irene Adler and Geraldine James as Holmes' landlady are wasted in thankless miniscule turns. Stephen Fry as Holmes' brother Mycroft in his extended cameo nudges in a few fun bits. Jared Harris is elegantly menacing as Dr. Moriarty. But that’s little consolation amidst the meandering plot and aimless set pieces.
If you love CGI razzle-dazzle and recurrent eye candy action, Sherlock Holmes 2 delivers. But ultimately you’ll have witnessed style over substance. Downey Jr is an exceptionally engaging actor, and he deserves much better than this elementary sequel.
(First published in Mid Day)
From the looks of your review it seems like that movie is similar to the last episode of BBC's Sherlock series , the whole Moriaty angle explored here as well ! Haven't seen the sequel but have to say Sherlock - mini series was much better than the original movie
ReplyDeleteI loved the 2009 movie, and I just recently saw the BBC miniseries. The series is absolutely brilliant, and it makes these movies look like doodoo.
ReplyDeleteHere's what I don't get. You stop short of calling this a bad movie, but label it lousy in your tweets? I hope that wasn't just for click-throughs. I was expecting a more harsh review than what I read.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, I don't disagree with some of what you've said, but I do believe you're looking for something in this series which wasn't there to begin with. I'd be interested to know whether you've read 'The Final Problem' which illustrates the largest confrontation Conan Doyle wrote between Holmes and Moriarty. Take a look at some of the original artwork that was drawn to illustrate that final 'plunge'. (Don't wish to reveal spoilers). You'll be more than pleasantly surprised how Ritchie has tried to recreate that scene. I agree the plot was slow, and perhaps the film could have been cut short by a quarter of an hour or so, but at no point was it any less enjoyable. I mentioned a while back that I believe Jared Harris should be given an Oscar nod for supporting Actor for this role, least of all a nomination. I think he was far more than 'elegantly menacing'. It's not about 'delusions of grandeur', but cloaks and daggers. Re-read the novels and short stories, and you'll find a very similar Moriarty there.
Personally I have absolutely no problems with Ritchie's interpretation of Holmes. The keyword there is interpretation. It's interesting to see the stereotypes stripped away, wouldn't you agree? Were this a whodunnit, perhaps it might have made sense. But Ritchie is clearly trying to spin a new adventure, indeed a new take on the 'consulting detective.'
I think you are being to harsh on the movie.
ReplyDeleteWhy do we need to compare cinema with mini series? Is it just because both based on same characters? I think one shouldn't be biased about anything before watching any visuals. If we have blank and calm mind then , we can evaluate in better way.
ReplyDeleteI didn't say it was a lousy movie, I said it was a lousy sequel. Yes I have read every single Sherlock Holmes story at least half a dozen times.
ReplyDeleteI hope you've checked out season premier of second series. Whoever found this movie remotely "enjoyable", should witness BBC's interpretation to be dumbfounded by its utter intelligence.! You should've included the comparison in the review, making this look like more Singham than Sherlock.
ReplyDeleteFirst 'compare' above comments.
ReplyDeleteyeah well, and you better check out 'Sherlock' by the legendary Steven Moffat to know how it's done the right way, instead of ripping off 'the final problem'. Sherlock Holmes was never about action & explosions!
ReplyDeleteclick here to watch the new movie of sherlock holmes in dvdrip:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.megaupload.com/?d=2V6AOZOJ
Thank you for speaking the truth sir. I read glowing reviews for this movie and finally went to go see it yesterday. It was so boring that I almost went and tracked someone down to get my money back. It was one of those "I just wasted two hours of my life and $20!" movies. I actually thought the first was good - the banter was witty, the story made some sense and it kept a steady pace. This one was missing all of the charm of the original and seemed to add more explosions to distract from the complete lack of discernible plot. (The one highlight - I did like Moriarty's scientific, chessmaster-like villainy) Otherwise, my friends and I were throughly disappointed.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed it quite a lot in fact. I went in low expectations,seeing all that action in the trailer, but it was balanced well at the end. The climax was really good.Well, that's my opinion. 4 1/2 out of 5
ReplyDelete