Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows
Directed by: Guy Ritchie
Written by: Michele Mulroney, Kieran Mulroney, Arthur Conan Doyle
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Noomi Rapace, Rachel McAdams, Jared Harris, Stephen Fry, Eddie Marsan
Action/Adventure/Crime/Mystery/Thriller - 129 min
Written by: Michele Mulroney, Kieran Mulroney, Arthur Conan Doyle
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Noomi Rapace, Rachel McAdams, Jared Harris, Stephen Fry, Eddie Marsan
Action/Adventure/Crime/Mystery/Thriller - 129 min
Even though there are now two films in Guy Ritchie’s version of Sherlock Holmes, I am still getting accustomed to the athletic, street fighting Holmes as opposed to the merely cerebral genius who used to chase suspects by horse and buggy rather than bash their brains out in back alleys. In Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows, the villain is more formidable, the action consumes more screen time, and the jokes are more cringe inducing. Sherlock (Robert Downey Jr.) has noticeably upped his drug habit with side references to cocaine and routinely drinks embalming fluid rather than boring old brandy.
Why the sudden surge for uppers? First, Sherlock is matching wits with Professor Moriarty (Jared Harris). Moriarty appears to match Holmes man to man intellectually; however, he has follows no moral code or displays any hint of empathy whatsoever. This makes his the most dangerous man in Europe. I will not divulge any plot points concerning his evil deeds because that is half the fun of a Sherlock story, following the trail as he discovers clues which lead him to the next location. Second, Dr. Watson (Jude Law) insists on going through with his marriage, a prospect Sherlock frequently reminds him will destroy his manhood and shatter his well-being.
Sherlock’s interactions with these two characters, Moriarty and Watson, define the high and low ends of this film. When Sherlock and Moriarty share the same room, real tension emanates from the screen. Their verbal sword play is a credit to the writing and the actors who joust for tactical advantage just by using metaphors. Two scenes between these men jump to mind. Early on, Sherlock analyzes Moriarty’s handwriting while Moriarty warns Sherlock of the dangerous path he is following. I will not describe a later scene between the two gentlemen, but it is the most effective in the film as they mentally assail one another.
The low and tedious end is Sherlock’s interactions with Watson. The relentless double entendres about their ‘relationship’ lead the audience to question whether or not Sherlock is homosexual. For a wisecrack or two, this would provide levity and amusement. Unfortunately, the script persistently wails against this dead horse of a joke. A homoerotic double meaning pops up about every 30 seconds when Sherlock and Watson share the screen. It soon grows dreary and began to test my patience, especially during an extended sequence with Sherlock in drag.
What always ends up bringing the script back on track is what Sherlock is known for, his fascinating method of deductive reasoning. Before he makes a move, the script may flash forward as he meticulously plans his next position in a street brawl or it may flash a few minutes back in time to show the audience just how he set up the bad guys to fail. Sherlock is always one step behind Moriarty who regularly seems to be the smarter of the two; however, if you are the individual planning the executing the scheme, those following you will always appear to be lagging behind you.
I slightly recommend this new Sherlock mainly for the enjoyment of the Sherlock vs. Moriarty moments and the fascinating moments when Sherlock pauses to explain the situation to someone (usually the audience) as to what and why he is taking a particular course of action. I hesitate to strongly recommend this film because of the awful dialogue between Sherlock and Watson and because of the standard Guy Ritchie cinematography style. Guy Ritchie is known for inventive and momentum shifting action scenes. Sometimes bullets fly faster than the speed of light and then shift to ‘Matrix’ time so the audience can watch it pierce someone’s clothing. Shifting between fast and slow motion in action sequences is helpful to determine the placement of good and bad guys, but after a particular amount of time, these shifts become significantly noticeable where instead they should be only slightly perceptible. When the third or fourth action sequence began, I was prepared and expected the momentum shifts which instead of drawing me into the scene actually had the opposite effect and took me out of it.
There are certain expectations and pitfalls a second film in a series runs into. Will it have the same mood and presence as the first film? Is it just there to take up space to make it a trilogy? In A Game of Shadows, Sherlock’s character is a bit more interesting because of the drug habit and especially because of the villain; however, Watson is beginning to draw eye rolls instead of applause as the sidekick.
Why the sudden surge for uppers? First, Sherlock is matching wits with Professor Moriarty (Jared Harris). Moriarty appears to match Holmes man to man intellectually; however, he has follows no moral code or displays any hint of empathy whatsoever. This makes his the most dangerous man in Europe. I will not divulge any plot points concerning his evil deeds because that is half the fun of a Sherlock story, following the trail as he discovers clues which lead him to the next location. Second, Dr. Watson (Jude Law) insists on going through with his marriage, a prospect Sherlock frequently reminds him will destroy his manhood and shatter his well-being.
Sherlock’s interactions with these two characters, Moriarty and Watson, define the high and low ends of this film. When Sherlock and Moriarty share the same room, real tension emanates from the screen. Their verbal sword play is a credit to the writing and the actors who joust for tactical advantage just by using metaphors. Two scenes between these men jump to mind. Early on, Sherlock analyzes Moriarty’s handwriting while Moriarty warns Sherlock of the dangerous path he is following. I will not describe a later scene between the two gentlemen, but it is the most effective in the film as they mentally assail one another.
The low and tedious end is Sherlock’s interactions with Watson. The relentless double entendres about their ‘relationship’ lead the audience to question whether or not Sherlock is homosexual. For a wisecrack or two, this would provide levity and amusement. Unfortunately, the script persistently wails against this dead horse of a joke. A homoerotic double meaning pops up about every 30 seconds when Sherlock and Watson share the screen. It soon grows dreary and began to test my patience, especially during an extended sequence with Sherlock in drag.
What always ends up bringing the script back on track is what Sherlock is known for, his fascinating method of deductive reasoning. Before he makes a move, the script may flash forward as he meticulously plans his next position in a street brawl or it may flash a few minutes back in time to show the audience just how he set up the bad guys to fail. Sherlock is always one step behind Moriarty who regularly seems to be the smarter of the two; however, if you are the individual planning the executing the scheme, those following you will always appear to be lagging behind you.
I slightly recommend this new Sherlock mainly for the enjoyment of the Sherlock vs. Moriarty moments and the fascinating moments when Sherlock pauses to explain the situation to someone (usually the audience) as to what and why he is taking a particular course of action. I hesitate to strongly recommend this film because of the awful dialogue between Sherlock and Watson and because of the standard Guy Ritchie cinematography style. Guy Ritchie is known for inventive and momentum shifting action scenes. Sometimes bullets fly faster than the speed of light and then shift to ‘Matrix’ time so the audience can watch it pierce someone’s clothing. Shifting between fast and slow motion in action sequences is helpful to determine the placement of good and bad guys, but after a particular amount of time, these shifts become significantly noticeable where instead they should be only slightly perceptible. When the third or fourth action sequence began, I was prepared and expected the momentum shifts which instead of drawing me into the scene actually had the opposite effect and took me out of it.
There are certain expectations and pitfalls a second film in a series runs into. Will it have the same mood and presence as the first film? Is it just there to take up space to make it a trilogy? In A Game of Shadows, Sherlock’s character is a bit more interesting because of the drug habit and especially because of the villain; however, Watson is beginning to draw eye rolls instead of applause as the sidekick.
Comment Box is loading comments...
