E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Warner Bros.
Nonstop action turns tedious in "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows," which stars Noomi Rapace, Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law.
REVIEW
Two years ago, when the celebrated consulting detective of Baker Street was yanked onto the big screen for the first time in the 21st century, a big divide separated the traditionalists resistant to accepting the idea of Sherlock Holmes as an East End fight club habitue and mostly younger audiences who found director Guy Ritchie's slow-motion action moves completely cool. The argument quickly became a moot point, after Warner Bros.' steampunk-style action mystery grossed an astounding $524 million worldwide. With more of the same on view in "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows," everyone will know where they stand ahead of time, meaning old fogies are duly warned and fans will happily return for more.
If anything, Robert Downey Jr.'s Holmes looks even worse this time around, as he's bruised and battered almost throughout this new adventure, which pits him against his most formidable opponent, the diabolical Professor James Moriarty. But a good deal of Holmes' time here, at least initially, is spent distracting his close associate Dr. Watson (Jude Law) from his expected duties at his wedding and on his honeymoon before he manages to literally push the bride aside altogether.
PHOTOS: Netflix's 10 Most Rented Movies of All Time
A distinguished Oxford professor and author who's every bit as clever as Holmes, Moriarty (Jared Harris) announces his malicious intentions at the outset by dispatching Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams), the coquette who toyed with Holmes' affections last time around, and plotting a terrorist campaign aimed at Europe's ruling political class. The long and short of it is that the far-sighted Moriarty is engaged in cornering the market on armaments while staging assassinations and otherwise creating rifts between nations in order to hasten a continent-wide conflict. “War on an industrial scale is inevitable,” he warns Holmes. “All I have to do is wait.”
Unfortunately, Ritchie and his new scenarists, Michele and Kieran Mulroney, who co-wrote and directed "Paper Man" in 2009, largely eschew the sort of delicious cat-and-mouse game that could have maximized this face-off between two such worthy opponents, saving their only extended encounter for the climax. Instead, along with the prolonged drunken shenanigans that precede Watson's wedding to Mary (Kelly Reilly) and the honeymoon train trip that follows, a great deal of time is consumed by their adventures with a gypsy fortune teller (Noomi Rapace, the star of the Swedish version of "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo" and its sequels) and the revolutionary circles she is able to help them infiltrate.
PHOTOS: Hollywood's 10 Highest-Grossing Actors
These tangential escapades allow for the sorts of scenes that seem to have become the raison d'etre of the franchise. These involve lots of costume changes for Holmes, who at one point appears in the Watson honeymoon train compartment in drag, and the trademark slo-mo, herky-jerky action set pieces in which every move Holmes intends to make is pre-visualized in all its intricate detail, then repeated with speed to show how it all plays out. The wardrobe foolishness comes off fine thanks to Downey's deadpan unashamedness, while the action stuff, perhaps arresting the first couple of times you see it, already seems hackneyed, mannered and overworked, an affectation of diminishing returns.
What one's left with, then, is an elaborate entertainment that whooshes along through the messy streets and posh clubs of 1891 London; aboard boats, trains, horseback and Holmes' early horseless carriage along unpaved thoroughfares, through forests and over mountains; into the rarefied corridors of power in the capitals of Europe; onto the stage of the Paris Opera during a performance of "Don Giovanni," and into warehouses and factories that already seem filled with enough arms to fight World War I, which Moriarty would be disappointed to learn is still more than two decades away rather than around the corner.
VIDEOS: "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows": 9 Preview Clips Released
After quite a few tedious detours and distractions, when the film finally gets down to the business of a climax at a gathering of elite European diplomats in a precariously perched Swiss mountain castle, it becomes not half-bad. A clever assassination plot comes to a head while Holmes and Moriarty sit down to a game of chess as they articulate their differences, leading to a mighty struggle that does nothing if not set up a sequel.
Aside from the screenwriters, the same core team from the first outing has been reassembled, making for an absolutely consistent look, sound and feel to the proceedings. Thanks to returning cinematographer Philippe Rousselot, production designer Sarah Greenwood, costume designer Jenny Beavan and a large effects crew, the images are gritty and densely packed, and static is a word Ritchie and editor James Herbert have never heard of. Hans Zimmer incorporates a good deal of his greatly effective score from the original into this one, with new elaborations as well.
With Watson's marriage on the line, Downey and Law raise the level of their sparring a notch from last time; that their portrayals of these famous characters are so distant from the original conceptions has now been proven irrelevant, perhaps even a plus to modern audiences. Stephen Fry adds an amusing new flavor as Holmes' outsized, politically connected brother, Mycroft. Harris is fine as Moriarty, while Rapace gets no chance to show her previously established talent in her stereotypical gypsy role.
Did you see the original "Sherlock Holmes" film? Will you go to this one? Tell us in the comments!
Related content:
Leave a Comment:
Growing up, I voraciously devoured every sherlock holmes novel- those written by conan doyle, and also those carried on by his son. I have seen many holmes movies over the years, and different actors portraying the same characters. I had imagined holmes probably looked more like basil rathbone, but downey will do. the first movie was what i expected from a holmes mystery, but there could be MORE mystery.... i will watch the sequel because I love the subject matter- i just hope it doesn't go the way of the usual hollywood sequel drivel and be all style-no substance...
Looking forward to the new one. Was surprisingly more than entertained by the first one, and Downey is as entertaining of a leading man as there is right now.
It's a fantastic movie, this critic is just being pretentious
Rachel McAdams is erroneously listed as in the above picture. It is Noomi Rapace on the left of Robert Downey, Jr.
Rachel is in the film however
Basil Rathbone is Sherlock Holmes. Robeert Downey certainly has the look for the role. The problem I have with these new interpretations is that I've always thought of Holmes as a more cerebral detective who solved the case through his intense, focused analysis of the clues and eveidence. A real thinking man's superhero, if you will. These new movies are nothing but an excuse for another "action film". If you want action, go see the marvel comic movies or a Bruce Willis, Arnold Shwarzenegger film. Please don't mess with the orignal concept of Holmes as a hero who wins by his intelligence rather than his physical prowess.
You're biased because of the old BBC series, and even then Basil Rathbone alludes to being an accomplished fighter. In any case, I too loved the Rathbone series, but he played Sherlock as far more polished and civil compared to the books.
I think that Robert Downey Jr does a really good version of the literary version of Sherlock and Guy Richie plays up the combat in a fascinating way.
This movie has a clever story and includes some fun twists and turns as well as continues with the good chemistry between Downy Jr. and Law
Plus, it's nice that Watson isn't a bumbling fool used for comic relief. The Gilligan's Island shtick get's tiring for the numerous BBC series.
If I want a thinking man's detective done right, that's what Poirot is all about!
What do you think of Jeremy Brett as Sherlock Holmes? It too was a more recent BBC version. Also, there is a new version from BBC out I think just last year but they only made two shows so far. In both the character is more intellectual, though the newest Sherlock is very quirky. See if you can locate them.
@ Kim-2654132
Haven't seen those various series yet. But I'll try to check them out soon!
I was entertained by the first movie, and will see the 2nd. I also hope like the_golem that the sequel doesn't get caught up in itself (Pirates, National Treasure, basically any car or action franchise) and loses what story it had started with.
As for the writing of this article, Todd McCarthy, I get that you didn't enjoy the movie but keeping a biased tone in your writing makes you sound juvenile.
Uh, Thomas-- this is a review. It's supposed to be biased.
Honestly I think this movie is better than the previous, and I loved the first one!
It's also supposed to involve some useful thought. Unfortunately, all this hack could manage was to lazily list many of the movie's plot points and whine about the fact that the third act comes after the first two. I'm glad I didn't read this tripe until after I had seen the film. It's an excellent and entertaining movie. Better than the first. I feel sorry for all those that had much of the plot gutted for them by this pathetic "review" before they ever got a chance to see and enjoy it in it's intended form--without spoilers that some fool couldn't be bothered to properly label.
Sherlock Holmes is not Indiana Jones...I really like Downey, but the first one he did with Ritchie was awful...They would be better off trying to re-animate Arthur Wontner...If you want a cool modern take on this character, check out the newish BBC series, "Sherlock".
Absolutely...the "Sherlock" series season 1 was excellent and I am hoping for more of the same from season 2. I do think though that Downey's portrayal of Holmes is accurate in many respects. In the casebooks and novels Holmes is anything but likable. I never liked Rathbone's Holmes after reading the series. He couldn't have been any less like Holmes as Doyle write him.
I look forward to the sequel!
I hate it when a critic gives a negative review. It makes me think that this person either didn't get the tickets, or the seats, that they wanted and now wants to negatively affect ticket sales of the movie.
I don't care WHAT any critic says, I absolutely LOVE Robert Downey, Jr. and I absolutely LOVE Jude Law, so I'm pretty darn sure I'm going to enjoy the film!
Film critics rarely have to pay for tickets, and as for seating--they get special screenings prior to when the public can. Most critics write negative reviews because they have problems with the film, not because of some petty axe to grind (although there are exceptions, such as Roger Ebert and any horror film).
American Girl,
Why read the review then? Next time save yourself some time and brain cells. Better yet, save ME some time and brain cells...
I think the problem is that the critic noted very early on that he was not a fan of the previous film. Like American Girl-724855 noted above, I too dislike reading reviews about a movie in a series that I'm already interested in when the person writing the review is not a fan of the previous iteration to begin with.
This would be like reading the review for Empire Strikes Back from a person that only likes musicals and HATED the first Star Wars.
The most accurate - true to text, well acted and some would say overwhelmingly the best rendition of the Sherlock Holmes stories to film/video is the BBC series starring Jeremy Brett. The more modern versions such as "Sherlock" and the film discussed in this column are creations of modern writers and not Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. They should stand or fall on their own artistic merits and entertainment value. I've found the modern "interpretation" of the Sherlock Holmes character seen in "Sherlock" to be very entertaining and imaginative. But it is not the character that Doyle created when he put pen to paper.
Agreed.
And this sequel I think is arguably better than the first!
Do you mind not giving away the entire story in the review, please? Thanks.
How else are you supposed to earn your pay if you don't fill your column with the required quota of words.
With that said:
See Todd McCarthy, there are all sorts of ways you could meet your quota without spoiling the film for people
Sounds to me that Seriously? is the biased, closed minded one.
oh?
Based on?
I saw the first Holmes flick and walked out after enduring of the first 40 minutes of Robert Downy Jr strutting around and posturing in front of the camera. After reading your review, this one is definitely headed for my "must miss" file!
Dear Todd,
What is the reason for the use of the term "raison d'etre"
Thank you,
Mr. Pretentious
Filling in for Todd
Saw the first one- enjoyed it, but can't wait for Downey to get a meaty role. He should have an Oscar by now, but his checkered past and poor choice of films since his recovery hasn't helped. He's on of our best actors.
These new Holmes interpretations cannot hold a candle to the Basil Rathbone / Nigel Bruce classics of the forties.......is it really necessary for today's filmmakers to turn every story into a festival of explosions and hyper choppy scene editing to the point of dizziness.....
I was rather impressed by the faithfulness of the first film to the original material, and after seeing the Downey film, reread the books and could easily see the characters from the film in my mind doing scenes in the book. Love Sherlock, but the steampunk thing intrigues me, as well. I will see this movie this weekend, if it insists on raining here.
I think you'll enjoy it quite a bit. This one is arguably better than the first, and I thought the first was great!
The plot was really cool and Moriarty is just deliciously evil
That's the thing about entertainment, everyone has a different opinion. And that's cool, would be a boring world otherwise. My 10 year old son loved the first one (so did his father and I), so we have plans to see it this weekend. Really looking forward to it now.
The first one stunk, why would anyone pay to see another one. It was just a run-on mess. Besides, Jude Law is just nauseating in anything he's in.
I bet you'll still see the second one though won't you ^_^
Gotta have more material to complain about, right?
Why would I do something that stupid. Sheesh, I was looking for someone with a little more wit to respond to my post.
Pretty sure the last one was set in 1860's London... now 1890's? What gives?
I saw it tonight. My fiance' and I thought it was awesome! We really enjoyed the first one. I think this series will grow in popularity over time.
I have been reading and enjoying Sherlock Holmes since a child...the first movie was excellent but left something to be desired, but this second one is flawless!! It completely captures the spirt and nature of Holmes in a very nice mixture of "contemporary-period piece." As for the review itself..I give it a "thumbs down."
Outstanding. Robert Downey Jr. is as good at Sherlock as Johnny Depp is at Captain Jack.
No no no; one does not, under any imaginable circumstances, 'dispatch' Irene Adler. That is unforgivable filmaking.
Downey is a great actor, but this movie seemed boring to me, the story told in a weird way. There were some really funny parts however.
I didn't really like the first one, but people were saying this one was better, so I went to see it. It wasn't better for me, I just don't like the odd way of telling the story. So if you didn't like the first one, don't bother with this one. This will be my last unfortunately, as it seems like it should be good - but it wasn't.
Fair enough and agreed
If you didn't like the style of the first one, then this one is probably not for you as it expands on many of the same manner of plot developments followed by the 3-steps-forward, 1-step-back-style of story telling.