You know, it’s funny. The first Sherlock Holmes movie was like the remake of Ocean’s 11; I know I enjoyed it while watching it, but hours later I couldn’t really tell you all that much about it. It’s like the old saying about Chinese food: it’s good and fills you up, but an hour later you’re looking to eat again. But here, with the second installment of this Holmes franchise, I found myself considerably more satisfied with the meal.
You know, it’s funny. The first Sherlock Holmes movie was like the remake of Ocean’s 11; I know I enjoyed it while watching it, but hours later I couldn’t really tell you all that much about it. It’s like the old saying about Chinese food: it’s good and fills you up, but an hour later you’re looking to eat again. But here, with the second installment of this Holmes franchise, I found myself considerably more satisfied with the meal.
It hardly seems necessary to give a synopsis of a Holmes mystery, and without giving too much away. They call it a “mystery” for a reason. Suffice to say, Professor Moriarty is up to no good with some ingeniously nerfarious scheme and Holmes must, with the aid of Dr. Watson, foil said scheme.
I’ve just recently learned some interesting things about the character Sherlock Holmes. Ok, don’t judge me – I haven’t read Sir Arthur Conan Doyles stories yet. They’re on my list of books to get around to. However, I have done a little more research this time around and have discovered that my doubts regarding the accuracy of Robert Downey, Jr’s portrayal of Holmes are unfounded. In fact, Downey, Jr’s Holmes is nearly spot on. (Ok, it’s been brought to my attention that Doyle’s Holmes was considerably more subdued, where Downeys’ is more manic. I’m still going to file this under non-major interpretation. I should also mention that the BBC show “Sherlock” offers a better Holmes, but this one is certainly fun.) This also goes for Jude Law’s Watson. Seems they’re staying truer to the character’s than I thought. But it’s definitely Downey, Jr’s film.
That being said, however, what is problematic is director Guy Ritchie’s interpretation of history and facts about the way things were in the 1890’s, which is the setting of this film. Things like the style of dress or the way men fought are not represented accurately. And it’s all full of explosive action that is a bit out of it’s time and shot all super slow-mo. But it’s still really cool. So, you have to suspend your disbelief in certain aspects of this film. You could nit-pick it all day if you want to, OR you can just let it go and actually ENJOY this film for what it is: a rather fun holiday movie that will entertain you thoroughly.
The movie looks great, and the cast is superb. Downey, Jr and Jude Law are again a delight to watch. They really do work well together. Jared Harris makes a fine Moriarty, no doubt, and has some excellent scenes of verbal fencing with Holmes. And a wonderful appearance of Stephen Fry as Sherlock’s brother, Mycroft Holmes, is always welcome and clearly had some fun with this. Noomi Rapace, Rachel McAdams, Eddie Marsan, and Kelly Reilly round out the cast and all do a great job.
Guy Ritchie likes to shoot his fight scenes too close and we can’t really see what’s going on, but luckily they show these scenes in slow motion first as Holmes maps out how he will engage his attackers, which I kinda like. It lets us see the action first, and offers a look into Holmes’ mind. They seem to do that much btter in this film: show us Holmes’ train of thought, how he gets from point A to point B. And I can assure you the end is indeed fun and crowd pleasing.
For a big Hollywood holiday film, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is chock full of fun and entertaiment. Just let go of the historical inaccuracies and enjoy the ride. I could give this four kittenhands if I weren’t careful. Oh let’s just throw caution to the wind, shall we?
~ Neil T. Weakley, your average movie-goer, actually liking this one more than the first installment.
