#1  
Old 12-07-2011, 08:48 PM
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows



Directed by Guy Ritchie

Written by Michele Mulroney and Kieran Mulroney

Genre: Action/Adventure

Plot Outline: Sherlock Holmes and his sidekick Dr. Watson join forces to outwit and bring down their fiercest adversary, Professor Moriarty.

Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Noomi Rapace, Rachel McAdams, Jared Harris, Stephen Fry

Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, and some drug material

Runtime: 129 minutes


First one was OK, but the trailers for this one do nothing for me. I'll wait for reactions before deciding whether or not I'll see it.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-07-2011, 10:09 PM
I wanted to like the first one, but I found it mostly drab, overlong, and it tried too hard to be witty.

This looks like much of the same (2 hours and 10 minutes for this?) but I will see it because I love Jared Harris.

I'm hearing awful things about Noomi, though.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-07-2011, 11:47 PM
The first one was surprisingly enjoyable but this movie looks like nothing more than a lazy rehash of the first one. The only hope I have is that Moriarty is the main bad guy.

So Rachel McAdams is back? I don't think I've seen her in any of the promotion for this movie. I hope they don't kill her off.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-09-2011, 12:22 AM
I feel these films could do WITHOUT Mcadams, she's superfluous and irritating. I'm pretty excited about this though because the first film had a touch of steampunk, and this looks to amp it up. Sherlock Holmes and steampunk are two things I love, and I love when they are combined!!
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-09-2011, 03:02 AM
Slightly interested because I want to see Noomi Rapace in stuff that isn't The Millenium Trilogy. (I know she's done movies before and after that but they're not all readily available here as far as I know.)
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-09-2011, 05:13 PM
The first movie was a hugely pleasant surprise to me and ended up my favorite movie of 2009, so I'm really looking forward to this one. The only thing that slightly irks me is they changed Sherlock's hairstyle - I liked the messy, spiked up look from the first movie much better than the floppy, MI2 style thing he's got going on here.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-23-2011, 09:31 PM
Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows*Sherlock Should Have Died*

**Spoilers**
I thought I'd interject this, because it is my personal opinion on the topic. During the scene as they flee from the border, and Holmes has been injured by the, over dramatized, explosion.

Have you ever wondered what it would have been like if he had died, then and there, and left Watson to finish the case? I personally think the Watson character was more than competent enough to complete the mission, especially because he would have had two incredibly strong motives...

1) To see his wife again
2) Revenge

This also would have been a fantastic way to end the series' first chapter, and to establish Sherlock Holmes as more than a person, but a legend, a hero....an idea.

What do you think?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-24-2011, 04:11 AM
Movie Mini-Review: SHERLOCK HOLMES: A GAME OF SHADOWS

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

**** out ***** (8/10) Very Good

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is superior to its predecessor in some ways, but inferior to it in others. Ultimately, this sequel is on about the same level as the original. The original, while taking HUGE liberties with the source material, and despite its over-the-top action and lack of emphasis on actual detective work, managed to recreate an iconic character in a very unique, fresh way, and Robert Downey, Jr. has created a character just as memorable Johnny Depp's Jack Sparrow, except much more three-dimensional. The supporting cast was also strong and gave us characters we would want to see return in sequels. The sequel furthers the characters in ways that are fun and entertaining, and the action and direction of the film is much stronger and more self-assured this time. Also, Professor Moriarty made for a far better villain than Blackheart did in the previous film. Unfortunately, the female lead is weaker this time, which somewhat offsets this improvement. While this film lacks the surprising approach of the first (which was pretty much inevitable with a sequel), it is definitely a sharper piece of entertainment, but it is unfortunate that Rachel McAdams was not our lead female character this time. Both films are over-stylized and over-the-top, and both feature a frenetic editing style from director Guy Ritchie that makes the film a bit harder to follow than it really should be. Despite these persistent flaws, the film contains brilliantly conceived action, fun characters, and a terrific score to top it all off. I had a great time with this movie, so, as pure entertainment, it comes recommended.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-24-2011, 05:45 PM
Probably seeing this tomorrow.

I really enjoyed the first film, but subsequently, I've seen BBC's Sherlock (which returns New Year's Day), a far superior interpretation of the character. However, I saw the first one in theater and I am a pretty huge Guy Ritchie fan (Lock, Stock... is in my Top10), so I'm mostly seeing this out of respect and tradition

Last edited by Smiert Spionam; 12-26-2011 at 05:07 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-24-2011, 06:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiert Spionam View Post
Probably seeing this tomorrow. Consider this post a placeholder

I really enjoyed the first film, but subsequently, I've seen BBC's Sherlock (which returns New Year's Day), a far superior interpretation of the character. However, I saw the first one in theater and I am a pretty huge Guy Ritchie fan (Lock, Stock... is in my Top10), so I'm mostly seeing this out of respect and tradition
I wouldn't bother man. Hit up Dragon Tattoo, Tintin or Mission Impossible (or one of the limited release films if they are playing near you) and catch this on DVD. Sherlock 2 was alright, but after the first hour it becomes kind of a drag to watch. One too many set pieces, a plot that doesn't make a lot of sense, and a feeling that you've seen it all before. I dig some of Ritchie's stuff too, but I think he's better when he delves into British crime (i.e. Lock, Stock, and Snatch). The Sherlock movies aren't bad, by any means, but there are more interesting films out there right now.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 12-25-2011, 10:18 AM
Purists...

...I get it, not faithful to the books, iconic character, makes for "sacred" territory.

I understand the mentality, but seriously? Really you can't just take something at face value because the source material is sacred? Always considered that rationale to be a bit pretentious.

Anyway, I probably won't go to the theater for this but I will watch it on DVD and if its good enough, buy it. I am a sucker for sarcastic witty banter and the combo of Law and Downey delivered it in spades in the first one.

I am a huge Downey fan, one of my favorites. Law is very solid and these two are very good together. I hope this one does well and am down to see more of these going forward. Also, I hope Law and Downey team up on other things as well.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 12-25-2011, 11:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by rustysyringe View Post
...I get it, not faithful to the books, iconic character, makes for "sacred" territory.

I understand the mentality, but seriously? Really you can't just take something at face value because the source material is sacred? Always considered that rationale to be a bit pretentious.

Anyway, I probably won't go to the theater for this but I will watch it on DVD and if its good enough, buy it. I am a sucker for sarcastic witty banter and the combo of Law and Downey delivered it in spades in the first one.

I am a huge Downey fan, one of my favorites. Law is very solid and these two are very good together. I hope this one does well and am down to see more of these going forward. Also, I hope Law and Downey team up on other things as well.
Exactly. I didn't care about the source material. As a film and it's own take on the franchise, it's a wonderfully told tale. Like I said, one of my favorite movies of the year. I can't imagine anyone not recommending it to some degree unless they brought baggage in to their own viewing. Then again, like you, I'm a huge Downey fan and maybe that influenced me more than I realize.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 12-26-2011, 04:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeChar4321 View Post
Exactly. I didn't care about the source material. As a film and it's own take on the franchise, it's a wonderfully told tale. Like I said, one of my favorite movies of the year. I can't imagine anyone not recommending it to some degree unless they brought baggage in to their own viewing. Then again, like you, I'm a huge Downey fan and maybe that influenced me more than I realize.
Okay, comic book guy pet peeve, when somebody says "I didn't care about the source material". Remember the lesson that the Halle Berry Catwoman taught us? Here's the thing, when you put the name "Sherlock Holmes" on the marquee, why are you doing that? Why not just create your own brand new detective, maybe a character heavily influenced by or with a distinct flavor from, Sherlock Holmes and the mythology and just go with that? Why didn't you do it that way?

You want to know the answer? $$$. The people that made this movie figured the name would bring in fans, more money than if they'd just called it "Detective _____" (fill in the blank) However, here's my super problem with Hollywood, its a two way street. You don't get to put that name on the marquee and pocket the money for free. When you put that name up there, there's an automatic expectation that you have to fill. I would have been fine if RDJ had made the same movie with a different name. People would say let it go, but names matter. Joel Schumacher made a "Batman" film and it took Christopher Nolan to undo the damage. That's what worries me. I love the character, and am a big fan of what ACD created, to the point where I did it the right way (I wrote several detective stories a few years back that used many elements of the canon, but called it something else. Inspired by is fine, if you ask me). RDJ should too.

Bottom line: If you don't want to play by the rules, and understand that when you take on the names, you take on the rules, then fine, make it something else. Don't try to have your cake and eat it too. I will, BTW, avoid the obvious rebuttal to the argument I posted, that the source material grows and changes over time, and that without change, there wouldn't be new fans. That's fine for something that was designed to change (and even there, there are still rules that are often ignored, and then, people wonder why it stunk) but ACD wrote a "last" Holmes story. He finished his take, he wrote his rules.

Last edited by soda; 12-26-2011 at 04:34 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 12-26-2011, 05:07 PM


I think this picture perfectly sums up how outlandish a lot of parts of this film are. Never-the-less, the film is still quite entertaining and gains bonus points in the final quarter for doing a pretty epic depiction of...
Spoiler:
...the Reichenbach Fall!
Harris plays a suitable Moriarty, Noomi's character is pretty useless, the plot's a bit unnecessarily convoluted, but Downey/Law are still great together. It's just as fun as the first and despite a slight decline in quality, I wouldn't be against a final installment.

7/10

Last edited by Smiert Spionam; 12-27-2011 at 02:25 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 12-26-2011, 08:36 PM
The plot was a bit too complex for its own good but Downey and Law were great and I actually enjoyed Ritchie's stylized chase in the woods. Loved Moriarty.

8/10. I liked the first but enjoyed this one quite a bit better.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-13-2012, 02:01 PM
Want to see this
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 01-15-2012, 01:55 PM
I'd say this movie is about on par with the first. Robert Downey, Jr. is great again, the chemistry between Downey and Jude Law is fantastic, and the villain Professor Moriarty and his rivalry with Holmes makes the movie interesting and watchable. The movie is a lot of fun watching Holmes and Watson deal with everything that comes their way, namely assassination attempts by the worthy villain, but they obviously try to find out and foil what Moriarty is up to. The movie is missing something though and I can't quite place what it is. The story just goes from place to place, scene to scene, with Downey and Law making the most of it. The climax isn't very exciting and the movie suffers a little from too much Guy Ritchie. His style of doing things got a tad annoying as it increased as the movie went along. Nevertheless, it's a fun movie to watch, very stylish, and Downey and Law are great.

7/10
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 02-17-2012, 09:48 PM
A bit of a lazy sequel. While not terrible, the freshness and energy of the first one are mostly missing. Holmes is more manic than charming this time around, and Professor Moriarty just isn't very menacing for someone who's supposed to be the most ruthless and brilliant criminal of old timey Europe. This incarnation of Holmes was clearly envisioned as a franchise from the beginning, but I'm struggling to see where they'll take it from here (or if they'll even bother).

Watch the BBC series Sherlock to see a muh better take on the character.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump