Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (1 Viewer)

[Ron-P]

I liked the first and this looks to better it. Love that Noomi is in it.



http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/sherlockholmesagameofshadows/

 

[Tony J Case]

I loved the hell out of the first one. . . and then The Grand Moff and Benedict Cumberbatch came along and set the bar so incredibly freakin' high that it's no long a question of the Guy Ritchie flick being any good, it's a matter of how close can he get to second place behind Moffat's version.

 

[Edwin-S]

Are you referring to the new BBC series?

 

[Brent M]

Are you referring to the new BBC series?

Yup, he is. Just got done watching all 3 episodes on Netflix this week and must say they were fantastic, particularly 1 and 3. Looking forward to series 2 this fall as well as the new flick.

 

[Edwin-S]

Thanks. I always thought Jeremy Brett nailed the character, similar to David Suchet's unbeatable portrayal of Poirot, but now I seriously have to check out the new BBC series. This second outing of Downey's Holmes was looking very promising, right up until Ritchie dressed Holmes in drag. I'm sorry, but in terms of the character that is unforgiveable to me. Ritchie should be tarred and feathered for that cinematic crime and character assassination. My anticipation for this flick has fallen to below zero. Thanks for nothing Ritchie.

 

[Johnny Angell]

The movie seemed like they were trying to make Holmes an Indiana Jones type character and he's nothing like that. They had a topnotch actor portraying him, but missed the mark, IMHO. I was very disapointed in the movie and missed the PBS version. I hope they will rerun it. TillI I watch the PBS version, Jeremy Brett remains the standard for me.

 

[TonyD]

Anyone see the more recent trailers? Looks like Holmes is being turned into a buffoon to me.

 

[RobertR]

The movie seemed like they were trying to make Holmes an Indiana Jones type character and he's nothing like that. They had a topnotch actor portraying him, but missed the mark, IMHO. I was very disapointed in the movie and missed the PBS version. I hope they will rerun it. TillI I watch the PBS version, Jeremy Brett remains the standard for me.

I had similar feelings about the first film, based on the trailers, and didn't watch it in the theater. I did catch it on satellite, and was surprised how much I liked it. I'm in the midst of reading the original Holmes stories, and Holmes IS an expert boxer, martial arts fighter, and swordsman. There's more action in the film than in the stories, but the depiction of the character isn't really that far off the mark.

 

[Jason Charlton]

As someone whose only real exposure to the character has been the Ritchie films, I saw Game of Shadows on Friday and rather enjoyed it. Both Ritchie films have the same overall feel and style. If you enjoyed the first film, I think you'll enjoy the second one, too.


Whether or not this representation of the character fits in with the literary version, I can't say. All I know is that the films are fun, entertaining, and not nearly as stupid as most other "blockbuster" type movies.

 

[Johnny Angell]

If anyone wants to watch an accurate rendition of Holmes, try watching the BBC series with Jeremy Brett. IMHO, he's the gold standard.

 

[TonyD]

If anyone wants to watch an accurate rendition of Holmes, try watching the BBC series with Jeremy Brett. IMHO, he's the gold standard.

I've never seen that but I'm guessing he isn't portrayed as a clown and put in terrible disguises in that show.

 

[Patrick Sun]

In the 2nd installment of the Guy Ritchie-helmed Sherlock Holmes franchise, Holmes and Watson are faced with going up against a brilliant mind in Prof. Moriarity, even though they don't quite know how well insinuated Moriarity is within the various governments in Europe of the 1890s, or his end game. Jared Harris is actually quite good as the good professor. I think I dislike the color palette of these Sherlock Holmes films, just too dingy and rusty-grey. RDJ's portrayal of Sherlock Holmes is almost insufferable at times, and even with Watson's bluster and exasperation with SH's antics, their relationship dynamic just doesn't quite do it for me. Noomi Rapace's character in this film doesn't really have much to do, and it feels like a wasted casting choice given the role as written (she stares a lot at Sherlock, it seems). The Holmes' slo-mo brain-cam footage was novel in the first film, but seems to be overly used in this film, and the slo-mo is also used in an extended getaway sequence that seems to overstay its welcome too, it just makes the pacing far too languid and somewhat boring. That being said, I think I liked the last act of the film more than the initial setup and mid acts. I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.

 

[RobertR]

I loved the hell out of the first one. . . and then The Grand Moff and Benedict Cumberbatch came along and set the bar so incredibly freakin' high that it's no long a question of the Guy Ritchie flick being any good, it's a matter of how close can he get to second place behind Moffat's version.

I just watched the first episode of the Cumberbatch show, and I'm impressed. Superb portrayal of the character, and I liked how everything was updated to modern London. I also like how elements from the original story A Study in Scarlet were incorporated into the modern variant A Study in Pink. It's ironic that Dr. Watson was wounded in Afghanistan in BOTH eras. It seems some things never change.

 

[Simon Massey]

Never going to live up to the current BBC series which is great (looking forward to the second series in January) but I do find these film versions fairly entertaining - havent read any Holmes books but I can imagine that this rendition in the film is probably very different from the books. However, I enjoyed this one more than the last so a solid B or 3.5 out of 5 from me.

 

[Richard--W]

Robert Downey Jr is NOT Sherlock Holmes and these films are NOT entertaining.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by Richard--W

Robert Downey Jr is NOT Sherlock Holmes and these films are NOT entertaining.

Then save your money and stop going to see them.







Crawdaddy

 

[Johnny Angell]

Then save your money and stop going to see them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Crawdaddy
 

 

That's what I'm doing.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Originally Posted by Johnny Angell

That's what I'm doing.

To each his own. I viewed this film today and my thoughts on it are similar to Patrick's. The last act of the film was the best of it and it was worth a matinee to view it. The slow motion stuff has to go though as I find it boring now.









Crawdaddy

 

[Colin Jacobson]

Originally Posted by Patrick Sun

In the 2nd installment of the Guy Ritchie-helmed Sherlock Holmes franchise, Holmes and Watson are faced with going up against a brilliant mind in Prof. Moriarity, even though they don't quite know how well insinuated Moriarity is within the various governments in Europe of the 1890s, or his end game. Jared Harris is actually quite good as the good professor.
I think I dislike the color palette of these Sherlock Holmes films, just too dingy and rusty-grey. RDJ's portrayal of Sherlock Holmes is almost insufferable at times, and even with Watson's bluster and exasperation with SH's antics, their relationship dynamic just doesn't quite do it for me. Noomi Rapace's character in this film doesn't really have much to do, and it feels like a wasted casting choice given the role as written (she stares a lot at Sherlock, it seems). The Holmes' slo-mo brain-cam footage was novel in the first film, but seems to be overly used in this film, and the slo-mo is also used in an extended getaway sequence that seems to overstay its welcome too, it just makes the pacing far too languid and somewhat boring.
That being said, I think I liked the last act of the film more than the initial setup and mid acts.
I give it 2.75 stars, or a grade of B-.

Agree with these thoughts, though I'd be more likely to give it a C or a C-. The climax helps semi-redeem the flick, but the first 100 minutes or so are largely a mess. This time around, Downey's Holmes is too much of a frantic clown. He seems less like a master detective and more like a goof who happens to fall into various situations without much cleverness or insight; every once in a while, he pulls some deduction out of his butt, but usually he just kind of blunders around and gets lucky.


Rapace is a dud as a romantic lead, partially because there's virtually no romance, but even if the filmmakers shot for a connection between Holmes and Simza, it wouldn't work. Rapace looks like she's not sure what movie she's in; she comes across as vaguely dazed much of the time, like they just handed her the script 10 minutes before they shot - and it's missing random words.


The story is a muddled mess, and it underuses Moriarty. We're supposed to accept him as a brilliant criminal mastermind because we've heard Moriarty called that for decades; the film's Moriarty seems to coast on collective cultural reputation. Harris is fine in the role, but he doesn't get enough to do.


Instead, the movie seems more concerned with comedic set pieces and the aforementioned slow-motion action sequences. These come to decent fruition during the climax, but most of the time, they feel gratuitous, like Ritchie figured they worked well in the first flick so he'd heap them on the second go-round. The more we see them, the less effective they become.


I really liked the first film, but the second delivers a near-total disappointment. The actors look too interested in laughs to bother with good performances, and Ritchie prefers pointless flash to storytelling. If there's a third, I hope they revisit what made the first one so good and don't just cruise on past laurels.

 

[Neil Middlemiss]

Robert Downey Jr is NOT Sherlock Holmes and these films are NOT entertaining.

I think you left off two important words at the end of your post..."to me". Perhaps it is implied but without those two words, your post is a bit silly (in its absoluteness).