I think I injured my fellow theater-goer with the amount of excited arm-punching I did during Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows. With the popularity of BBC’s Sherlock, it seems that fans have grown a little combative about how they prefer their Holmes and Watsons’, but I think there’s a lot to enjoy across the board these days. Coming back after two years to watch Downey amp up his personal brand of sheer spastic madness was entirely welcome.
LOTS OF SPOILERS BELOW.
If you were concerned about villains, rest assured, Jared Harris turns in a genuinely frightening James Moriarty. There was something just unsettling enough about his delivery to make you shift in your seat whenever he spoke, an impressive feat all by itself, as subtlety has never been a hallmark of the character when portrayed on screen. Is his “I’m trying to start the first world war so I can make all the money” plot a bit awkward? Perhaps, but then, as the “Napoleon of Crime” I’m not quite sure what else he should be doing.
Confession time: I was sort of thrilled that Irene Adler was taken out of the picture so quickly. While I didn’t mind the position the character occupied in the narrative of the last movie, Rachel McAdams’ Adler never meshed well with this particular Holmes. The near-paternal tint in his affection for her was bothersome, and not missed this time around. Her absence opened the door to a more dynamic female character—Noomi Rapace’s Simza. It was encouraging to see a woman involved who didn’t have to be either man’s love interest, who could hold her own in a fight without toting a machine gun or breaking out tae kwon do, and wasn’t being flaunted on screen in an overtly sexual manner.
In fact, Ritchie’s Holmes universe continues to show a surprising amount of respect for its female characters; Adler is lovestruck, but she is still clever and dangerous, Simza can take a hit and throw a knife, Mary is never portrayed as some nasty ball-and-chain shrew who just “doesn’t get” her husband. It would be easy to vilify women or ignore them entirely when the primary focus of these stories is Holmes and Watson’s “relationship” (as Holmes likes to put it), but this retelling never stoops in that direction.
Speaking of Holmes and Watson, if the homo-socialism/eroticism of the last film made you uncomfortable, you might want to avoid this one. It seems as though audience bemusement (and the actors egging it on) led to even more glorious double-entendres, meaningful glances, and then dancing! Whether you prefer to view the duo as brothers in bond or something more, it’s intriguing (and appreciated by many) that one version of Holmes and Watson on film pushes the envelope a little further in that regard. Frankly, a large part of the last film’s success was down to the delightful chemistry between Law and Downey, so if that’s not something you enjoy, why would you be going to see the sequel in the first place?
The globe-trotting ala Bond did this movie a lot of favors, especially as outside a few stock shots of Paris, the audience is shown France, Germany and Switzerland in a fairly unstereotypical manner. And then, of course, our trio get to the peace conference, which is being held in beautiful fortress-type deal positioned over a waterfall uh oh.
Where the action is concerned, Guy Ritchie was clearly looking to top the sequences of the first film, and he succeeded in scale, at least. Holmes does do his pre-fight-walk-through the same as before and while the surprise factor has diminished, there is a fun in the expectation of it, of being in on the joke. The end reward of this continued manner of delivery—Moriarty’s table turning at the end, leading to a lovely Reichenbach homage—serves its chilling purpose. (They’re dueling in their heads! In their heads!)
On the other hand, the escape from the arms factory ended up dragging. It was an interesting idea in theory, but it went far too long. Are the advanced weapons we get from the factory sort of silly? Yes, they really are. Does it hurt the story too terribly? I don’t think so, as they aren’t dwelled on beyond that piece of the plot. If they had spent the rest of the movie taking out Moriarty’s men mafia style, that would have been an awful mistake. I feel I should point out that Sebastian Moran, one of the more formidable villains from the Holmes stories, is a particularly forgettable character here and really wasn’t needed in the film at all.
Oh, Mycroft. When it was announced that Stephen Fry would be playing Mycroft Holmes, I think I was expecting something close to book canon in the performance. Instead, we were treated to an elder Holmes who really did seem related to Downey’s: every bit as eccentric, albeit with different tastes and habits (that are equally alarming). I couldn’t have been more delighted with him and his rapport with Sherlock; it was readily discernible that these Holmes brothers had grown up together, were well aware of each other’s oddities and accustomed to handling them. And of course, it’s obvious who’s the older brother from that oxygen supply scene—”Can I have this weird thing because I like it?” “No, little one, put it back.”
This movie ran many dangers of just playing out its old pattern (this time with more gun fights!), but instead they ran a good balancing act. I recall wincing when I saw them rehashing the “get what’s in your hand out of my face” joke in the trailer, and funny enough, the joke was removed from the final cut. Clearly, the team behind this film still wants the material to feel fresh, and they’ve done a great job in upping the stakes; the first film now almost feels charmingly quaint by comparison, but that’s not a bad thing. If they make another follow up, I’ll happily hop back to my theater seat, nosh on stale popcorn and laugh the whole way through.
[Need more Holmes? Read how Tor.com will be obliging you starting this Thursday, the 22nd.]
Emmet Asher-Perrin was Jude Law Watson for Hallowe’en last year. Her cane was badass. You can bug her on Twitter and read more of her work here and elsewhere.
I enjoyed this movie less because of BBC’s Sherlock. As much as I enjoy Robert Downey Jr. (and I do) and as fun as these movies are, the BBC version feels more genuine. I found myself wanting more of that brilliance and eccentricity than the crazy action and explosions. I actually think I would have enjoyed Game of Shadows more if it hadn’t been Sherlock Holmes but some other great London detective.
I also thought the ending went too far. I guess they had to have Sherlock dressed in the background blending clothes since they used it in the beginning of the film but bringing him out again took away all the punch of the breathing apparatus. I guess it was appropriate for Downey’s representation but I think the movie would have ended a lot better if that gift had been the only hint that Holmes survived.
I did enjoy seeing the waterfall when they first showed the crazy castle, though, and I too thought the mental chess went really well with the physical chess. That was probably my best part of the whole film.
Madness, toryx! The urban camouflage in the final scene was the perfect punchline, to me!
I really enjoyed this movie. Possibly more than anything else I’ve seen this year. Just a tremendous amount of fun!
Saw this movie this past weekend. I am impressed with your review. It echos my take on the movie. I was a little aprehensive they would re-hash jokes and story outline too much and make this a formulaic movie. But I was happy they didn’t .
After the last movie came out I decided to read the Holmes novels. I was a little disappointed in Watson’s sycophantic tone. I like the one shown in the movie where they constantly annoy one another.
I didn’t like this one as well as the first one. I still enjoyed it, still thought it was good – the excellent last fifteen-twenty minutes saved a film that had started to drag.
For me, there needed to be some more restraint in the hands of the special effects – there was too much of the slow-down/speed-up effect from the first one. It needs to be used sparingly, not every five minutes. For me the new one also lacked… a certain panache, the smooth flair, of the first. Still a good movie, just not fantastic. And Watson’s stag party, that whole sequence, just didn’t work for me at all from either character’s perspective.
I loved Adler in the first, especially her relationship with Holmes, and was very disappointed that they not only took her out, but so quickly; I kept waiting for her to show up again at a crucial moment. ‘Replacing’ her with a new female lead so rapidly left me with whiplash. Had a hard time caring about the gypsy woman, when she was just incidental to the case – it’s the people with lasting, complicated relationships to Holmes – Watson and Adler – and the witty way they relate to him and deftly handle his eccentricity that make these movies so fun.
All performances were pretty much spot-on. Mary was pitch-perfect, and I loved the addition of Mycroft. I’d go see it again, maybe, just for the fun and hell of it.
Mostly, I loved this film — I thought that the over-the-top homoeroticism worked brilliantly, and I howled at the last camoufluage clothing joke, which *did* catch me by surprise (unlike the adrenaline shot wedding gift, which was funny when it first appeared, and felt like filler near the end).
Simza and Mary were both great, but the way they killed Irene bugged me, because she’d have to be an idiot to eat or drink *anything* at a meeting with Moriarty when she knows a) he’s dangerous, and b) that she doesn’t have the item she’s been told to retrieve. By all means, if it’s inconvenient for her to be in the film, then have her decide to go off on a wild jaunt to the US, or something! But no, she’s just like those 1st tier Bond girls whose purpose is to die in order to demonstrate that the villain is EBIL.
I agree, the death of Irene Adler felt incomplete to me. Perhaps because it was almost off screen. I enjoyed the movie, but something about it was bothering me…after reading Emily’s review, it came to me. It’s almost as RD’s Holmes is a Bond hybrid, or Indianna Jones, somehow. I felt Holmes spent more time firing his pistol, than in actual deduction… In all, however, I enjoyed the film greatly, though I find, I prefer the BBC’s modern “Sherlock”…
I honestly spent the entire movie assuming Irene Adler’s death was a fakeout, and was shocked when it wasn’t. (Unless she returns in the next film, in which case, I want you all to remember this post and remember that I was right.) I agree that this particular actress did not meld that well with Downey, but — I also agree that this particular version of Irene Adler would not have eaten or drunk anything at a meeting with Moriarty when she knew full well that she had failed him. And I could not believe that Holmes, that fixated on bringing Moriarty down, and aware that she had not showed up for their dinner date, would not have done something more to investigate her death.
I didn’t think the movie showed any particular respect for its women characters, though this didn’t bother me because the focus always was going to be on Holmes/Watson. I found Simza kinda dull, Irene Adler was eliminated early on, and Mary Watson was just tossed from a train — even if she was given the chance to redeem herself later.
But a STRONG agreement with Mouette on the camera effects. Yes, they can be fun but here they really began to interfere with the film.
I tend to enjoy Sherlock Holmes without being fanatical about the details. The movie to be hysterical and entertaining – really all I was looking for on a Saturday night – and I agree with most of the review.
However, I have a hard time believing that Irene is truly dead. This is partly because of the observation already discussed by MariCats and paigecm, partly because of the Holmes-Moriarty chess match, and partly because of the “no body, no death” phenomenon. We saw Moriarty’s recollection, but instantaneous tuberculosis is a flying snowman. I also suspect that given the chess match of the whole movie, Holmes (and Adler) would have anticipated Moriarty’s actions and taken steps.
Similarly, I would not be surprised to see Moriary make a return with the aid of Colonel Moran (another loose end, in a movie whose mantra was “no loose ends”). No body, after all.
Most likely wishful thinking, but there you have it.
MariCats, I will be thrilled if you’re right.
I agree with Emmet Asher-Perrin’s description of Holmes’s paternalistic manner towards Irene Adler; but I always thought that having that was something of a canonical choice — I mean, Holmes is dismissive of her in the books, too; until she outdoes him. I’m no great fan of Rachel McAdams, but I realize that one of the things I liked about her as Irene was that there wasn’t perfect chemistry between her and RD — only flashes of attraction/chemistry. After all, ACD suggests that to Holmes, she is “the woman” — we have no idea whether Adler thinks that Holmes is “the man.”
Saw it last night, still giggling about the Three Mules for Sister Sarah theme playing while Holmes is on the mule. If you’re a Holmes pureist or are looking for anything more than a fun action flick, you shouldn’t go anywhere near this movie.
Did Holmes & Moriarity mention fishing before the obvious scene? It seems that they would have had to, but I can’t remember.
Moriarty mentioned fish in the first meeting he had with Holmes at the university. Holmes commented on the music piece that was playing, and Moriarty translated the title, saying something about it referring to fishing. It was part of his intimidation of Holmes. They later mentioned it again at Reichenbach.
As for Irene eating or drinking at the meeting–she asked the waiter to bring a fresh pot of tea, not knowing that the entire restaurant was under Moriarty’s control. So she already drank before realizing that not even the waitstaff could be trusted.
Irene, on both movies, was pictured as a smart, foxy woman, almost like a feminine version ( but sexy and not crazy ) of Sherlock Holmes. But, as usual in all hero stories, the main character ends up being the strongest, smartest, best of all the characters.
So, I think the scene of the restaurant was to show that, even being brilliant, Irene was no match for Moriarty, thus making him the biggest challenge for Holmes. And, yes, she is probably dead.
I just recently saw the movie, and I felt it was pretty good, but even more self-consciously over-the-top and blockbustery than the first. I understand the box-office appeal of such blockbusters, but I wouldn’t mind a somewhat more sedate approach to the storytelling.
I actually liked the use of Sebastian Moran in the film. Basically he was used as Moriarty’s Watson, so that both heroes had their counterpart to battle. True, Moran didn’t really emerge as more than muscle, but that’s the kind of sidekick Moriarty would want — a thug who just follows orders, rather than a true friend and partner as Watson is to Holmes. And that illustrates why Holmes is a better man than Moriarty.
On Irene: I find it interesting that the moment of her apparent death was not shown on-camera, but only depicted in flashback as Moriarty told Holmes of the event. Since we don’t have a first-person, objective depiction of the event, that suggests it might not be true. At least they’ve left a back door to bring her back if the filmmakers and Ms. McAdams want it to happen.