Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

Guy Ritchie at his peak again (albeit a slightly different peak than in the late 90s). Everything that worked in the first one (i.e. excellent conversational duels between the central duo, great slow-motion sequences, excellent period atmosphere, and overall dynamism and looseness) is enhanced here by a more pronounced Ritchie imprint and, of course, a near-perfect Downey and Law + the naked Fry cameo was absolutely unbeatable. It's important to note that while such mainstream entertainment may look like mere sequence of clips in terms of craft (from a certain perspective, a sequence of several consecutive but technically proficient clips), the artistic value inherent in its execution (in short, the formal polish) is so brilliant that it hides the various imperfections related to ambiguous or underdeveloped character motivations and so on... I like to mention this fact from time to time, but in the case of the second Sherlock Holmes, I find the script a very worthy and the motivations of the characters completely sufficient and ultimately convincing. And if anyone claims that the second film is for those "who want to ride the wave of Ritchie's slow-motion and explosions, not caring what actually happens on screen", they should also realize that the story is very well thought out – given its genre, budget, location, and the necessary prerequisite of commercial success, the script is even excellent. And in my opinion, A. C. Doyle would have liked it, at the very least because of Downey's British accent. :) (12/28/2012)

I liked the first installment of the Holmes series by Guy Ritchie and I appreciated the modern, action-packed style, the cast of actors, and the chemistry between the characters. The trouble is that the second installment meets expectations in the sense that there is more of everything, more action, bombast, and humor, but unfortunately, it's not immediate, rather forced, and above all, the film is somewhat one-dimensional and does not correspond to internal logic as much as purposefulness. Who's popular among young actresses today? Noomi Rapace made a name for herself in the Millennium series, so let's cast her and not worry too much about the fact that this is not her acting type in a comedy-themed blockbuster. Her character as a gypsy is a typical example of how the chemistry between the main male and female characters does not work. Rachel McAdams was perfectly cast type-wise, as she is exactly the kind of femme fatale who can flirt with you pleasantly and at the same time, pour poison in your best friend's coffee. Kelly Reilly as the newlywed life partner of Dr. Watson is cast excellently and her character has huge potential, which could be based on the contrast between an honest Victorian lady whose goal is to take care of her husband's wardrobe and other life necessities while being pressured by circumstances to face the most feared criminals of her time. However, the script completely fails to take advantage of this possibility. The chemistry between the main partners Holmes and Watson is also transferred to the second installment, but it somehow gets lost in the bombastic journey, in constant shifts here and there, which often do not even have a basis in narrative logic - in short, it reminds me of some later Bond films with all their flaws. While Guy Ritchie can surprise me when it comes to the details, as a whole, A Game of Shadows seems like a step back to me. The industrial retro, the atmosphere of Victorian England, and the connection to the literary character of Sherlock Holmes are truly minimal. A Game of Shadows is ideal for someone who just wants to rinse their brain with a grand blockbuster with a generous production design, rather than someone who appreciates smart filmmaking and subtle directorial and actor finesse. Stephen Fry is more embarrassing than funny, and while Jared Harris as the main antagonist does his best, it's difficult when you have nothing to surprise and fool the audience with. From my perspective, the action and Sherlock's abilities are so exaggerated that even within the genre, when we are somewhere within the boundaries set by Indiana Jones, it is too much and it rather resembles a comic book character than a person made of flesh and blood. Overall impression: 45%. (01/07/2012)

The screenplay was a rushed job and has only a couple of really excellent moments and the conflict of the two arch rivals is not depicted appropriately. But it’s still an entertaining romp full of snappy lines with excellent visuals. Effective slow-motion sequences are in exactly the right place and are breathtaking. The scene with “Hansel" in the forest and the final confrontation (an successfully transformed ending of one of the most important stories) and simply awesome. The story is awfully schematic, chases alternate with fights, and there isn’t much room for any hint of inevitability, even though the material for it is here. (01/11/2012)

This is exactly how I imagined that a pop culture update by Sherlock Holmes might look. A gourmet experience with a completely exclusive Holmes vs. Moriarty gambit. Despite many mistakes, a beautiful, intense and charmingly deliberate blockbuster, which has what the first film lacked the most... A soul. (12/30/2011)

Loaded guns, brains in full swing, deduction vibrating at maximum. When Holmes' thought-wrestling escapades conquered cinemas for the first time, I eagerly swallowed every idea of Ritchie's, and when Robert Downey, with a sparkle in his eyes, uncovers a web of intrigues for the second time, I applaud again. Moriarty is indeed the perfect nemesis, capable of threatening the most mundane situation, and in such moments, one needs not only a loyal partner but perhaps also an exhibitionistically tuned brother with a shaky staff. This impressive action-oriented approach simply suits me amidst the faltering Victorian era, and the whole creative team effortlessly navigates through emotions and locations with me. Please, dear Watson, bring on the trilogy. (01/16/2012)