Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is a 2011 action film inspired by the classic Holmesian story "The Final Problem" by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. Returning from the 2009 mystery film Sherlock Holmes are Robert Downey, Jr. (Iron Man, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang) as the incredible detective, Jude Law (Road to Perdition, The Talented Mr. Ripley) as John Watson, and Guy Ritchie (Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels) returning to direct. In this film, Sherlock Holmes enlists the help of his soon-to-be-married friend John Watson to go against "the Napoleon of Crime," Prof. James Moriarty, played by Jared Harris (Mr. Deeds, Mad Men) in a global game of cat-and-mouse. Supposedly, we're to see two of the greatest minds go against each other, but instead, we get a rather boring, dull action picture.
Notice in the introduction, I called Game of Shadows an action film and its predecessor a mystery. While the 2009 film certainly strayed a bit from the source material by including a rather polarizing Satanic villain, it still captured a bit of the spirit of Holmes while still giving a unique Holmes experience. Instead of getting a great mystery film, for the majority of the picture, it's just countless action sequences and very minimal Doyle-style detective elements, which is a very terrible shame. I was looking forward to this film, thinking it would trump the prior film, but it fell flat.
Let's talk what is good with the film. Downey and Law do good with the material they have, Jude Law probably being the highlight of the film. Alone, the action sequences are fun. Harris does well as Moriarty, and the introduction of Mycroft Holmes was a nice surprise. However, the best part of the film was definitely the final sequence. At the end, Holmes and Moriarty (finally) show their mastery of detail and intricacy in a game of chess, each predicting the moves of their "pawns" outside in a gala. Each man has a plan, and the game finally comes to a head. Honestly, I wish that that was what the rest of the film was.
My biggest complaint, I think, is that the film is too darn long. Clocking in at a little over two hours, the film drags in several parts, and the dialogue doesn't help. This is Sherlock Holmes! The dialogue should be pristine: natural, yet intellectual. Nothing is particularly interesting, and we the audience have to sit through two hours of it. This film could have EASILY been a little over ninety minutes; BBC's Sherlock with Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman (both of whom will be featured in this winter's The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug) does ninety minute mysteries, which, aside from Series 1: Episode 2, always hold the viewers' attention. Sadly, a TV show's version ("The Great Game" and "The Reichenbach Fall") trumps a cinematic version on so many levels. I think what really drags the film is how Ritchie decides to show Holmes's plan of attack in slow-motion, predicting his attackers' moves and how he will beat them, and then playing the entire sequence again in normal time. The first film had these, but it seemed to be overkill this time around.
I also didn't feel as if there was that much connection between scenes and ideas. I really can't say much about the film because the film felt so empty, which is ironic since the next film in the series will probably be partially based on "The Adventure of the Empty House," the sequel to "The Final Problem." The script didn't make me feel that Moriarty was menacing or intimidating. Everything just felt like it was there, nothing much more. Even the score by Hans Zimmer (The Dark Knight Rises, The Lion King), who I feel is one of the best film composers to date, isn't as vibrant or memorable as the one in the first film, which is a terrible shame. I felt the same way with John Williams's (the best film composer ever) score for Star Wars Episode II was weak in comparison to the scores of hundreds of films he composed before and after. Poor films, iffy scores.
I know not everybody will agree with me on this film. One YouReviewer on YouTube, Chris Stuckmann, who I highly respect and who I know has great opinions on film (except with his reasoning for disliking The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey) felt that this was one of the best films of 2011, his reasoning being that it was a fun movie with clever action sequences. Never once in his review did he mention things such as the detective elements, the analysis of Holmes, or the chemistry between Holmes and Watson that makes Doyle's Holmes work, instead praising the antithesis of Sherlock Holmes. The fact that The Game of Shadows bases itself in the antithesis of Sherlock Holmes is why I can't give this film anything higher than 2 out of 5 stars, and I won't be clamoring to see Sherlock Holmes 3 anytime soon. Fortunately, Jaws is coming in my mailbox soon, so I'm looking forward to that!
 |
| Although I was expecting a film like the Bride, I ended up feeling like Holmes with a movie like Watson. |
Have you seen Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows? Did you like it? Do you disagree with my thoughts? Will you see a sequel? Tell me what you think in the comments below!
Summary: 2 out of 5. Too much action, not at all enough Holmes or suspense.
As with my Unbreakable review, I'll reflect on a spoiler-filled portion here that doesn't change the score I gave the film. So if you don't want the film spoiled for you, proceed with caution.
Call me crazy, but I thought Guy Ritchie made a terrible decision of basing the story on "The Final Problem!" We've only had one film to get to know his version's characters, and throughout the film, characters die, but we haven't had the time to get emotionally invested in them. In "The Final Problem," Holmes fakes his death and he does so as well in the movie. The thing is, Warner Bros. isn't going to stop making a franchise at movie 2, so killing off the lead character doesn't seem probable, so we don't weep when Holmes or Irene Adler dies. What Ritchie should have done is adapt The Hound of the Baskervilles or a little known story he could have put his twist to, adding Moriarty hints throughout, setting up for this as the big finale. That way, we could have gotten to know Mary, Holmes, and Watson enough so this film affects us as an audience more. Had there been more character development in the last two films, I would have much more liked A Game of Shadows. But alas, that was not the case. It's a shame, since Holmes is such a fascinating character. Maybe Ritchie should work with Poirot or Dupin and let a better director take care of the next film, whichever direction they're going to try to go, because I haven't the slightest idea how they're going to get much better than the last two with the hole they've dug themselves in. It's a shame.
No comments:
Post a Comment