Review: "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows"

Director Guy Ritchie reunites Robert Downey, Jr and Jude Law in the even more bromantic sequel to 2009's Sherlock Holmes. Holmes (Downey) is up to his usual nonsense on the eve of Watson's (Law) wedding, disguising himself as a bookcase in the jungle he's created in his office (much to the exasperation of his housekeeper, Mrs. Hudson). This time, Holmes is after the evil mathematical genius Professor Moriarty (Jared Harris), who is intent on amassing a fortune from munitions sales by initiating a world war. 

Joined by gypsy fortune teller (the original Girl with the Dragon Tatto, Noomi Rapace) who is a reformed anarchist, Holmes and Watson journey to France, Germany and Switzerland in search of their prey. Holmes' brother Mycroft (Stephen Fry) is also on hand (and occasionally naked). Rachel McAdams makes a brief return appearance as Holmes' love interest, joined by Kelly Reilly; Gerladine James and Eddie Marsan who also reprise their roles from the 2009 film, brief as those reprisals may be (though Reilly gets a bit more screen time this time around).

D and I really enjoyed the first movie, which was funny, smart and had a hint of supernatural elements in its plot. And while we, for the most part, enjoyed A Game of Shadows, we couldn't help but feel a bit disappointed by it. Holmes is almost completely out of control here; swilling formaldehyde, dressing in more and more outrageous disguises and behaving like a kid with ADD who hasn't taken his Ritalin. His behavior is in fact so outrageous, one must wonder why Watson puts up with it all. It must be true love, especially after he continues on with Holmes after Holmes throws Watson's new wife off a moving train into the river below (don't worry - she's rescued by Mycroft).

Ritchie relies even more on the 'slow-mo/stop-mo/reverse-mo/full speed-mo' camera work he used in the first film and after the third time, I wanted to say "Enough, already!" The overly-complicated plot (courtesy of screenwriters Michelle and Kieran Mulroney) would have been a complete bore, if it wasn't broken up by several exciting and generally well-executed action sequences. 

Downey and Law are fine, though neither brings anything new to the table. Rapace struggles against the stereotypical Victorian gypsy fortune-teller character, but the role is so poorly written, she can't help but fall back on those old tropes. Fry is wonderfully acerbic as Mycroft, but no more so than in anything else he's ever done (though I do applaud him for displaying his very far-from-perfect body for all to see). Harris (well-known for playing villainous types) is appropriately creepy as Moriarty, but once again, brings nothing new to the table.

In the end, D and I both expected more from Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows. At  nearly two and a half hours, it could have benefited by being about 20 minutes shorter; employing a less heavy-handed editing approach; a less complicated plot and better character development. Should there be a Sherlock Holmes 3 (as the movie's end suggests), we'll probably go see it. But with much lowered expectations.  ** (2 out of Four Stars)

More, anon.
Prospero

Review: "Sherlock Holmes"

In Middle School, I had a wonderful and brilliant English teacher named Jack Fogarty. Jack taught me how to dissect a novel, interpret symbolism and recognize foreshadowing. He also introduced me to Arthur Conan Doyle's most well-known and most-loved creation, Sherlock Holmes. Hell, it was under his direction that I got my first leading role as an actor playing - you guessed it - Sherlock Holmes. I even became a member of The Baker Street Irregulars.

So you can imagine my dubiousness upon hearing the news that British action director (and former husband of Madonna) Guy Ritchie (Rocknrolla) was going to make a new Sherlock Holmes film starring Robert Downey, Jr. of all people. Not to disparage Downey - he's a brilliant actor (Chaplin, anyone?). But I just couldn't see him as the lanky, heroin-addicted genius. And handsome Jude Law as Dr. Watson? Had the whole world gone mad?

I am happy to say that, going in with very lowered expectations, Ritchie, Downey, Law and company deliver a fun, action-packed and surprisingly reverent movie loaded with humor, romance, bro-mance and thrills.

The story opens with Holmes, Watson and Inspector Lestrad (Eddie Marsand) in pursuit of the evil Lord Blackwood (Ritchie regular, Mark Strong), who is planning to take over the world using ancient mysticism and human sacrifice. After Blackwood is apprehended and executed, he apparently rises from the grave to continue his infernal plan. Holmes soon encounters "the only woman he ever cared about," nefarious American criminal Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams), one of the few people to ever outsmart him. She has been hired by a mysterious man to discover the whereabouts of a missing midget who later turns up dead, but who has played an integral part in Blackwood's evil plan.

Incorporating elements of the Doyle stories previously ignored by other Holmes movie directors, Ritchie has made a surprisingly good film. Holmes finally gets to exhibit his prowess in boxing and martial arts, as well his penchant for disguise, while maintaining his genius for observation and scientific curiosity. Shot in sepia tones and infusing a bit of Steampunk sensibility into the Victorian London setting, Ritchie's film captures both the squalor and the promise of Industrial Revolution era London in the early 1900's.

Downey continues to prove he is an acting force to be reckoned with, creating a Holmes that is closer to Doyle's creation than any actor who came before. Gone are the deerstalker cap and Meerschaum pipe (affectations created for the 1940's films starring Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce), replaced by a simple clay pipe and a series of hats Holmes literally steals along the way. Law's Watson is similarly revived; no longer a bumbling side-kick, but a powerful ally and non-blood brother who is probably the only person who truly understands Holmes. Strong is fine as the dashingly handsome (if snaggle-toothed) villain. Fairing not-so-well is McAdams, in a role that could have been played by almost any plucky American actress. The rest of the supporting cast are very good, particularly Marsan as Scotland Yard Inspector Lestrade.

Of course, this being a Guy Ritchie film, there are plenty or fights, explosions and big CGI effects, but none of that distracts from the plot. And needless to say, the mysterious stranger is obviously (even for those without Holmes' deductive powers) Professor Moriarity, setting up a sequel quite neatly. And Uncle Prospero will be first in line to see it. I saw Sherlock Holmes with my Dear D, who had a less enthusiastic response, but still said he enjoyed it. Of course, the movie was just icing on our delayed holiday gift exchange. Still, I can't help but recommend this movie, which surpassed my expectations on almost every level. I think Jack Fogarty would agree. *** (Three Out of Four Stars).

More, anon.
Prospero