Top College News Subscribe to the Newsletter

Wrong Guy for the Job

Movie Review: "SHERLOCK HOLMES: A GAME OF SHADOWS"

Published: Thursday, December 15, 2011

Updated: Wednesday, December 21, 2011 15:12

sherlock

2 stars

There is usually something negative to be said about a movie that sets itself up for a sequel. Then, there is almost always something worse to be said about a sequel that sets itself up for another sequel, as is the case with Guy Ritchie's most recent effort "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows." I'm not the guy that's going to spoil the ending for you, but you can bet your life on the fact that Downey is going to be back for another Warner Brothers-endorsed paycheck for this high-grossing series.

Considering Ritchie's repertoire of films, filled with his own avant-garde action-packed style, anybody with half a brain knows exactly what this film will be: Nothing special, just a bunch of big-budget explosions and some halfway witty one-liners. Yes, it's going to make money and, yes, I am so surprised that Downey wasn't nominated (again) for Best Actor in a Leading Role by the Golden Globes awards. But, in all seriousness and sincerity, where is the substance, Guy? Pun intended.

In this subpar sequel, Sherlock Holmes (again played by Downey) and Dr. Watson (an uninteresting Jude Law, again) attempt to stop the classic Holmes nemesis Dr. James Moriarty (Jared Harris), a world-renown mathematician, from starting the First World War years before it actually happened. Luckily for the viewer, the useless Rachel McAdams only returns shortly in the sequel before dying of tuberculosis (Is there any point to her existence besides being something to look at?) After this happens, Holmes attends Dr. Watson's wedding and then abruptly stops the beginning of his honeymoon by fighting off a bunch of seemingly random attackers during an epic train ride. They aren't, in fact, random, as they are there to stop Holmes and Watson from finding out about and stopping Moriarty. From there comes the typical cat-and-mouse chase, with an evasive and sharp-shooting Holmes often foolishly disguising himself alongside his trustworthy partner Watson to save the world.

The abundance of foreshadowing combining many typical Holmesian explanations leads to the obvious: That Guy Ritchie is just another Hollywood director that assumes every single one of his viewers is stupid. Nothing at all is left for the viewer to decipher or assume, as everything is blatantly explained so that a 5 year old can potentially understand. With that said, the abundance of the film is fairly well shot, save the edited sequences which cut every half a second because Downey probably can't fight the way Sherlock was supposed to. In playing Holmes, Downey tries to be witty, something he hasn't really succeeded at doing since "Iron Man" in 2008.

Downey's hot name combined with surgical experiments meant to awe the audience, big budget explosions and a fascination with elegance and royalty do almost nothing to save this fake period piece. The film tries to be operatic, which just doesn't work with Ritchie's "this looks so cool!" slow motion sequences. Something rather negative should be said when the characters of a movie are clearly smarter than their directors, which is the case here. Sherlock Holmes was written to be a pretty smart guy, obviously smarter than the Guy who's been releasing trash since "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" in 1998.

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

2 comments

MatthewAnders
Thu Jan 5 2012 16:34
First of all, Jain Doe (you coward), thank you for calling me pompous and ignorant in my ways. I honestly like that, you seem to be a very respectful human being. For myself to truly be ignorant, it would have to be true that in my life I've never read a "Sherlock Holmes" book. That is in fact untrue. My High School English teacher made us read the laborious first two novels, but thank you for your comments anyway. I found no use for the work of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, and you can hold that against me if you wish, but I read them nonetheless and continue to read both old and new fiction and non-fiction. I am not ignorant. Oh, and the fact that I read the books eliminates your claim that I am also pompous in my ways. I read the first two books and saw the first two movies (not that they follow each other), so I believe that gives my opinion some credential. Now, to address the rest of your stupid talk: The fact that the movie is captivating from the opening scene is your own opinion: I don't find a horribly disguised Robert Downey chasing (the rather brutal actress) Rachel McAdams and proceeding to fight her bodyguards funny, and I don't find Robert Downey's seemingly improvised comments witty. I don't find Ritchie's direction confusing in the least bit, either, and there is nothing surprising about Jude Law getting on a train and getting attacked by the guy that was in focus four shots ago in the back of the frame of the camera - and it does not surprise me that Sherlock Holmes saves him either. It is also not well-shot in the least bit: How can you possibly respect a director that cuts every half a second to hide the fact that the star of his movie is lazy and won't ACTUALLY learn how to do his own real stunts? I'm sorry that the repertoire of films I've seen is clearly larger than yours, but I would much rather prefer a Chinese film where Bruce Lee or Jimmy Wang Yu do their own stunts as to a sloppy Guy Ritchie-edited sequence where you don't know who is who. I realize the book sets itself up for sequels... Duh. Regardless of whether or not I realize that, I don't have to appreciate the stupid gags that (apparently, your boy) Guy Ritchie throws in at the end of each movie to assure you that you will see more of two of Hollywood's biggest actors. As a student-critic, I don't have to have respect for any big-time actor: I either like their work or I don't. There are plenty of other big-name actors and actresses whose work I enjoy, mostly because of the directors they choose to work with that aren't blatant LET'S BLOW SOME SHIT UP sellouts. I don't have to give any movie due, I'm a student-critic. I've barely seen any movies in my lifetime compared to other established critics, but I can tell trash when I see it. And I've seen enough of Guy Ritchie's movies to know that they are all trash. His style has no artistic value to it whatsoever. I don't have to respect an idiot like Guy Ritchie, I can critique whatever I have seen that he has created because I have seen it! If he's creating movies strictly to sell them, THEN HE IS A SELL-OUT! DUURHH. He can adapt whatever way he likes, and I can't knock the guy because he makes a lot of money, but I surely don't have to like his movies. What is this, Germany in the late '30s and I must like "Triumph of the Will?" Personally, I would have more respect for him if he went for broke as a legend who rode the waves of time (although I don't quite know what "waves of time" refers to, you mystical, metaphorical person you!)All in all you are very insulting, and I wish I knew who you were because I'd be sure to tell you I have no respect for you - calling me pigheaded, ignorant and pompous. It's my own opinion, you can respect it or not respect it. Judging from your shallow response to me, I don't care if you read my reviews or not: I don't need your clicks, I don't care! If you want to be pampered, then just look at the IMDB score that the general public gives out, a number that is always high for movies that make money. As a word of advice, don't read anyone's reviews either because they will be way too opinionated for your taste. Just because the general public loves this movie and thinks it's worth paying over $100 million altogether in the U.S. alone to go see does not mean that I have to show the least bit of respect for it. Your general statements saying that "The production of Twilight is getting better" and "I hate romance movies, but their soundtrack and writers are always on point" do nothing but add meaningless fluff to your already fluffy argument. Who said anything about "Twilight?" And do you speak for all romance movies when you say their soundtracks are getting better? What romance movies have you seen that were released prior to "Pretty Woman?" I don't know if these statements are meant to attack me or just to tell people that you know what you're talking about because you can see that studios realize what is trash and what isn't trash after they release...
JainDoe
Tue Jan 3 2012 17:49
Seriously? Not only was the movie captivating from the beginning scene, but it kept your interest the whole way through, which is hard since we are stuck in a period of cheesy movies making the most. Of course Sherlock sets itself up for another sequel each time, have you ever read a Holmes book? Each book sets itself up for another sequel? You are ignorant and pompous in your ways, a critic gone rogue with your own pigheaded ideas. Sherlock Holmes was a very intriguing movie, with a star studded cast that did not clash, it was funny, witty, confusing, and surprising. You never knew what was going to happen. And I didn't know that you could really critique what Guy Ritchie has created, times have changed and the movies he was making, like Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, aren't selling in this day and age. He could either adapt, not sell out, or go for broke as a legend who couldn't ride the waves of time. You sir, need to get over yourself and your high expectations. I will take you seriously when you can give movies their due. I hate Twilight, but still say that the production is definitely getting better. I hate romance movies, but their soundtrack and writers are always on point. Grow up, you are a writer, maturity is expected.




log out