NOT QUITE AS ELEMENTARY: a review of "Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows"

“SHERLOCK HOLMES: A GAME OF SHADOWS”
Based upon characters and situations created by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Screenplay Written by Michele Mulroney & Kieran Mulroney
Directed by Guy Ritchie
** ½ (two and a half stars)

A peculiar thing has happened between Guy Ritchie’s first and second installment of his adaptations of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle “Sherlock Holmes” series. What began as an aggressive, adrenaline fueled, innovative, expertly inventive series has already and surprisingly grown perfunctory, leaden and tired.

Dear readers, if you look back within the Savage Cinema archives, you will find that I enjoyed Guy Ritchie’s more two-fisted revisionist take on Sherlock Holmes thoroughly. Despite the generally negative critical reaction to that 2009 film, the complaints of which tended to revolve around the action film theatrics, I found “Sherlock Holmes” to be thrilling, engaging entertainment which provided a completely fresh take on material that I had typically found to be stiff and archaic. Most of all, I felt that Robert Downey Jr. in the titular role and Jude Law as his trusty sidekick Dr. John Watson to be nothing less than a dream team. They were meant to work together and we, the audience, were supremely rewarded as a result.

While “Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows” is not a bad movie by any stretch, I was taken aback at how bored I was throughout the proceedings. For a film series that has arrived at the very point where it should have taken off for even higher grounds, this second installment just sat there, albeit gorgeously so, and simply spun its wheels, as it just showcased the glories of the first film ad nauseam. Essentially, “Sherlock Holmes: A Games Of Shadows” felt like the exhausted fifth or sixth film in the series as opposed to the second.

When we last saw the intrepid and half-mad Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.), he had been alerted to the insidious presence of a mysterious Professor James Moriarty (Jared Harris), who is described as being equally brilliant as Holmes yet decidedly more devious.

As “Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows” opens in the year 1891, London has become plagued with a series of random and anonymously placed bombings. As Watson is set to depart for his wedding and subsequent honeymoon to his long-suffering fiancée Mary (Kelly Reilly), Holmes confesses that he has been covertly investigating not only the bombings but also a series of supposedly unrelated murders and business acquisitions and through his calculations, he has deduced that Moriarty is the mastermind behind all of the events.

As Watson reluctantly becomes involved with yet another dangerous caper with the brilliant yet unhinged Holmes, the twosome enlist the welcome aid of Simza (Noomi Rapace), a Gypsy fortune teller with connections to an anarchist group as well as Holmes’ equally eccentric brother Mycroft (Stephen Fry). Yet, despite their collective smarts and tenacity, it seems as if Sherlock Holmes may have finally met his match in Moriarty, whom the group soon discovers is attempting to instigate a war between France and Germany solely in order to gain tremendous financial profit from the fallout.

Although my reaction to the film as a whole was lukewarm at best, there is much that I really enjoyed about “Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows.” As with the first film the entire production, cinematography and set design is absolutely exquisite! I was again enthralled with how Ritchie and his team were committed to creating a 19th century London that really created the feeling of being authentic in look and lived in feel while also existing as a transportive fantasy world. The excellent special effects also remained first rate. And I was again extremely impressed with composer Hans Zimmer’s innovatively elegant and propulsive music score.

Most of all, Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law unquestionably remain the dream team as their flawless chemistry completely carries this not as sturdy second film. I think that Downey Jr. especially has even improved in the role as he has dialed down the madness just a hair, so as to make his interpretation of this classic character more understandable and verbally comprehensible than the first go around. I know that I have stated this before on this site, but I am always so amazed with Downey Jr.’s collective of performances mostly because he just has this uncanny ability to make dialogue sound so effortlessly natural as if these are the exact thoughts that pop from his own brain and not from a screenwriter. His interpretation of Sherlock Holmes is also no exception, aided greatly by his wonderfully executed English accent. His work showcases a newfound physicality that feels tailor made for him and I do just love how he can make this classic character feel so much of its time period yet somewhat contemporary as well. With Sherlock’s impeccable mind, process of deductions, whip-crack fighting physique combined with his diet of caffeine, tobacco, cocoa leaves and glasses of formaldehyde, Robert Downey Jr. has again made this more unhinged presentation completely his own.
.
Jude Law again is Downey Jr.’s equal as his Dr. John Watson remains the long-suffering confidant as well as the brother in arms who understands him best. I have always loved Law’s rouge-ish charm and that element truly adds a provocative layer to this character who has usually been depicted as a bumbling sidekick. But as wonderful as both of these actors are in their roles and with each other, this particular film just didn’t live up to their respective levels for me.

The problem is not within the performances or even the style of “Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows,” but within the screenplay and Guy Ritchie’s interpretation of that screenplay, which unfortunately does not offer any new shadings to the characters and situations at all. While the welcome arrival of Professor James Moriarty as the antagonist conceptually raises the stakes more than effectively, it is a shame that Ritchie didn’t allow his storytelling canvas to broaden and grow as formidable as the two extraordinary minds of Moriarty and Holmes deserve. Frankly, it is the film’s overall repetitiveness that bogs everything down. Did we really have to have another film where Holmes and Watson bicker endlessly about the virtues and suffocatings of marriage? Wasn’t all of that sufficiently worked over in the first film and if so, why did we have to hear it all over again? Additionally, Holmes penchant for dressing up in all manner of disguises was also tiring as it all felt like sub-par Inspector Clouseau costumes and none of which were remotely funny (the “Holmes in drag” outfit was a sad mistake).

From a special effects standpoint, as terrifically executed as all of the sequences are, they are just over-done. The inner visions of Sherlock Holmes anticipating the fighting moves of his opponents and how he will vanquish them was an absolute highlight of the first film yet for this second film, Ritchie unwisely decides to utilize the technique over and over and over and over and over again. Yes, for the first fight in the film, I was happy to see it again and I will say that during the climactic battle of wits between Holmes and Moriarty, the technique was also well performed. But, for the other five to seven times in the film, it just wore out its welcome and then some. It was as if this was the only trick up Ritchie’s sleeve and he just over-padded the film with it. Now, I do have to say that there was one sequence where I felt Ritchie’s visual razzle dazzle served the story beautifully while also providing something very fresh and exciting. This was during a forest sequence where Holmes, Watson, Simza and their compatriots are attempting to escape from the massive artillery fire from Moriarty’s right hand man, the coolly efficient marksman, Sebastian Moran (Paul Anderson). That one sequence, with bullets flying dangerous close to our heroes as they shattered everything from clothing to branches and trees in conversely accelerated and slowed imagery, made me sit straight up in my theater seat! I just wish there had been more of this level of creativity on display overall.

Yet, I felt that the film made probably its biggest cinematic crime with the under-utilization of the incredible Noomi Rapace from the Swedish versions of “The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo” and its two sequels. I will just never understand the process of hiring extremely talented actors and then, giving them absolutely nothing to do. Rapace was completely wasted in her role and she ultimately served the film absolutely no function other than to just exist as “the girl.” The original and inimitable Lisbeth Salander deserves infinitely better!

“Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows” was a film that just fell short for me. It was nothing that derailed the series but it was more of a seat shifter than an edge-of-your-seat experience. And while there is more than enough room for improvement in the inevitable third installment, this second film just felt to be more than a little ho-hum, certainly not what Ritchie had intended to be sure.