Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

Rate The Movie

  • 10

  • 9

  • 8

  • 7

  • 6

  • 5

  • 4

  • 3

  • 2

  • 1

  • 10

  • 9

  • 8

  • 7

  • 6

  • 5

  • 4

  • 3

  • 2

  • 1


Results are only viewable after voting.
Status
Not open for further replies.
I thought the slow-mo was beautiful, not because durr explosions I love Michael Bay, but because of the level of detail. The sound editing was brilliant. You can see every detail of the scenes, feel the breath and movements of the objects, bullets, collisions, and characters. You could hear every little sound. This FAR surpasses
the Matrix + Matrix copycats in
terms of what slow-motion action
should do. The Matrix just....has things happen with no
enhancement, but this actually
makes it an enveloping experience
that feels and looks beautiful.

This. The slow mo was great. Really enhanced the scene.
 
Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows Review

Director Guy Ritchie and actors Robert Downey Junior (Sherlock Holmes) and Jude Law (Doctor Watson) return to the world of Sherlock Holmes to make a sequel to the 2009 box office hit, how does it fare to its Predecessor? I’d say it works, as a farce that is.

The problem with many sequels and like this one, is that the plot is practically the same, but with different focus on some aspects instead of the other, but the general gist of it is the following: More outrageous laugh out loud humor, less subtle, wacky dialogue between Watson and Holmes and in this movie instead of pondering is the antagonist a wizard or a man of science, we see the battle against Moriarty, what are his motivations? What does he gain from all of this? Why does he do this? So yeah it’s the same movie more or less.

Moriarty as a villain works, the movie begins months after the 1st film and off-screen Holmes has foiled and deduced plenty of Moriarty’s schemes but not the very end game of it, and these men have the big ego contest while the antagonist is more than happy to play very dirty and hurt those Holmes cares about, you can presumably understand what I mean by this.

I feel that people who cherish more subtle humor and with less expectations, will enjoy the 1st film more, but if you’re a fan of more outrageous, crazy over the top humor with some glorious slash fiction-inspiring scenery, you might enjoy this sequel more. I personally feel more subtle humor works when it comes to re-watch value, but this movie had many laugh out loud scenes that I will be remembering.

I felt the actors give their top performances yet again, but again they did go over the top with Holmes’ detective mode, the slow motion scenes where we see all the engine clockwork spins and at the very end we see such an over the top brawl-planning, that I can’t help but to keep calling this movie a farce of the 1st movie, that’s why I rather liked it for my viewing, it was just a parody of the 1st movie with enchanted bromance to the mix.

The music is a bit different from the 1st film, it has the same tune, but I felt the 1st movie had a better soundtrack from my favorite movie composer Hans Zimmer.

So again, you can either re-watch the 1st movie and enjoy it’s subtle humor, or you can watch an over the top outrageous farce, I’d say it’s definite worth to watch for 1 time, and maybe because of this review you may have lesser expectations that might make this movie a more surprise to you, who knows, right?
 
This. The slow mo was great. Really enhanced the scene.


I really have to agree the slo mo was excellently done the best since 300 the way the trees were exploding and the bullets were passing by was amazingly done
 
"Little Hansel."

God, that so Guy Ritchie.
 
I really have to agree the slo mo was excellently done the best since 300 the way the trees were exploding and the bullets were passing by was amazingly done

I thought that scene was absolutely gorgeous and intense. Went on a little long, but I still enjoyed that scene.
 
Why are critics hating on this so bad? I really don't get the, same movie, criticisms. Sure the feeling and the banter were the same as the first film, but every sequel borrows from the first. When tdk came out people didn't say it was essentially the same as batman begins..
 
I absolutely loved the ending. What a great surprise that was. Put a huge smile on my face.

I am not sure if it was much of a surprise, but I did love it and it made me smile from ear to ear.

I thought the slow-mo was beautiful, not because durr explosions I love Michael Bay, but because of the level of detail. The sound editing was brilliant. You can see every detail of the scenes, feel the breath and movements of the objects, bullets, collisions, and characters. You could hear every little sound. This FAR surpasses the Matrix + Matrix copycats in terms of what slow-motion action should do. The Matrix just....has things happen with no enhancement, but this actually makes it an enveloping experience that feels and looks beautiful.

I didn't find it to be all the effective because they played it out.

It worked early and especially during the chess scene. But that had everything to do with writing and acting. It was hilarious to watch someone else do what Holmes does.

But the Little Hansel scene went on forever. It was overkill. Like when you hit a choke point during a big set piece in a video game and are forced to watch the same "amazing moment" over and over and over again.
 
Why are critics hating on this so bad? I really don't get the, same movie, criticisms. Sure the feeling and the banter were the same as the first film, but every sequel borrows from the first. When tdk came out people didn't say it was essentially the same as batman begins..

It is very much the same film, with the same beats, done on a larger scale with a more well-written villain but an underwritten female lead. That didn't keep me from enjoying the hell out of it, but it is very much the truth.

They even retreaded the the exploding factory scene, just flipped.
 
Last edited:
loved it! it took what i loved about the first movie and made it even larger in scope. the ending wasn't one of those go out with a bang endings but i can look past formulaic stuff like that. they broke the formula and made it work. but you've gotta be a big supporter of the first movie to really get into this one i think. my one complaint would be that guy ritchies style is too hyper and he stretched the slow mo stuff in the forest out a little too long. there was a really cool technique he used when the sniper-dude was running through the forest but he didn't play it up enough and I really was in awe of that moment.

SH2 8.75/10
SH1 8.5/10

Bottom line...i love me some old school adventure films in the vein of indy. it had action, great sets and locations and it was a lot of fun.
 
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/sherlock_holmes_a_game_of_shadows/

60% of the critics and 85% of the audience like it, so I don't think it's really being "hated on". It is really just unadulterated Christmas fun, and doesn't set out to be "serious" (whatever that means), so some critics just won't feel able to commend it.

I think you are underplaying the intentions. RDJ made a particular point to make it known that they were trying to make a really good film this time out.

This was very much a "serious" attempt.
 
I think you are underplaying the intentions. RDJ made a particular point to make it known that they were trying to make a really good film this time out.

This was very much a "serious" attempt.

is there a quote somewhere from rdj?
 
I thought you were linking to someone else's review- didn't realize it was yours.

I can do lots of other stuff, anyway.
 
Soz? Thats all you can say?

If you wish to debate about the movie, do so withouth being rude.
 
No, I have already said lots of other stuff.
 
Which seemingly is posting Rotten Tomatoes general audience reception while likely forgetting the audience for Sherlock Holmes so far has been smaller, since it's made less money.

Yeah.
 
You only have to read that very post to see that I was highlighting the critical reaction in response to a comment about the same. The audience reaction is relevant only by association.

Look, we have had a misunderstanding and I have hurt your feelings. That wasn't my intention, so I am sorry.
 
is there a quote somewhere from rdj?

I'll look for it. I remember seeing it in this very thread. It stood out to me because it seemed to imply that he didn't think much of the first film.
 
You only have to read that very post to see that I was highlighting the critical reaction in response to a comment about the same. The audience reaction is relevant only by association.

The audience and critics are both important as it factors to the sales and general view of the movie, which is that it's not as great as the original, as we've seen the majority agreeing.

Look, we have had a misunderstanding

There is no misunderstanding, you can't accept some critism so you defend it by insulting.
 
Whether it was a better film or not, this fil was more fun and more exciting than the first. That's what a sequel should be to me
 
More fun depends on your sense of humor, do you prefer more outrageous over the top farce or more subtle humor, that is the question.

Also sequels shouldn't be a replicate of the same plot the 1st movie had, which was one of the negative's of this film.
 
Jared Harris was absolutely magnificent in his portrayal as The world's greatest criminal mastermind : Moriarty. That intellectual mind game battle between him and Holmes towards the end where you see the brutality of Moriarty when he uses Holmes ailment as an advantage to be savage in the battle was brilliant. Especially after a very good Chess match between Holmes and Moriarty.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,328
Messages
22,086,622
Members
45,885
Latest member
RadioactiveMan
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"