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?
Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows Review
Ok, this review pisses me off on so many levels that I'm not even sure where to start...
Firstly, you come in here and quote your own review, which you wrote in such dictation as to imply a lofty understanding of cinema - as most critics do. Posting a review of a film in the form of your opinion is one thing, but when you flat out make declarative statements like "it was just a parody of the 1st movie with enchanted bromance to the mix" - and just a side note, what on earth does "enchanted bromance to the mix" mean? - that is what not only makes you seem ignorant but what turns me off from wanted to read any more of your reviews.
I find it insulting, as I rather enjoyed the film on multiple levels.
Now, before I go on to tackle each individual point you made, I'm first going to say that you need to find an editor for your articles. There are so many grammatical and structural errors within your review that it makes it hard for the reader to take it seriously (personally, at least).
Ok, on to your first point!
"the plot is practically the same"
How? The first movie was about a man who claims to be endowed with supernatural powers, but we learn is only trying to topple the British Parliament through the use of illusions and treachery. The second one is completely different!! With Moriarty you learn that he is directly linked to every major crime and evident large-scale corruption in Europe - what you do not know is why and how can we prove it. The entire mystery element of both films isn't even the same!!! The first film is about whether or not the villain is actual a supernatural entity (a very two-dimensional plot), but the second one skips over the surface entirely (why is Moriarty doing this) and jumps straight to the character clash between Holmes and his foil, Moriarty! Moriarty is in one way a complete opposite to Holmes, and in another he is the exact same; he is a sort of... Consulting Criminal.
The emphasis in the first film is plot, whereas in the second film it's more about character. I cannot even begin to understand how you consider the plots "pretty much the same" when you even say yourself: "instead of pondering is the antagonist a wizard or a man of science, we see the battle against Moriarty". That is completely different!! I guess in a sense you could say they are similar because they both have detective/mystery plots, but you cannot say "it's same movie" when the main focus of the second film isn't even the plot, it's character! Discussing "character" and "plot" is like the difference between night and day.
In terms of the first one having more "subtle humor" I don't think that's a fair statement either... How do you even measure that? The humour shown in both films is essentially the same, except for the inclusion of Mycroft - and might I add that the humour brought to the table by his character is very subtle, simply because of his character (besides his nudity).
Now on to the detective mode - The detective mode in the first film got very repetitive, whereas in this film they do it twice - the first time it is reminiscent of the first film and it is simply a call back, as if to say "yeah he still thinks like this", but the second time it is VERY different and only further emphasises how great of an adversary Moriarty is for Holmes; it pushed forward CHARACTER as opposed to PLOT, which is a stronger form of story-telling. If anything, they added a bit to the "detective" mode of the film, where Holmes actually sees specific elements in a room so that the audience can recall clues he might have overlooked (like the crest or the secret passage), whereas in the first film they didn't show the audience the clues Holmes uses to make his deductions (with him talking about the eagle, the lion, etc etc.), and this helps with things like audience inclusion and re-watch value (adding a sense of dramatic irony).
Again with the bromance? This is Sherlock Holmes; the vagueness of the nature of the Holmes/Watson relationship is a running joke within Holmes lore.
Now on to soundtrack - the soundtrack to the first film was very diverse and set the groundwork; the sequel takes out the thematic elements that did not fit, and builds on the rest to the point where Zimmer masterfully creates an incredible three-part thematic piece exploring the nature of Moriarty (now we get music based around character) and setting a more fitting environment (where the first film was too spread out and varied).
Now I'm sorry to make of you "the sacrificial lamb", but enough is enough. Critics bash on films that the general audience loves so that they can tell them that films that require more "thinking" are more admirable. It truly is ridiculous - they take advantage of films with ambiguity which leave audiences confused to tell them "this is what the film is - glorify me" and when a film can simplistically tell a story and feature very strong characters which require no in-depth explanation, they cast it out. Now you might ask "why?"; simply because it's
their job to
tell you what a film means - heaven forbid you, the average viewer understand a good film on your own.
And to the critics who aren't so narcissistic, they have a tendency to job on the bandwagon (like Christy Lemire or Ben Menkiewicz) or they just want to **** disturb (like Armand White).
Seriously, reviews are useless. Watch a film and decide for yourself - if it weren't for critics, Toy Story 3 wouldn't be considered a "masterpiece" (it's not - yes, it IS a great film, but imperfect? No. Not a 10/10. That's just nostalgia talking), Blade Runner (Special Edition) and No Country for Old Men or True Grit would not be regarded as incredible films, and films like Sherlock Holmes and the Empire Strikes Back (which was considered a bad film when it was first released) might actually be considered great, entertaining films.
Sorry, I just thought I'd get that off my chest. Drz, forgive me - I didn't mean to personally bash you; I merely meant to use your review as an exemplary review I take discomfort by.
t:
Loved it!
Ok look at it this way - a bunch of shepherds are leading humans around in circles. I'm stepping in to say "You don't need a shepherd to tell you where to go". It should only offend him if he actually believes he is in a position to shepherd the general audience.
