Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

[DarthSkywalker]

I disagree. Asteroid man made good points. The basic mystery set-up was completely different. Not the same film at all. Actually, I wouldn't really even call this new film a "mystery" film. The focus was not on "how did the antagonist accomplish x?" as it is in almost any mystery film or TV series, but instead focused on "How do we stop antagonist before he accomplishes x."

The format is different from the last film. And while I did enjoy this movie, I thought it moved a bit fast at times. Actually, I felt this film was more of an Indiana Jones style film that happened to feature Sherlock Holmes. Heck, I'd even that A Game of Shadows was a better Indiana Jones style film then the last Indiana Jones film. This is opposed to the last film, which I felt was a more traditional Sherlock Holmes story with elements of the classic "Indaina Jones style" action thrown in.

The format was not different. The beats were the same, as was the underlying themes. What happens when Sherlock is confronted with someone who can effect him on an emotional level, the value of Watson to Holmes, what truly makes Watson happy; Mary or his work with Sherlock? They are simply done on a larger scale.

Look at the action scenes and their placement in the films.

Spoiler

-Sherlock in a fist fight with multiple opponents to start things out with, which demonstrates Sherlock's way of thinking.

- A boxing match in public that introduces the female lead is replaced with a matrial arts battle that introduces the female lead.

-Replace big boat disaster with big train disaster.

-The warehouse in the sequel is the factory, destruction of parts of each building included. Instead of Watson nearly dying, Sherlock almost does.

- They both end with fist fights from heights, at the attempted assignation of government officials. Mass assassination of parliament, opposed to a single assassination of an international delegate.

Both films are mysteries, which asks the audience "how", while Sherlock is busy asking why is the villain doing what they are doing. There is no actual question whether Blackwood is supernatural (Sherlock actually picks that up pretty quickly) just like there is no question that Moriarty is responsible for the cases Sherlock has been tracking. The questions with Blackwood is "how" is he making it appear so and "why" is he doing so? These are exact questions put forth to the audience in the sequel.

In both films the "how" lingers with the audience, while Sherlock sort of just bypasses it. He knows "how" as soon as he sees it. He just wait to to tell the audience that all that stuff they saw mattered. What concerns him is the "why".

As I said before, the one major difference is the role of the villain and the female lead. Instead of Irene continuing to keep Sherlock off his game, Moriarty does. Blackwood and Simza are simply there as plot gears.

They even play the "true believer card" in both films. Resistance fighters and the occult. Both being manipulated by the villain.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

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.


It wasn't a "one last job" film... Sherlock never said he wanted to quit... he just went after Moriarty and Moriarty went "**** you, I'm gonna kill everyone you were ever close to".


Exactly! Thank you!!!

Umm... what?

One last job for the duo. Sherlock isn't quitting until he is dead. Its his thing. In both films Watson attempts to start his life with Mary, and in both films Sherlock "pulls him back in" for one last job.

Bravo. Very well written. I agree, people love to sound smart when they review movies, but it often ends up the other way.

And some people like to sound smart by insulting other people and their views.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Sherlock does NOT pull him back in for one last job... in the first one, YES he does. Not in this one. In this one, Moriarty goes "Hey Holmes, I'm gonna kill everyone close to you" and Watson gets wound up in it, as does Mary. Holmes was able to get Mary away, but Moriarty told him no matter what, he'd go after Watson.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

The format was not different. The beats were the same, as was the underlying themes. What happens when Sherlock is confronted with someone who can effect him on an emotional level, the value of Watson to Holmes, what truly makes Watson happy; Mary or his work with Sherlock? They are simply done on a larger scale.

Look at the action scenes and their placement in the films.

Spoiler

-Sherlock in a fist fight with multiple opponents to start things out with, which demonstrates Sherlock's way of thinking.

- A boxing match in public that introduces the female lead is replaced with a matrial arts battle that introduces the female lead.

-Replace big boat disaster with big train disaster.

-The warehouse in the sequel is the factory, destruction of parts of each building included. Instead of Watson nearly dying, Sherlock almost does.

- They both end with fist fights from heights, at the attempted assignation of government officials. Mass assassination of parliament, opposed to a single assassination of an international delegate.

Both films are mysteries, which asks the audience "how", while Sherlock is busy asking why is the villain doing what they are doing. There is no actual question whether Blackwood is supernatural (Sherlock actually picks that up pretty quickly) just like there is no question that Moriarty is responsible for the cases Sherlock has been tracking. The questions with Blackwood is "how" is he making it appear so and "why" is he doing so? These are exact questions put forth to the audience in the sequel.

In both films the "how" lingers with the audience, while Sherlock sort of just bypasses it. He knows "how" as soon as he sees it. He just wait to to tell the audience that all that stuff they saw mattered. What concerns him is the "why".

As I said before, the one major difference is the role of the villain and the female lead. Instead of Irene continuing to keep Sherlock off his game, Moriarty does. Blackwood and Simza are simply there as plot gears.

They even play the "true believer card" in both films. Resistance fighters and the occult. Both being manipulated by the villain.

Again, the stories are similar, but the focus of the film shifts completely from plot to character.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Sherlock does NOT pull him back in for one last job... in the first one, YES he does. Not in this one. In this one, Moriarty goes "Hey Holmes, I'm gonna kill everyone close to you" and Watson gets wound up in it, as does Mary. Holmes was able to get Mary away, but Moriarty told him no matter what, he'd go after Watson.

And I am telling you you are wrong. What Holmes does what he does isn't the question. The scene you are talking about is akin to Blackwood's "resurrection". The action of the lead villain that brings Holmes and Watson back together again. Heck in both films Holmes has a little chat with the villain beforehand.

What I am talking about happens after the action scene on the train, Holmes and Watson play out a recruitment scene in the destroyed car. It is where Watson tells him he has to get his luggage first.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

*Sigh* Hopeless!

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Again, the stories are similar, but the focus of the film shifts completely from plot to character.

In what way? It is the same characters, playing the same roles exploring the same central questions as the first film.

We don't even really learn all that much new about the characters.

We know Watson is addicted to gambling which leads to bad choices. We know that Sherlock loves and cares for Irene and Watson. We know that Sherlock's general demeanor pisses Watson off. We know that Sherlock needs and trust Watson. We know that the only challenge to Sherlock is someone that can effect him on an emotional level. We know that Irene wuvs Sherlock and that strains her relationship with Moriarty.

Why? Because it is all in the first film. Even Mary's disdain turns to acceptance of Sherlock just like in the first film.

The only difference is they "up the ante". Moriarty is such an awesome baddie that he could theoretically end them all.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

*Sigh* Hopeless!

Are you telling me that doesn't happen? That Sherlock doesn't bait Watson into helping him one last time? Are you seriously going to try and argue that doesn't happen?

 

[Asteroid-Man]

I'm not going to argue with you... you're just taking things in circles.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I'm not going to argue with you... you're just taking things in circles.

No, what has happened is you have been caught in a clear and factual flaw in your argument and you have decided you want to avoid it. Which is fine, but don't act like I am the one being unreasonable.

I am not talking in circles. I made my argument quite clear.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

*Sigh* Fine I'll bite, but if the mods look at this like futile banter, they know I tried to be the bigger man at least.


Ok read this carefully; saying that they focused the film on character over plot is not the same thing as saying "the characters have grown so much since the first film" or "the plot is completely different from the first film".

Obviously they are the SAME characters in a formulaic film, the difference is that the focus of the film is on character; the main conflict at the end even is a complete clash of characters. It's reminiscent of the interrogation scene of The Dark Knight; you have these two polar opposites playing at each other, continuously trying to one up one another - not only in terms of action and plot, but in character. In how they talk. In how they approach the scenarios - the way Sherlock approaches the problem at the beginning of the film (just running a disguise and confronting the target) becomes a little bit more undercover and gradually he makes himself the dormant serpent - he mirrors the aspect of Moriarty that he made them different; how Moriarty had made every calculation. Instead of just going in hell's ablazin' like in the first film, we get a nice change in his character where he systematically takes out everything Moriarty worked so hard to achieve.

The focus of this film was Holmes VS Moriarty, not Holmes Vs a Case. The case was made obvious from the get go... instead of being about "What is going on and how did the baddie do it" the question is "Why is Moriarty doing this and how do we stop him?". It's very similar to Star Wars vs the Empire Strikes Back.

What makes the Empire Strikes Back infinitely better than Star Wars was that Empire is VERY character driven. YES they are the same characters, but the main conflict of the film isn't Luke VS the Empire, but Luke Vs Darth Vader and ultimately leads to Luke making a sacrifice for the greater good (choosing to sacrifice his own life (seemingly) to prevent himself from being used to do Vader's bidding, and also he is faced with his friends suffering because they are simply connected to Luke, whereas in the first film, his friends were targeted because they were actually fighting the Empire (yes I am aware that they were fighting the Empire in ESB, but Lando even says that Vader doesn't care for any of them, he just wants Luke). This film leads Sherlock making a sacrifice for the greater good in the end. He knows of the sacrifice he must make in the end, and it ultimately is done to not only ensure the safety of the people of Europe (as opposed to the Empire), but also his friends and loved ones, who were systematically targeted because they were simply connected to Holmes.

Again, the focus of this film was more on characters - this is even apparent in the music used. The music this time around reflected the characters on screen as opposed to the action being shown (similar to Williams's score of ESB - ESPECIALLY with the Imperial March).

Even the shots used, the pacing of the scenes, the lighting, the cuts... all done around characters as opposed to action/plot elements.



With all that stated, I know you're simply going to say something like "You're WRONG. How is any of that different from the first film" ...again, taken in circles. Even if I CLEARLY were to show you the verity behind my comments, you'd blindly deny it for the sake of "winning an argument" (an argument that I didn't want to partake in until you started goading me...)

 

[the amazing fro]

Saw this yesterday and I absolutely loved it. It's not the greatest film ever made but it is jolly good fun. RDJ and Law are perfect, as is their chemistry. The action was fantastic and Harris is the best Moriarty put to screen (though to be honest the competition isn't great).

A couple of bits confused me though:

Spoiler

What was the point of Moran shooting the head of the arms factory when the bomb was going to kill him anyway? Seems an awful waste of time and bullets.

Also when Sherlock and John were dancing at the summit, Holmes deduced that the man who had a scar on his face had been operated on by the surgeon who was murdered at the beginning. Who was the man with the scar on his face?

 

[Infinity9999x]

The format was not different. The beats were the same, as was the underlying themes. What happens when Sherlock is confronted with someone who can effect him on an emotional level, the value of Watson to Holmes, what truly makes Watson happy; Mary or his work with Sherlock? They are simply done on a larger scale.

Look at the action scenes and their placement in the films.

Spoiler

-Sherlock in a fist fight with multiple opponents to start things out with, which demonstrates Sherlock's way of thinking.

- A boxing match in public that introduces the female lead is replaced with a matrial arts battle that introduces the female lead.

-Replace big boat disaster with big train disaster.

-The warehouse in the sequel is the factory, destruction of parts of each building included. Instead of Watson nearly dying, Sherlock almost does.

- They both end with fist fights from heights, at the attempted assignation of government officials. Mass assassination of parliament, opposed to a single assassination of an international delegate.

Both films are mysteries, which asks the audience "how", while Sherlock is busy asking why is the villain doing what they are doing. There is no actual question whether Blackwood is supernatural (Sherlock actually picks that up pretty quickly) just like there is no question that Moriarty is responsible for the cases Sherlock has been tracking. The questions with Blackwood is "how" is he making it appear so and "why" is he doing so? These are exact questions put forth to the audience in the sequel.

In both films the "how" lingers with the audience, while Sherlock sort of just bypasses it. He knows "how" as soon as he sees it. He just wait to to tell the audience that all that stuff they saw mattered. What concerns him is the "why".

As I said before, the one major difference is the role of the villain and the female lead. Instead of Irene continuing to keep Sherlock off his game, Moriarty does. Blackwood and Simza are simply there as plot gears.

They even play the "true believer card" in both films. Resistance fighters and the occult. Both being manipulated by the villain.

You see, the bolded is where I think they differ quite a bit. I was never once asking "how" in this film. It was all very obvious how Moriarty was doing what he was doing. There was never any mystery there at all. He was very connected and had tons of manpower. That's how he got it all done. I don't think the audience was ever asking how Moriarty was accomplishing his tasks, unlike Blackwood, where it appeared he was making things happen that were impossible. Maybe other people were, but I never once found myself asking how Moriarty got his jobs done. It was all very obvious.

The first Sherlock was more like the classic mystery story, in which an event happens that is apparently impossible or almost impossible to explain, and they go about figuring out how the villain got this task done. In this movie, they were trying to stop the villain from carrying out his task. I didn't see Holmes having to pause and figure out how Moriarty was doing what he was doing the way he did with Blackwood.

For a better comparison, the first film very much followed the formula in Hound of the Baskervilles. Apparent supernatural connection, and Holmes and Watson (well, mostly Watson for the majority of the book) must figure out how someone is making this apparently supernatural dog and how they direct the dog to kill their intended targets.

In this new film, I never saw Sherlock or Watson having to pause and figure out Moriarty was killing his victims. Moriarty always did it in a fairly obvious fashion (we see the dark sticking out of the dead doctor after Holmes disarms the bomb, no mystery their), Moriarty just went about the murders in a way that they would be untraceable to him.

I agree that many of the beats were the same, but as I've said above, the way in which the mystery story was set up was very different. There really wasn't any mystery. At least I didn't think so.

 

[terry78]

In a sense the movie was more or less showcasing the cat and mouse game the two were playing with each other, trying to trump each other's intelligence in figuring out the move the other was going to make. Mystery wise we knew what was going on, but it was basically showing us the battle between the two.

 

[Infinity9999x]

In a sense the movie was more or less showcasing the cat and mouse game the two were playing with each other, trying to trump each other's intelligence in figuring out the move the other was going to make. Mystery wise we knew what was going on, but it was basically showing us the battle between the two.

Yes. And that's the fundamental difference between the two. The battle in the first film was Holmes trying to figure out how Blackwood was doing what he was doing. In this film, there was no mystery, but it centered on the conflict between the two warring geniuses.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Which makes sense. Given two geniuses on two sides, that's what they would have to do. There would be no mystery to solve, since one would just solve the other and it would be quite redundant.

 

[lespaul59]

Saw this yesterday and I absolutely loved it. It's not the greatest film ever made but it is jolly good fun. RDJ and Law are perfect, as is their chemistry. The action was fantastic and Harris is the best Moriarty put to screen (though to be honest the competition isn't great).

A couple of bits confused me though:

Spoiler

What was the point of Moran shooting the head of the arms factory when the bomb was going to kill him anyway? Seems an awful waste of time and bullets.

Also when Sherlock and John were dancing at the summit, Holmes deduced that the man who had a scar on his face had been operated on by the surgeon who was murdered at the beginning. Who was the man with the scar on his face?

I'll try and answer this so if I'm wrong somebody please correct me.

Spoiler

Moran shooting the head of the arms factory was done to compleatly get him out of the way. But now that I think about it it may have been done because he knew who Moriarty was and was a loose end that needed to be taken care of.

As for the second question I think he was just a German diplomat that the Doctor operated on. Also I think Holmes made the connection because of info Watson had told him. And this along with Watson pointing out the twins weren't twins led Holmes to the plastic surgery deduction.

I actuall went and saw this for a second time yesterday and I actually like it better than the first one. Also if it wasn't for the RDJ Sherlock Holmes I would never have cared for the character. The guy in the deerstalker hat was the most uninterresting thing I had ever seen.

 

[Doctor Jones]

And I am telling you you are wrong. What Holmes does what he does isn't the question. The scene you are talking about is akin to Blackwood's "resurrection". The action of the lead villain that brings Holmes and Watson back together again. Heck in both films Holmes has a little chat with the villain beforehand.

What I am talking about happens after the action scene on the train, Holmes and Watson play out a recruitment scene in the destroyed car. It is where Watson tells him he has to get his luggage first.

I don't think Moriarty gave Watson much of a choice to join Sherlock or Sherlock having to save Watson on the train. I think Holmes himself was accepting Watson getting married and being on his honeymoon, as much as he may have preferred for Watson to be with him. That shot of Holmes standing looking at the two walk out of the church and walking away seemed to signify that.

Moriarty's men were on the train to kill Watson and his wife. Holmes intervened because they were there to kill him. And that scene you're talking about, wasn't as much of a manipulation or ulterior to recruit him once again. So as long as Moriarty is alive, Watson and his wife aren't safe, hence Holmes coordinating his wife to be hidden and Holmes taking Watson for himself to join him to make sure he was safe, as dangerous as the road ahead may have been. Holmes asked him, as his friend to accompany him one last time. And Holmes was pretty accepting that this could be there last time.

But that's not to say Sherlock didn't enjoy having Watson along. He probably loved having him along as he always prefers it. But that doesn't mean he coodinated everything so Watson had to join him again.

Holmes falling off the falls with Moriarty and that last look he gave Watson signified him moving on. That if this was the end and he couldn't get out of it, he served with his good friend for indeed the last time.

 

[Superhero 101]

I hope we get more of Mycroft in the next one... I really like his character.

 

[BestGirl]

A couple of bits confused me though:

Spoiler

What was the point of Moran shooting the head of the arms factory when the bomb was going to kill him anyway? Seems an awful waste of time and bullets.

Also when Sherlock and John were dancing at the summit, Holmes deduced that the man who had a scar on his face had been operated on by the surgeon who was murdered at the beginning. Who was the man with the scar on his face?

Spoiler

1. To make absolutely certain the guy was killed.

2. He was just some diplomat. He was just there to jog Holmes's memory about the doctor and the twins so that he could figure out that Rene had gotten plastic surgery.

I hope we get more of Mycroft in the next one... I really like his character.

Me too. I loved the crush he had on Mary.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

*Sigh* Fine I'll bite, but if the mods look at this like futile banter, they know I tried to be the bigger man at least.


Ok read this carefully; saying that they focused the film on character over plot is not the same thing as saying "the characters have grown so much since the first film" or "the plot is completely different from the first film".

Obviously they are the SAME characters in a formulaic film, the difference is that the focus of the film is on character; the main conflict at the end even is a complete clash of characters. It's reminiscent of the interrogation scene of The Dark Knight; you have these two polar opposites playing at each other, continuously trying to one up one another - not only in terms of action and plot, but in character. In how they talk. In how they approach the scenarios - the way Sherlock approaches the problem at the beginning of the film (just running a disguise and confronting the target) becomes a little bit more undercover and gradually he makes himself the dormant serpent - he mirrors the aspect of Moriarty that he made them different; how Moriarty had made every calculation. Instead of just going in hell's ablazin' like in the first film, we get a nice change in his character where he systematically takes out everything Moriarty worked so hard to achieve.

The focus of this film was Holmes VS Moriarty, not Holmes Vs a Case. The case was made obvious from the get go... instead of being about "What is going on and how did the baddie do it" the question is "Why is Moriarty doing this and how do we stop him?". It's very similar to Star Wars vs the Empire Strikes Back.

What makes the Empire Strikes Back infinitely better than Star Wars was that Empire is VERY character driven. YES they are the same characters, but the main conflict of the film isn't Luke VS the Empire, but Luke Vs Darth Vader and ultimately leads to Luke making a sacrifice for the greater good (choosing to sacrifice his own life (seemingly) to prevent himself from being used to do Vader's bidding, and also he is faced with his friends suffering because they are simply connected to Luke, whereas in the first film, his friends were targeted because they were actually fighting the Empire (yes I am aware that they were fighting the Empire in ESB, but Lando even says that Vader doesn't care for any of them, he just wants Luke). This film leads Sherlock making a sacrifice for the greater good in the end. He knows of the sacrifice he must make in the end, and it ultimately is done to not only ensure the safety of the people of Europe (as opposed to the Empire), but also his friends and loved ones, who were systematically targeted because they were simply connected to Holmes.

Again, the focus of this film was more on characters - this is even apparent in the music used. The music this time around reflected the characters on screen as opposed to the action being shown (similar to Williams's score of ESB - ESPECIALLY with the Imperial March).

Even the shots used, the pacing of the scenes, the lighting, the cuts... all done around characters as opposed to action/plot elements.



With all that stated, I know you're simply going to say something like "You're WRONG. How is any of that different from the first film" ...again, taken in circles. Even if I CLEARLY were to show you the verity behind my comments, you'd blindly deny it for the sake of "winning an argument" (an argument that I didn't want to partake in until you started goading me...)

You bring up ESB, and then miss the fundamental reason why it is more character driven the Star Wars. It is the structure of the films and the different story they are both telling. Star Wars isn't Luke vs. anyone. It is a damsel in distress film. A film with a clear mission for the crew of the Falcon. The second film is a character piece. It isn't Luke vs. Vader. It is the study of Luke and Vader souls and the revelation of their true character. The film is structured different so this can be done.

Sherlock Holmes and A Game of Shadows plays out exactly the same. ESB starts out and gets rid of the "big battle" before the film even really starts. The story instantly becomes more intimate. Luke is isolated for the word go with his attack and then Luke is left on a planet with a hermit who is attempting to beat the last remnants of the whiny farm boy out of him, while Vader becomes more and more agitated in his search for him. Why it holds up is the evolution of the farm boy and unraveling of the Dark Lord. Luke's fall isn't greater good stuff, it is him finally accepting what Yoda was trying to teach him.

There is no evolution to the characters is A Game of Shadows. Their is no great revelation. They are who they are. Luke and Vader are two very different men at the end of Empire. Holmes, Watson and Moriarty are exactly who we thought they were.

You continue to call Blackwood case, when Moriarty is also a case. They are the same case done on different scales. How is every bit as relevant in A Game of Shadows. [BLACKOUT]Which is why Sherlock needs the journal and why Simza is there. [/BLACKOUT] It is exactly why Watson's Sherlock moment has to occur. They don't know the endgame until they are kicking with Mycroft. It is the equivalent of the Holmes drug trip in the first film.

The only difference in the films is which characters "drive" it. In the first it is Sherlock, Watson and Irene. In the second, Sherlock, Watson and Moriarty.

In both films the cases/plots are there to give the audience a platform to watch Downey, Law and their third wheel work. Instead of love games with have a game of whose more macho in the sequel.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

You see, the bolded is where I think they differ quite a bit. I was never once asking "how" in this film. It was all very obvious how Moriarty was doing what he was doing. There was never any mystery there at all. He was very connected and had tons of manpower. That's how he got it all done. I don't think the audience was ever asking how Moriarty was accomplishing his tasks, unlike Blackwood, where it appeared he was making things happen that were impossible. Maybe other people were, but I never once found myself asking how Moriarty got his jobs done. It was all very obvious.

The first Sherlock was more like the classic mystery story, in which an event happens that is apparently impossible or almost impossible to explain, and they go about figuring out how the villain got this task done. In this movie, they were trying to stop the villain from carrying out his task. I didn't see Holmes having to pause and figure out how Moriarty was doing what he was doing the way he did with Blackwood.

For a better comparison, the first film very much followed the formula in Hound of the Baskervilles. Apparent supernatural connection, and Holmes and Watson (well, mostly Watson for the majority of the book) must figure out how someone is making this apparently supernatural dog and how they direct the dog to kill their intended targets.

In this new film, I never saw Sherlock or Watson having to pause and figure out Moriarty was killing his victims. Moriarty always did it in a fairly obvious fashion (we see the dark sticking out of the dead doctor after Holmes disarms the bomb, no mystery their), Moriarty just went about the murders in a way that they would be untraceable to him.

I agree that many of the beats were the same, but as I've said above, the way in which the mystery story was set up was very different. There really wasn't any mystery. At least I didn't think so.

Sherlock does pause. That is why the cake happens.

In neither film is there a question that Blackwood and Moriarty are murdering people. They both warn Sherlock it is coming. In both films Sherlock is following the bodies to the final destination.

Sherlock's mission is the same in both films. Stop the endgame from happening. Hell, both endgames are the same more or less. Sherlock just spends both films trying to figure out what the endgame is.

In both films Sherlock knows the "how" once he is presented with the evidence. We just don't know until he tells us and he doesn't tell us until he connects the dots.

This becomes apparent when Sherlock makes his mistake in A Game of Shadows and when he finally figures out the role of Rene in the whole thing.

I don't think Moriarty gave Watson much of a choice to join Sherlock or Sherlock having to save Watson on the train. I think Holmes himself was accepting Watson getting married and being on his honeymoon, as much as he may have preferred for Watson to be with him. That shot of Holmes standing looking at the two walk out of the church and walking away seemed to signify that.

Moriarty's men were on the train to kill Watson and his wife. Holmes intervened because they were there to kill him. And that scene you're talking about, wasn't as much of a manipulation or ulterior to recruit him once again. So as long as Moriarty is alive, Watson and his wife aren't safe, hence Holmes coordinating his wife to be hidden and Holmes taking Watson for himself to join him to make sure he was safe, as dangerous as the road ahead may have been. Holmes asked him, as his friend to accompany him one last time. And Holmes was pretty accepting that this could be there last time.

But that's not to say Sherlock didn't enjoy having Watson along. He probably loved having him along as he always prefers it. But that doesn't mean he coodinated everything so Watson had to join him again.

Holmes falling off the falls with Moriarty and that last look he gave Watson signified him moving on. That if this was the end and he couldn't get out of it, he served with his good friend for indeed the last time.

Any notion of Sherlock's complete acceptance is kind of hindered when he continues to question what truly makes Watson happy. Sherlock could of sent both of them into hiding with Mycroft. He didn't.

The Moriarty case, just like the Blackwood case, become an excuse for Sherlock that he happy uses to bait Watson along for one last ride.

 

[CapedCrusader14]

Going to be seeing this next Sunday (doesn't come out here till the 5th) with about 7-9 friends.

Enjoyed the first so hoping to enjoy this as well

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Going to be seeing this next Sunday (doesn't come out here till the 5th) with about 7-9 friends.

Enjoyed the first so hoping to enjoy this as well

If you enjoyed the first, you should enjoy this one at least as much. It is a really good time, with moments of brilliancy just like the first.

 

[CapedCrusader14]

If you enjoyed the first, you should enjoy this one at least as much. It is a really good time, with moments of brilliancy just like the first.

Sweet