Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

[Asteroid-Man]

All hail DarthSkywalker - King of Cinema.

 

[Infinity9999x]

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.

This is only true in a small way. The only real "mystery" aspect of the film in GOS is in about the last five minutes. In the first film, the mystery is set up from the get-go. Sherlock has no idea how Blackwood is achieving these apparent supernatural murders. The entire film is centered around this mystery. The "endgame" as you put it, was not the mystery in the first film. The audience wasn't wondering what Blackwood was trying to accomplish, but rather, HOW he was accomplishing his tasks that ultimately lead to his final goal.

That is never the case in GOS. This film focuses only on trying to figure out the endgame and stopping it. There is no mystery in how the tasks leading up to the endgame are accomplished. In the first film, Blackwood commits multiple murders and Sherlock has to figure out how he committed the murders in the way he did. We never, ONCE wonder how Moriarty killed someone. It's all very obvious. There's no mystery in it AT ALL.

That alone shows that these films used a different formula. Yes, the films are similar, but they definitely used different tactics in how they approached the "mystery" aspect.

It's really very simple. There are basically three kinds of fairly common mystery setups. There's the who-done-it, the how-done-it, and how-we-gunna-stop-it. The first film was a "how done it?" We were wondering how Blackwood was doing these things. That was NEVER the case with Moriarty.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

This is only true in a small way. The only real "mystery" aspect of the film in GOS is in about the last five minutes. In the first film, the mystery is set up from the get-go. Sherlock has no idea how Blackwood is achieving these apparent supernatural murders. The entire film is centered around this mystery. The "endgame" as you put it, was not the mystery in the first film. The audience wasn't wondering what Blackwood was trying to accomplish, but rather, HOW he was accomplishing his tasks that ultimately lead to his final goal.

That is never the case in GOS. This film focuses only on trying to figure out the endgame and stopping it. There is no mystery in how the tasks leading up to the endgame are accomplished. In the first film, Blackwood commits multiple murders and Sherlock has to figure out how he committed the murders in the way he did. We never, ONCE wonder how Moriarty killed someone. It's all very obvious. There's no mystery in it AT ALL.

That alone shows that these films used a different formula. Yes, the films are similar, but they definitely used different tactics in how they approached the "mystery" aspect.

It's really very simple. There are basically three kinds of fairly common mystery setups. There's the who-done-it, the how-done-it, and how-we-gunna-stop-it. The first film was a "how done it?" We were wondering how Blackwood was doing these things. That was NEVER the case with Moriarty.

I don't think Sherlock has any trouble figuring out how Blackwood is committing the murders. He simply doesn't make it known to the audience until the end of the film. In both films Sherlock is trying to figure out the endgame. Why this is all happening. That is his case, not trying to figure out how the murders were committed. He figures that out in about 30 seconds of being at the crime scenes. With Blackwood they make this very clear during their final confrontation. It all connected back to Reordan's home. We just don't know that is important just like we don't understand that the [BLACKOUT]fake twins[/BLACKOUT] are in the sequel.

What is puzzling is why the supernatural twist, why the murder of these men.

Spoiler

It is the same with the sequel. You say we never question how Moriarty has killed someone when the cake murder is done in such a way to show us that our assumptions were wrong about how someone was assassinated. But to be fair, that is a more of an aside then anything.

However, you state the first films makes us considering the "how" more, when the second film has the big question mark of Rene. Who we have no idea is the "how" until the last third of the film.

If you are right and the "how" is never in doubt, then what is the point of Smiza and Rene? The mystery of what happened to Rene is the sequels equivalent to the trail of murders in the second film.

 

[marty mcfly]

I really don't see what the problem is with two movies having similar formulas. When making Back to the Future Part II, Director Robert Zemeckis said that people want to see the same thing, but different. I think that's true. BTTF II and Sherlock GOS did that well. They presented similar concepts, characters and gags, but did each one a little bit differently. What's wrong with that?

The Hangover II did this all wrong. They just did the first movie exactly the same but not as good.

There seems to be a lot of arguing over whether or not Sherlock 1 and 2 were similar. Um, yes. It was a sequel. All sequels are similar to the first.

 

[mr. peasant]

I don't think Sherlock has any trouble figuring out how Blackwood is committing the murders. He simply doesn't make it known to the audience until the end of the film. In both films Sherlock is trying to figure out the endgame. Why this is all happening. That is his case, not trying to figure out how the murders were committed. He figures that out in about 30 seconds of being at the crime scenes. With Blackwood they make this very clear during their final confrontation. It all connected back to Reordan's home. We just don't know that is important just like we don't understand that the [BLACKOUT]fake twins[/BLACKOUT] are in the sequel.

Sorry for butting in but I disagree with the statement above. I do believe Holmes did have difficulty figuring out how Blackwood did what he did; even contemplating the possibility of a mystical explanation. That was why he attempted the ritual in the movie. It was only when in his high state that he realised the significance of his various observations, and pieced them together.

But regardless of that, the more important matter is that the audience is presented with a mystery on figuring out Blackwood's methods. The sequel did not since the explanation was given almost as soon as the murder (or intended murder) was revealed.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Sorry for butting in but I disagree with the statement above. I do believe Holmes did have difficulty figuring out how Blackwood did what he did; even contemplating the possibility of a mystical explanation. That was why he attempted the ritual in the movie. It was only when in his high state that he realised the significance of his various observations, and pieced them together.

But regardless of that, the more important matter is that the audience is presented with a mystery on figuring out Blackwood's methods. The sequel did not since the explanation was given almost as soon as the murder (or intended murder) was revealed.

This is basically going to be my response. Weather or not Sherlock knew Blackwoods methods instantly (and I don't think he figured them all out instantly, as said in the above quote), the main mystery the audience focuses on is how Blackwood is doing what he's doing. That was not the case with Moriarty in this film. It was a different kind of mystery set up.

As I said before, GOS is a "how do we stop him" mystery. It's focused all on the endgame. In the same way that Se7en was. There's no mystery around how John Doe kills, it's all about figuring out why and trying to stop him. The same with Moriarty. The first Holmes movie was a "how did he do that?" Mystery, in the same way that Hound of the Baskervilles was. The mystery is all around figuring out how the murderer is doing what he's doing.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Sorry for butting in but I disagree with the statement above. I do believe Holmes did have difficulty figuring out how Blackwood did what he did; even contemplating the possibility of a mystical explanation. That was why he attempted the ritual in the movie. It was only when in his high state that he realised the significance of his various observations, and pieced them together.

But regardless of that, the more important matter is that the audience is presented with a mystery on figuring out Blackwood's methods. The sequel did not since the explanation was given almost as soon as the murder (or intended murder) was revealed.

It is the same with Rene.

Spoiler

They simply replaced the murder mystery with the missing person mystery. Both are bread crumbs to the endgame for the audience. Both are pieced together by Sherlock without the audience's knowledge.

Also disagree. The mysticism is broken as soon as he taste Blackwood's tomb. He knows something is up from that point on. Man that sounds dirty... Anyways. The ritual scene is Sherlock trying to piece it all together. The question is why and where the endgame will occur.

I really don't see what the problem is with two movies having similar formulas. When making Back to the Future Part II, Director Robert Zemeckis said that people want to see the same thing, but different. I think that's true. BTTF II and Sherlock GOS did that well. They presented similar concepts, characters and gags, but did each one a little bit differently. What's wrong with that?

The Hangover II did this all wrong. They just did the first movie exactly the same but not as good.

There seems to be a lot of arguing over whether or not Sherlock 1 and 2 were similar. Um, yes. It was a sequel. All sequels are similar to the first.

I personally don't mind it. I really like both films, but I do feel it is true that they are very similar in their structure and themes.

 

[Patzo3000]

Just saw the film today. As a massive fan of the first film and the stories, I was completely impressed. the film was grander and had more action yet it also was still character driven and thought provoking. Like the first film, and any good mystery in my opinion, there are many elements that's aren't given much though and are then important later on. It was really fun to think about what would happen and how certain things were done.

The chemistry is just as strong, if not better, than the first film. Everyone puts up a good performance and makes you feel for the characters. Which is especially important for a few scenes later on.

The film stays relatively close to the characters as written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and, like in the first film, there are some stuff from the stories that appear in the film.

I also really enjoyed the ending and as a fan if the stories it was nice to see. I actually enjoyed it more than the first film.

Just my two cents.

 

[mr. peasant]

It is the same with Rene.

Spoiler

They simply replaced the murder mystery with the missing person mystery. Both are bread crumbs to the endgame for the audience. Both are pieced together by Sherlock without the audience's knowledge.

What's different is the way it is presented to the audience. In the original, the audience is presented with the mystery of fantastic murders in a very visual manner since we actually see them take place (and/or its aftermath); grabbing the audience's attention as a puzzle in and of itself on top of whatever Blackwood's ultimate goal was. In GoS, Rene's disappearance was presented in the context of what Moriarty wanted with him, which was the focus; thereby making the former question absorbed into and thus overshadowed by the latter.

Also disagree. The mysticism is broken as soon as he taste Blackwood's tomb. He knows something is up from that point on.

Not quite. Even in the movie itself, Holmes comments that one must first collect all the information before speculating, lest one starts to look for evidence that fit the theory rather than theories that fit the evidence. Meaning, he could not have figured things out until much later into the movie.

 

[CapedCrusader14]

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

A more than solid film, with moments of brilliance like the first. But it truly lacks the surprise that the first film had. I do get annoyed that Noomi Rapace was wasted in this film, and don't get me started on how the film went crazy with "BOOM!!! EXPLOSIONS!!!".

On the positive side, Jared Harris was brilliant as Moriaty, and Stephen Fry looked like he was having a ball as Mycroft. The action was well done (the slow-mo was great, fantastic attention to detail). Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law's chemistry is as strong as ever. Hans Zimmer puts out another great soundtrack again! Plenty of laugh out loud moments (the Pony! ).

A good film regardless.

3.5/5

 

[The Morningstar]

I love these films. Great balance of blockbuster esque action and thrills, but they are clever too. And RDJ/Law are just brilliant together. Harris was immense.

The escape in the forest is one of the scenes of the year. Love Ritchie's shooting/editing style. And Zimmer's score is the best he's done in a long time.

Also, is it just me or is Mycroft's butler a nod to the butler in Tomb Raider 2?

 

[spider-neil]

what I love about the books by sir arthur conan doyle is he presents you with all the clues and if you are as smart as sherlock you can figure out the mystery at the same time he does. in GOS they withold information from you making it impossible to figure out the mystery until sherlock himself tells you. that's cheating.

 

[The Morningstar]

No it doesn't. It shows specifically what Holmes is looking at in the scene when he first meets Moriarty.

Spoiler

The code on the blackboard, the book about agriculture and the dying flowers

It's not going to show the importance of those clues until the end is it?

 

[spider-neil]

No it doesn't. It shows specifically what Holmes is looking at in the scene when he first meets Moriarty.

Spoiler

The code on the blackboard, the book about agriculture and the dying flowers

It's not going to show the importance of those clues until the end is it?

Spoiler

I was talking about the book and when he took it. I placed no importance on the book as I didn't know SH had taken it.

 

[spider-neil]

as for the movie itself, I wasn't engaged for the first half but half way through the movie the pace picks up right till the climax.
a match for the first movie but doesn't improve upon it with the exception of the villian who is far more interesting

 

[TheVileOne]

The movie still seems to be doing well despite the slow BO start. It's probably going to end with similar numbers to the first movie.

I honestly hope we see a third movie because I really like this cast. Plus I want more Harris as Moriarty, Fry as Mycroft, Law and Downey as Watson and Holmes, etc.

 

[mr. peasant]

Spoiler

I was talking about the book and when he took it. I placed no importance on the book as I didn't know SH had taken it.

Spoiler

Personally, I did suspect the book was going to be important based on how it was focused/featured whenever it appeared. That said, I don't think it was a very good clue (as far as the writers are concerned). My issue with it is that the book exists purely as a means to expose Moriarty's schemes rather than something critical to the mystery. The explanation that Moriarty needed it to keep track of his various businesses/schemes was simply to rationalise its existence. Had they simply said that he could remember all of it (or just not touched on the subject in the first place), it would not have been an issue. As such, it was basically having Moriarty walk around with a confession letter in his pocket.

as for the movie itself, I wasn't engaged for the first half but half way through the movie the pace picks up right till the climax.
a match for the first movie but doesn't improve upon it with the exception of the villian who is far more interesting

He was certainly more charismatic. However, as far as Sherlock Holmes villains go, I tend to measure them based on how good the mystery was; in which case, Blackwood won. The mystery in the sequel wasn't quite as good. In fact, the sequel completely skipped over what might have been the best part of the mystery; namely, how did Holmes figure out Moriarty was behind all those murders or that they were even connected in the first place?

 

[spider-neil]

Spoiler

Personally, I did suspect the book was going to be important based on how it was focused/featured whenever it appeared. That said, I don't think it was a very good clue (as far as the writers are concerned). My issue with it is that the book exists purely as a means to expose Moriarty's schemes rather than something critical to the mystery. The explanation that Moriarty needed it to keep track of his various businesses/schemes was simply to rationalise its existence. Had they simply said that he could remember all of it (or just not touched on the subject in the first place), it would not have been an issue. As such, it was basically having Moriarty walk around with a confession letter in his pocket.

He was certainly more charismatic. However, as far as Sherlock Holmes villains go, I tend to measure them based on how good the mystery was; in which case, Blackwood won. The mystery in the sequel wasn't quite as good. In fact, the sequel completely skipped over what might have been the best part of the mystery; namely, how did Holmes figure out Moriarty was behind all those murders or that they were even connected in the first place?

I agree, the first movie presents you with all the clues and asks you to solve the case the second provides you with some clues, witholds some clues and so you have to wait for sherlock to explain it to you because you're privvy to all the information.

 

[The Morningstar]

Best score Zimmer has done in a long time.

 

[the amazing fro]

I love the score. It's like the Third Man score on steroids.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

And Moffat's Sherlock wins best adaptation of "The Final Problem". Kind of sucks for this movie that it came around at pretty much the same time.

 

[regwec]

Don't agree. Moriarty was ****.

 

[Doctor Jones]

I can't wait to watch The Final Problem later after work. Or tomorrow when I'm off.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Sherlock's Moriarty is amazing, but I enjoyed both versions. What I like about both interpretations is that they fit their Sherlock's quite well. I love how even Sherlock underestimated how crazy he truly is. Where Harris's Moriarty is more or less a genius crook/gangster, Scott's suffers from the same isolation Sherlock does. Their brilliance takes the vibrancy out of life.

The actual "Final Problem", Molly, Watson's arc, Moriarty's plan... absolutely brilliant. Freeman and Cumberbatch were both equally perfect. I haven't ever really felt the need to harm a film character before, at least not as an adult. I wanted to strangle more then a few people in those incredible 90 minutes. Not any real action scenes and yet it is one of the most thrilling piece of film I have ever seen. Fantastic on its own, even better when you view the series as a whole so far.

I bring this up because I think both versions use the source material to book end the story in similar ways, and yet we are left with radically different results.

 

[jonathancrane]

A random thought, but one I keep forgetting to post: did anyone notice how the headquarters for the Summit were based upon the design for Blofeld's headquarters in OHMSS?

On a disconnected note, I am quite happy as I just picked up a theatrical poster of the film from the local theater.