Sherlock Holmes 2: Game Of Shadows

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sherlock Holmes 2: Game Of Shadows

    I saw it last night. The best sequel of the year. I don't know if that means anything anymore but it was really an enjoyable movie. RDJ and Law have great chemistry together. It's also a good example of the use of the setup and the payoff.

  • #2
    Re: Sherlock Holmes 2: Game Of Shadows

    Like it a lot more than the first film - and the banter between the two was part of that. Story seemed like a classic Bond movie... but in frilly shirts. Though this is nothing like the Holmes stories, the writers have obviously read them because the Holmes opium den disguise from the beginning is lifted directly from one of the tales, and if you have read the stories there is a moment when something is mentioned and you think "Oh sh!t!" Really liked what they did with Irene Adler's character this time around, too.

    What I liked most about the film was the fear of growing old alone as a story thread.

    PS: GR recycles a gag from LOCK, STOCK that I always loved.

    - Bill
    Free Script Tips:
    http://www.scriptsecrets.net

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Sherlock Holmes 2: Game Of Shadows

      Originally posted by DR Bostic View Post
      I saw it last night. The best sequel of the year.
      Haven't seen either film yet, but I'm guessing that title will go to MI4.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Sherlock Holmes 2: Game Of Shadows

        Originally posted by DR Bostic View Post
        I saw it last night. The best sequel of the year.
        1 - This looks like nothing more than a check-your-brain-at-the-door mindless piece of schlock.

        2 - X-Men: First Class is the best sequel of the year.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Sherlock Holmes 2: Game Of Shadows

          Originally posted by Biohazard View Post
          2 - X-Men: First Class is the best sequel of the year.
          Isn't that a prequel?
          what the head makes cloudy the heart makes very clear

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Sherlock Holmes 2: Game Of Shadows

            Originally posted by Kwinnky View Post
            Isn't that a prequel?
            Semantics.

            What matters is that it's not the first X-Men movie.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Sherlock Holmes 2: Game Of Shadows

              Canonically it is.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Sherlock Holmes 2: Game Of Shadows

                Originally posted by Biohazard View Post
                2 - X-Men: First Class is the best sequel of the year.
                I agree with that.

                - Bill
                Free Script Tips:
                http://www.scriptsecrets.net

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Sherlock Holmes 2: Game Of Shadows

                  Mixed feelings about this one.

                  Overall I enjoyed it. Pretty solid performances from everyone, but after I left I kind of disliked the plot more and more.

                  Spoiler Warning
                  I had a problem with how Sherlock solved things. Ideally, for me, a good mystery shows you all of the clues in such a way that when the detective or sleuth puts them together in the end, you feel like "Aha! I should have known!" But in this case, there was really no way to know. There was no way to see the scars on the "twins", and the action sequence happened so fast that there was no way to really notice that one didn't go back for the other. Similarly, with the whole red notebook sequence. If you don't know until the very end that it even existed, there's nothing really clever about what he did before.

                  Honestly, I think it'd be a lot more elegant if the assassin simply wore a disguise like Holmes did. Holmes wore disguises at least three times throughout the movie, so if he suddenly had the epiphany that "Hmm, the assassin probably looks different too." I would be able to buy it without feeling cheated.

                  With that said, I did enjoy it. It just could have been a lot better in my opinion.
                  Ring-a-ding-ding, baby.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Sherlock Holmes 2: Game Of Shadows

                    I agree NoirDigits. Didn't enjoy this as much as the first, and the plot just seemed too tenuously linked. I found myself a bit bored too, especially near the end... and I was a bit annoyed when I realised it wasn't the end yet and I still had another 20mins to endure.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Sherlock Holmes 2: Game Of Shadows

                      Action scenes were great. There were some spots that were a lot of fun.

                      The plot and the language got really confusing, so half the time I didn't know what the hell was going on.

                      SPOILERS
                      .
                      .
                      .
                      .
                      .
                      .
                      .
                      .
                      .
                      .
                      .
                      The climactic event between Holmes and Moriarty was a chess game with lots of dialogue. There was a brief slow motion fight scene, but most of it was just two dudes talking and playing a game. This is an action movie. WTF.

                      And his motivation was to start a war that, by his own admission, would probably start in the next few years anyway. What a lame motivation.

                      This movie was pretty and fun, but the plot sucked.
                      Chicks Who Script podcast

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Sherlock Holmes 2: Game Of Shadows

                        Originally posted by emily blake View Post
                        This movie was pretty and fun, but the plot sucked.
                        It's a Hollywood sequel...what the hell did you expect?

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Sherlock Holmes 2: Game Of Shadows

                          Just saw it. Good but not as good as the original. Maybe tired but interest dipped midway and then peaked at the end. Agree that the first two acts could've fared better with a better setup of the mystery. But I thought Holmes and Moriarty dueling on the chess board and the mind was ingenious. Thanks to a great ending, I look forward to part three.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Sherlock Holmes 2: Game Of Shadows

                            Watched it. Enjoyed it. Makes a change to hear some really intelligent and eloquent dialogue in a big blockbuster movie.

                            It did at times feel a little disjointed, but that was the nature of the plot (and perhaps an unfortunate side-effect of the set-up/payoff flashback devices.... of which there are MANY!)

                            The plot was approached as random events that are revealed to tie into together. And knowing that will eventually be the case, you kind of find yourself allowing for all the odd moments of disparity in the first 30 (For instance, Watsons stag-do, which seems arbitrary to the plot until it turns into part of Holmes' investigation.... as ever by his own selfish design).

                            SPOILERS AHEAD- VEER RIGHT

                            My only criticism lies in the moments where style veers dangerously away from substance. And sometimes at the expense of Character logic.

                            Case in point-

                            Holmes is outside the peace summit engaged in a battle of wits chess match with Moriarty. Inside, Watson and Gypsy Rose-Lee (or whatever her name is) are seeking out the ambassador assassin who is actually Rene, Gypsy-Woman's brother disguised by experimental surgical procedure. We are treated to a long drawn out deductive process of how Watson can flush out the killer amongst Europe's ambassadors complete with all manner of camera trickery. Then Watson uses dialogue along the lines of 'No-one can hide spontaneous reaction (or that's the gist anyway) and proceeds to knock over a drinks tray. The Ambassador who doesn't react must be the killer. Not only does that not really make sense, but here's another plan-

                            GET THE GYPSY SISTER TO SHOUT HER BROTHER'S NAME!

                            It's that simple. Not knowing his sister is at the summit, it would be impossible for him not to react. I don't know anyone who doesn't react to the sound of their name. Even if it isn't directed at them.

                            I mentioned this to a friend I was watching the movie with... and his answer? 'Then they wouldn't have been able to show all the cool reasoning stuff'.... that is not and should NEVER be justification for lapses in narrative or character logic. And this is almost both.

                            But as I said, this is one of many instances where style over-takes substance. There were many more.

                            The only other issue would be the execution of set-up and payoff. What the movie neglected a few times was that the effectiveness of this device is never in the payoff, but in the set-up. A pay-off/twist can only ever be as strong as the little set-ups we missed along the way that are then revealed to us. But most of the time, perhaps through fear that the audience would guess, we're afforded no chance in that respect.

                            Another case in point- One of the twins has a scar. We never see it properly until a zoomed in flashback/reveal close-up. And you have to wonder why not. Would we all truly have guessed that Rene was disguised by a surgical procedure purely because we saw a scar on some random twin that revealed evidence of experiments to alter a persons appearance? I would suggest that we could have had a close up on the worst gnarled gash and even had Holmes declare 'I could whip up some ointment for that if he'd like' and we still wouldn't have pieced it together until the last moment where we see the scarred ambassador.

                            And what of the twins? Now I may have missed something, but it barely registered to me at any point they were twins. It's barely alluded to. So when Holmes starts on about how one twin didn't react to the brother's death, I'm left thinking first of all SO? They were killers. Maybe they didn't like each other. But most of all I'm left thinking... Twins? Ohhh those two.

                            And when the set-up isn't vague, it's oddly random. Things like the oxygen mask. The serum to revive the dog given as a wedding gift to Watson. At times the movie veers towards Bond-esque moments of just so having the perfect device needed at a certain time (Trousers that turn into jam...Q what was the point in that?...... one for the Izzard fans).

                            And then there are moments that stretch believability. Holmes plunges into the icy waters with Moriarty. Is he dead? No of course not! He survived in the waters due to our oxygen mask pay-off. Ermmmm..... Was the oxygen mask also able to create a forcefield that prevented Holmes from dying from the 200 foot drop into the waters... let alone miss every rock on the way down. For some reason, the movie thinks Watson opening a package to reveal that holmes had the mask is enough to justify his survival... it really isn't. Even in it's hyper-real way, Sherlock still is answerable to real world logic. Even in a fun, tongue in cheek movie.

                            But all this said, it's a great movie. No movie is perfect, but as sequels go (especially those that always feel thrown into production following the success of the predecessor) this is very intelligent and very slick. The chemistry holds it together and although a few jokes fall flat, (including a dog-death one that divided the audience I was with) Junior and Law are great together... and Law is particularly excellent as a drunk staggering away from the stag-do fight. As is the actor playing Moriarty who is not what I would call your typical adversary. Reminds me of my old German and Geography teacher.... but I guess that was the point.

                            No-one ever suspects the German teacher.

                            Anyway, great movie overall. I give it 4 out of 5 Deerstalkers.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Sherlock Holmes 2: Game Of Shadows

                              I agree with Harbinger's comments.

                              I really liked it, and mostly because of the chemistry between Downey and Law--the relationships that truly best friends have as portrayed in the movie. Harbinger already mentioned the 'style over substance', and others have noted plot contrivances...though I'll mention the one that I don't think anyone else has that bothered me the most: the whole thing about trying to kill Noomi's character. It was great sequence, but doesn't really make sense, plot-wise, or logic-wise (why wait in an uncomfortable position so long, or wait til someone pulls you down with, what was it, an umbrella?).

                              But I did enjoy it, and I enjoyed the chess match at the end, though I was also a little perplexed about Watson knocking the tray to the floor? Just call his name, as Harbinger said, or, better yet, just introduce Noomi's character to the ambassadors and wait to see reaction from each one? We also all know that we can recognize people we know very well from afar just by the way they walk or stand.

                              Anyway. I still liked it, but think the criticisms are valid.

                              HH

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X