Movie report: Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011)
Movie report: Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011)
There’s a scene in this movie where Sherlock Holmes finally meets face-to-face with his archenemy, Professor Moriarty. By this point, Moriarty has already masterminded a series of bombings across Europe that have killed hundreds and pushed the continent to the brink of a world war, as well as killing the only woman Holmes has ever cared about, and threatening Holmes’s only friend. I’m thinking it’s time for Holmes to whip out his revolver and off the scum. But no. They banter threateningly back and forth, and Holmes leaves.
Huh?
I mean, is he Batman or something? Has he taken a vow never to kill? Or do the moviemakers just have no clue about what an audience can and can’t reasonably swallow? I’m going with the latter, because this movie just keeps throwing things at me that I don’t want. All of the fight scenes go on for far too long, for example, as do all of the chase scenes. And there’s one inexplicable scene of Stephen Fry (as Holmes’s brother Mycroft) parading around in the nude in front of the new Mrs. Watson. Believe me, one second of Stephen Fry nude is far too much, and this scene stretches on for pointless minutes.
You could easily cut out about 39 of this movie’s 129 minutes, and end up with more, not less, of a good movie. I sometimes think that filmmakers fall in love with their ideas and their creations, and believe that the audience shares their love. I’m here to tell you it ain’t so.
In the first movie, it was interesting to see Holmes’s thought processes, especially when a fight develops, as he anticipates what will happen, then plans for and counters each possibility. In this movie, that same thing is okay once or twice, but by the fifth or sixth time, guess what: now *I* am anticipating what is going to happen, and *I* am countering it by playing Words with Friends.
There’s also far too much of Holmes’s man-crush on Watson, and Holmes’s self-centeredness. There’s a difference between “eccentric” and “annoying”: we watch Sherlock Holmes because he’s different in a fascinating way, not because he’s different in an aggravating way.
I really liked the Irene Adler character, but she doesn’t make it out of the first act. I also really liked the gypsy fortune teller character, even though it took a really long time to establish just what she had to do with the plot.
Oh, yes, the plot. In the original Sherlock Holmes stories, Moriarty is a mastermind of crime with a small “c”. He comes up with amazing plots to rob banks and steal Mona Lisas, for example. It is reasonable that the goal in these stories would be to try to capture and try this man, if possible. But in this movie, Moriarty is out to foment a world war that will cost thousands or millions of lives and millions or billions in cash. That’s the kind of terrorist-slash-mass-murderer that you don’t handle with kid gloves, or even boxing gloves. If you can’t capture and try him – and it’s clear that there’s no government or quasi-government with the capacity to do so – then you have to do whatever is necessary to eliminate him. That’s “eliminate” spelled k-i-l-l. This is something Holmes or the filmmakers seem unwilling to do.
I’ve already mentioned that first face-to-face meeting: that should have been the end of the problem. Of course, that would have meant a really short movie. But this is where the filmmakers messed up. Rather than altering the magnitude of Moriarty’s crimes to a lower level that would make it reasonable that you wouldn’t shoot him on sight, they chose to have him be threatening the entire world – and rendering any meetings with him absurd.
Ultimately, this choice is a deal-breaker in this movie. How can I suspend my disbelief when “the best and the wisest man whom I have ever known” (in Watson’s words) acts so foolishly?
Recommendation: Lots of action and some laughs, but check your brain at the door.
There’s a scene in this movie where Sherlock Holmes finally meets face-to-face with his archenemy, Professor Moriarty. By this point, Moriarty has already masterminded a series of bombings across Europe that have killed hundreds and pushed the continent to the brink of a world war, as well as killing the only woman Holmes has ever cared about, and threatening Holmes’s only friend. I’m thinking it’s time for Holmes to whip out his revolver and off the scum. But no. They banter threateningly back and forth, and Holmes leaves.
Huh?
I mean, is he Batman or something? Has he taken a vow never to kill? Or do the moviemakers just have no clue about what an audience can and can’t reasonably swallow? I’m going with the latter, because this movie just keeps throwing things at me that I don’t want. All of the fight scenes go on for far too long, for example, as do all of the chase scenes. And there’s one inexplicable scene of Stephen Fry (as Holmes’s brother Mycroft) parading around in the nude in front of the new Mrs. Watson. Believe me, one second of Stephen Fry nude is far too much, and this scene stretches on for pointless minutes.
You could easily cut out about 39 of this movie’s 129 minutes, and end up with more, not less, of a good movie. I sometimes think that filmmakers fall in love with their ideas and their creations, and believe that the audience shares their love. I’m here to tell you it ain’t so.
In the first movie, it was interesting to see Holmes’s thought processes, especially when a fight develops, as he anticipates what will happen, then plans for and counters each possibility. In this movie, that same thing is okay once or twice, but by the fifth or sixth time, guess what: now *I* am anticipating what is going to happen, and *I* am countering it by playing Words with Friends.
There’s also far too much of Holmes’s man-crush on Watson, and Holmes’s self-centeredness. There’s a difference between “eccentric” and “annoying”: we watch Sherlock Holmes because he’s different in a fascinating way, not because he’s different in an aggravating way.
I really liked the Irene Adler character, but she doesn’t make it out of the first act. I also really liked the gypsy fortune teller character, even though it took a really long time to establish just what she had to do with the plot.
Oh, yes, the plot. In the original Sherlock Holmes stories, Moriarty is a mastermind of crime with a small “c”. He comes up with amazing plots to rob banks and steal Mona Lisas, for example. It is reasonable that the goal in these stories would be to try to capture and try this man, if possible. But in this movie, Moriarty is out to foment a world war that will cost thousands or millions of lives and millions or billions in cash. That’s the kind of terrorist-slash-mass-murderer that you don’t handle with kid gloves, or even boxing gloves. If you can’t capture and try him – and it’s clear that there’s no government or quasi-government with the capacity to do so – then you have to do whatever is necessary to eliminate him. That’s “eliminate” spelled k-i-l-l. This is something Holmes or the filmmakers seem unwilling to do.
I’ve already mentioned that first face-to-face meeting: that should have been the end of the problem. Of course, that would have meant a really short movie. But this is where the filmmakers messed up. Rather than altering the magnitude of Moriarty’s crimes to a lower level that would make it reasonable that you wouldn’t shoot him on sight, they chose to have him be threatening the entire world – and rendering any meetings with him absurd.
Ultimately, this choice is a deal-breaker in this movie. How can I suspend my disbelief when “the best and the wisest man whom I have ever known” (in Watson’s words) acts so foolishly?
Recommendation: Lots of action and some laughs, but check your brain at the door.
Comments