Despite the
fact that I gave a mixed review to the first Sherlock Holmes movie,
on the whole I really enjoyed the sequel.
(I’m going to have to revisit that first movie one of these days--I may
have just been in a cranky mood when I wrote that review.)
Robert
Downey Jr. and Jude Law are both great actors with lots of charisma. Robert
Downey Jr. in particular does a great job in this—every scene he’s in is really
fun to watch.
Furthermore,
as someone who’s read at least half of the Sherlock Holmes canon, I
enjoyed all the references to the books.
I liked the appearance of Mycroft Holmes, Professor Moriarty, and Jack “Tiger”
Moran. And I got a little thrill as soon
as the camera revealed a waterfall in Switzerland , and I realized I knew
exactly what was going to happen next.
All in all,
a very entertaining film.
Of course I
do have a few nitpicks…
Notes:
Action Sequences
* The Sherlock
Holmes books were never overly focused on the action. (Occasionally a bad guy would attack, but Arthur
Conan Doyle usually summed up the fight in a sentence or two.)
But I
understand that movies are a more visual medium, and that you have to throw in
more action sequences to keep the audience entertained. And I’m not complaining about that at
all. I like a good fight scene as much
as the next red-blooded movie viewer.
The first
couple action sequences were well-choreographed and fun to watch. I enjoyed the
long chase/fight sequence that took place in the casino.
But then things just started getting over the
top—thinking specifically about the fights in the train and in the German armory.
Don’t get
me wrong--a bit of fisticuffs and swashbuckling is all right in these movies, but
the massive machine gun battles and huge explosions seem more suited to a Die Hard movie, and out of
place in a 19th century detective story.
I suspect some
executive in Hollywood
refused to greenlight this movie unless there were a couple big over the top
explosions, but the movie didn’t really need it.
Worse, it
brought down the intelligence level of the movie. The core story of a covert battle of wits
between Sherlock Holmes and Moriarty, being played underneath the radar of 19th
century European diplomacy, was appealing by itself. But this premise lost all
believability once huge explosions and machine gun battles on public trains are
taking place.
(It also
loses all sense of proportion. The
initial purpose behind the train battle was simply to kill Doctor Watson and
his wife. Surely there are easier ways
of doing this.)
Connections with
Flashman
This movie ties in nicely with the
Flashman book I just finished reading, Flashman and the Tiger. Jack Moran
is the principle villain in that Flashman story, and he’s Moriarty’s number 2
man in this movie.
Also, it’s
a smaller point, but Flashman and the
Tiger makes brief reference to the 1889 suicide of the Austrian prince
Rudolph. In the movie, newspaper clippings
about this suicide appear briefly on Sherlock Holmes’ wall of crimes connected
to Moriarty.
And Other History
Connections
Well I’m on the subject, a couple
more history facts. Although one does
not expect historical accuracy from this type of movie, it’s worth pointing out
that they did get a couple things correct: In the 1890s there really was a lot
of tension between French and Germany ,
and in the 1890s, there really was a wave of anarchist bombings in Europe .
I never
really expect the anarchist movement to be portrayed sympathetically by
capitalist Hollywood ,
but it must be admitted the portrayal here could have been worse. The anarchists in the movie were misguided,
weak, and easily manipulated by Moriarty, but at least they were not pure evil.
That being
said, did I miss something, or did the whole anarchist plot line in this movie
make no sense at all? If Moriarty’s
whole plan is to create a war between France
and Germany ,
then why did he pay the anarchists to take credit for the bombings? Wouldn’t that defeat the whole purpose? The French government is not going to go to
war with Germany
if it believes the explosions were caused by French anarchists.
Stephen Fry
Via my British friends in the
expat circles, I’ve become aware of how popular Stephen Fry is over in England . He seems to be regarded as both a comedian
and intellectual over there. (And I enjoyed him in Black Adder). So any time he appears in a Hollywood movie, it always catches my eye.
However,
the screenwriters did have a hard time figuring out how to effectively use
him. The one gag—that he walks around
naked all the time and doesn’t seem to realize this is socially unacceptable—didn’t
really strike me as all that funny.
(Bonus link—see
this video of Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens debating whether
the Church has been a force for good or evil [LINK HERE]).
Link of the Day
Noam Chomsky US, a top terrorist state
Link of the Day
Noam Chomsky US, a top terrorist state
Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows: Movie Review (Scripted)
No comments:
Post a Comment