Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows

(Movie Review)

            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

Sherlock Holmes: Game of Shadows: Movie Review (Scripted)