{"id":25174,"date":"2012-01-07T15:46:06","date_gmt":"2012-01-07T22:46:06","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/?p=25174"},"modified":"2014-01-08T11:03:32","modified_gmt":"2014-01-08T18:03:32","slug":"movie-review-sherlock-holmes-a-game-of-shadows","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hill-kleerup.org\/blog\/2012\/01\/07\/movie-review-sherlock-holmes-a-game-of-shadows.html","title":{"rendered":"Movie Review: “Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows”"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>Margie and I went and saw this last night — Kay stayed home (preferring to see it when it comes out on disc).<\/p>\n

Bottom line, I didn’t like it quite<\/em> as much as the first one, but it was close, and it was a tremendous amount of fun. \u00a0And there were some very, very nice moments.<\/p>\n

The stop-slow-reverse-Matrix-vision bits are all still there, complete (for melees) with Sherlockian commentary. If you didn’t like those parts from the first film, you won’t like the second.<\/p>\n

The scope expands from London into much of Europe. \u00a0It’s 1891, but the Great Powers that will eventually clash in 1914 are teetering on the brink now, being nudged into place by a grand conspirator (Moriarty, which should hardly be a spoiler) for his own nefarious purposes.<\/p>\n

Having\u00a0Moriarty\u00a0in play ramps things up a \u00a0bit. \u00a0The previous bad guy was typical — big plot, efforts put toward keeping it secret, then lashing out at Holmes when he starts to get too close. \u00a0Moriarty not only makes the conflict personal, but he’s actively working against Holmes, laying false trails, seeking to intimidate or damage him out of the Great Game.<\/p>\n

It all ends appropriately for modern audiences, though oddly, in its own way, much more quietly than in the centerpiece of the film, at and around a great munitions factory.<\/p>\n

The movie is all about relationships. \u00a0Well, no, it’s all about how idiosyncratic Holmes is and how cool the FX are. But in many ways it’s about relationships — Holmes and Watson, of course (and always); Watson and his new bride; Holmes and Irene; Holmes and Moriarty; Watson and Moran; Holmes and Mycroft; Simza and her brother … Nothing deep or profound, but all fun and giving a few layers of meaning beyond flashy cinematography and outrageous behavior.<\/p>\n

The acting is all good, all well-cast (Jared Harris is fine, though I’d have loved to have seen Gary Oldman as Moriarty; Stephen Fry, meantime, is the quintessential Mycroft). The film is lovely, the film speed tricks distracting from solid production work. And the story is a good one, both as an action film and as a character piece about the title figure himself, who evolves (or at least lets us see into him) in some interesting ways during the movie.<\/p>\n

I didn’t like it quite<\/em> as much as the original — the initial third of the movie has problems finding its focus. Once it gets going, though, it’s easily a match for its predecessor, and avoids the sequelitis I was worried about<\/a>. \u00a0Well done, enjoyed it a lot, worth seeing in the theater, definitely getting the disc when it comes out.<\/p>\n