For the
sake of not having to write the same intro a million
different ways throughout the rest of time, just know that
this column avoids the overly long and sometimes dull
process of full film reviews and instead opts to break
things down based on what I thought going in, what happened
while I was there and what I learned at the end of it all.
Thanks for reading!
The
Breakdown - Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows
The Impression:
First Sherlock Holmes film? Not bad, but possibly
lightning in a bottle. A sequel to the first film? So many
bad things could happen.
The Reality:
I saw MI:4 and Game Of Shadows on the same
day. Honestly, I approached the films thinking that MI:4
would blow me out of the water and I’d be raving about it to
every person I chatted with and that Game Of Shadows
would totally underwhelm and it’d be a fun film to take my
girlfriend to. Strike that, reverse it. Game Of Shadows,
perhaps because of my very very very low expectations of it,
knocked me asunder. The second film in the Guy
Ritchie-Robert Downey Jr.-Jude Law series does exactly what
the best sequels do - expand the universe while still
maintaining the tenants set in the first film. And what are
these tenants? Present the Sherlock Holmes legacy in a
flashy, fun, superficial way that lets Downey be the best
little Downey he can and Guy Ritchie slightly reign in his
flash-bang-whoa directing style just enough that the film
doesn’t sink to the bottom. Villains should be strong
character actors (Mark Strong in the first film) the amazing
Jared Harris as Moriarty in the second go-around. But
Ritchie does something mightily impressive in this film: he
makes the world more his, but manages to make a stronger,
more mature film. Sherlock Holmes is hot on the heels of
Moriarty, "The Napoleon of Crime" who’s been offing
industrial magnates for, well, good reason. Watson (Jude
Law) is getting married and Holmes is feeling put out by his
old partner’s new found maturity and is just itching to drag
him in to another adventure of his lifetime. What I love
about the film is that Ritchie reverts to the storytelling
model of Snatch and Lock, Stock, And Two Smoking
Barrels, where loose end after loose end after loose end
is pitched and expertly tied up in the end. Even better,
Ritchie uses Holmes’ ability to observe and connect
everything as a minor version of this. Blood on the floor,
wine on the floor, plaster on the floor - secret passage.
And the whole film becomes like that, an expansive mystery
for Holmes to use his ability to predict and reflect. I
found the film to be maybe the most emotionally solid film
of Ritchie’s career, a somber, but good-natured ode to the
last adventure had a with a life-time pal. As always when it
comes to spewing out my love, I become a blubbering mess of
a writer, but this film is a brilliant surprise.
The Lesson:
I can’t write glowing reviews and Guy Ritchie might be back
on the right track.
- Noah Sanders
-
Unless
otherwise expressly stated, all text in this blog and any
related pages, including the blog's archives, is licensed by
John Laird under a
Creative Commons License.
