Directed by: Guy Ritchie
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, and Noomi Rapace
Screenplay by: Michele Mulroney and Kieran Mulroney
The ultimate detective duo is back, and this time, they're playing a dangerous game affecting all of Europe.
It's 1891 and France and Germany are on the brink of war. Bombs are going off periodically throughout the two countries. So, it's up to Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson to figure out what's really going on, and prevent a mad professor from starting a disastrous war.
As with the first Sherlock Holmes film in the current series (2009), clues are everywhere, even in places we wouldn't expect them to be. This long and convoluted story, involves many characters (some not even essential to the story yet are main characters), and is not exactly told in a coherent fashion. It's easy to get lost. There is so much information about the case given in each scene, that sometimes the film may march on while we are still processing the facts so far. Yet with such a convoluted story in which elements that make it make sense could easily get lost, not one mystery goes unsolved, not one clue goes unfound. Everything is clearly explained, even if the film is too fast paced for us to realize it. The advantage to this style of storytelling is that it is virtually impossible to predict what will happen next. My only problem with it is that the suspect is way too obvious.
Also as with the first film, many of the action sequences are presented in Holmes's mind first and carefully explained with intricate detail in slow motion, then presented again in real time. It gives us an idea of Holmes's strange way of thinking about the case. While the action sequences in the film are exciting because they are shot half in slow motion, half in real time, they aren't really necessary. But I will admit, they're really cool. And if you're wondering just how many there are, all I can say is that there are far fewer than in the first film.
It's hard to say whether this film is better than the first one because they are quite similar. They both include complex plots, but the difference between the two is A Game of Shadows is faster paced and contains a denser plot. If you blink, you'll miss something and it will be more confusing from that point forward. However, for those of you who want to know if you need to see the first movie before seeing A Game of Shadows, the answer is no. The two stories have nothing to do with each other. However, I would recommend seeing the first movie before seeing A Game of Shadows only because you will get a better perspective of each of the characters, especially Sherlock Holmes.
The best clue I can give you is my grade for the film; B+.
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, and Noomi Rapace
Screenplay by: Michele Mulroney and Kieran Mulroney
The ultimate detective duo is back, and this time, they're playing a dangerous game affecting all of Europe.
It's 1891 and France and Germany are on the brink of war. Bombs are going off periodically throughout the two countries. So, it's up to Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson to figure out what's really going on, and prevent a mad professor from starting a disastrous war.
As with the first Sherlock Holmes film in the current series (2009), clues are everywhere, even in places we wouldn't expect them to be. This long and convoluted story, involves many characters (some not even essential to the story yet are main characters), and is not exactly told in a coherent fashion. It's easy to get lost. There is so much information about the case given in each scene, that sometimes the film may march on while we are still processing the facts so far. Yet with such a convoluted story in which elements that make it make sense could easily get lost, not one mystery goes unsolved, not one clue goes unfound. Everything is clearly explained, even if the film is too fast paced for us to realize it. The advantage to this style of storytelling is that it is virtually impossible to predict what will happen next. My only problem with it is that the suspect is way too obvious.
Also as with the first film, many of the action sequences are presented in Holmes's mind first and carefully explained with intricate detail in slow motion, then presented again in real time. It gives us an idea of Holmes's strange way of thinking about the case. While the action sequences in the film are exciting because they are shot half in slow motion, half in real time, they aren't really necessary. But I will admit, they're really cool. And if you're wondering just how many there are, all I can say is that there are far fewer than in the first film.
It's hard to say whether this film is better than the first one because they are quite similar. They both include complex plots, but the difference between the two is A Game of Shadows is faster paced and contains a denser plot. If you blink, you'll miss something and it will be more confusing from that point forward. However, for those of you who want to know if you need to see the first movie before seeing A Game of Shadows, the answer is no. The two stories have nothing to do with each other. However, I would recommend seeing the first movie before seeing A Game of Shadows only because you will get a better perspective of each of the characters, especially Sherlock Holmes.
The best clue I can give you is my grade for the film; B+.
Comments
Post a Comment