Very typical for a sequel.

Rating: 7/10 (23 December 2011)

This movie is very typical for a sequel, which is of course not necessarily a good thing to say. It means that the movie is trying to surpass its original, by trying to be bigger and better in about every way imaginable. But because most sequels try hard, they also fail at this, which is unfortunately also the case for this movie.
No, it's not a bad movie. It's still quite entertaining and well made of course but the movie tries to do things differently from the first movie. The first movie was a bit of a surprise to me. I liked it way more than I could ever had imagined, so I also was quite looking forward to this sequel. And even though it's far from bad, it still disappoint me.
First of all, thing that makes this movie a bit different from the first one is because Guy Ritchie is being more Guy Ritchie this time around. I have always liked Guy Ritchie and his movies (well, most of them) but one of the reasons why "Sherlock Holmes" came as such a surprise for me, was that it was being quite different from Ritchie's normal style. For this movie he however seemed to have gone back more to his old style of film-making, so that means its characters go far more over-the-top, as does its humor and visual style of film-making (weird camera angels and editing, the slow-motion, etcetera). It doesn't really suite a movie set in the late 19th century.
But the movie is also needlessly trying to be different in other ways. It changes settings for instance. I just don't get why you would ever want a Sherlock Holmes movie to take place outside of England. Sherlock Holmes and England go together like fine wine and cheese but above all, I also feel they should be together. The movie however decided it was a good idea to let Sherlock Holmes travel Europe. It's just not the same atmosphere and settings you would expect and want from a Sherlock Holmes movie, in my opinion but perhaps I'm just nitpicking.
But another adjustment that just doesn't much to the movie at all, is the addition of a couple of new characters. Sherlock's brother Mycroft is in this but why exactly? And was Noomi Rapace really necessary? It are all little things that the movie did not needed to have in it at all.
But what it could had used was a better villain, or perhaps a more charismatic actor playing him. This is professor James Moriarty, Sherlock Holmes' arch-nemesis. His Lex Luthor so to speak! Yet the movie really hardly features Moriarty at all and I really missed the cat and mouse type of play between the Holmes and Moriarty. They are both equally brilliant, with as a difference that Holmes is one the good side of the law (well, most of the time). They constantly try to outsmart each other and be one step ahead of the other, all the time. This is at least the way it all should had been but the movie just doesn't do any of this really.
And its story...well, it seems to become a trend but half of the time I had no idea what was going on in the story or what the point- and all of the character's motivations were. It was a bit of a messy told movie at times but if you simply surrender yourself to it, which should be easy to do, you'll still have a good time watching.
It's still a real quality made movie, with a great, unique visual style to it. It's obvious this was not a cheap movie to make but it all pays off. The movie is featuring some great action in it, which is perhaps not something you would expect from a Sherlock Holmes movie. But it's really something that adds to the high quality and entertainment value of this movie.
The movie is still fun and entertaining, also thanks to its characters (the ones that aren't redundant for the movie) and actors playing them. Robert Downey Jr. gives the movie so much and I honestly couldn't imaging any other actor playing the role of Holmes so great, fun and charismatically as he does.
Definitely an inferior sequel but still fun, good and entertaining enough all!
7/10
http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/