"Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" is a much better film than the second half of its title would lead us to believe

Rating: 7/10 (27 December 2011)

Let's admit it. Whatever our feelings are about self-taught film director Guy Ritchie ("Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels," "Swept Away"), he certainly has taken Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's world-famous character of Sherlock Holmes and transitioned him to the screen in a way that stands out, that is unlike what we expected. For the better or the worst (and that depends on your own perspective), he has presented the character in a way that is unique, almost self-described. In spite of my few reservations about his style, Mr. Ritchie made 2009's "Sherlock Holmes" into a devilishly entertaining re-envision and his new film, "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" is just as good. Even if it does need a better title.
In this second installment, Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey, Jr.) and Dr. Watson (Jude Law) go up against their most famous and formidable enemy, Professor Moriarty (Jared Harris). As we learned at the end of the first film, Moriarty is at least equal to, if not more clever than Holmes himself and the quest to bring down Moriarty's wildly complicated scheme is more of a competition of wits jumping hurdles.
Mr. Ritchie and his screenwriters (Michele Mulroney & Kieran Mulroney) are clearly more interested in individual moments than they are in the big picture. For just like in the first film "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" is far more interesting and much more exciting when it concentrates on scenes rather than a whole entire. Professor Moriarty's plan, which I will not give away as a means of saving review space as opposed to giving away plot information, is so hyperbolic and overly complicated that to try and work it into a cohesive, ominous, and prone-to-logic storyline would be suicidal to the patience of the audience, and to the movie. Watching it, I found myself not really giving a hoot about following the clues or articulating the schemes of the characters, but locked upon the individual moments. It's watching Holmes and Dr. Waton decipher and devise their next move, often with bursts of kinetic action, that really ring the bell.
It's like a big chess game, where you don't really care about the players' strategies as opposed to just waiting to see how many pieces each guy can knock off the board.
Casting proves a benefit the second time around. Robert Downey, Jr. and Jude Law, two of our best actors, are just as splendid as they were in the first picture, and do a fabulous job with the witty banter they are supplied with by the screenplay. Although I wished there was more menace in the character for him to portray, as Professor Moriarty, Jared Norris is an inspired choice. Sadly, Rachel McAdams is hardly in the picture at all this time. Her replacement character is well-played by Noomi Rapace. Unfortunately, her performance is lot more interesting than her character.
I do still have reservations about Guy Ritchie's directing. His toggling from slow-motion to kinetic speed, a gimmick I've seldom appreciated by any director, still irks me some, and at times he seems to forget that he's making a movie set in the 18th century. But when it comes to action, he's a near-virtuoso. There are more action sequences here than in the first, so this plays to his advantage.
With great performances and packing a walloping amount of effective humor, "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" is a much better film than the second half of its title would lead us to believe. And as 2011 comes to a close, it's one of the better films to cap off a twelve-month span which frankly has not been all that good for the cinema.