Skip to main content

You're drinking embalming fluid?

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows
(2011) 

The 2009 film was such a pleasant surprise that I had not a little foreboding about this. Everything about the publicity and trailers suggested a stir-and-repeat effort, attempting nothing new. I had low expectations for the original, and perhaps the same feeling this time did the film some favours. For the first 20 minutes or so, an interesting character development aside, this seemed to be really struggling. Labouring the goodwill built up last time by indulging itself in an extended sequence of Holmes-Watson banter and failing to muster any of the spark of the original.

Fortunately it kicks into gear following Holmes' first encounter with Moriarty, and an extended train sequence is replete with all the bro-mance and Guy Ritchie bombast that you'd expect, but also that flash of verve and excitement it so needed in the early scenes. Like the original, the plotting is at times a means to an action sequence, and the elements of deduction are very much sublimated to the need to keep things rolling. That said, a number of elements that are reused later are so deftly placed that when they are called back to you can't help but think they've been quite clever there. Noomi Rapace's gypsy is very much incidental, but this in itself is a positive as the filmmakers don't feel they need to overpower the plot with a love interest. I'd like to have seen more of Colonel Sebastian Moran, though, as his character was effectively used.

Of the regulars, Downey Jr is winningly energetic and Ritchie's camera work is very in synch with his take on Holmes. He and Law, despite the early sequences, have a fine repartee. I'm going to make a few Steven Moffat comparisons now; I think on balance I prefer this Holmes and Watson, because - as self-conscious in it's way as this depiction of the characters is - they're not weighed down with all the irritating tics and Moffat-every-voice dialogue. This is blockbuster cinema but it manages to retain an air of verisimilitude that the current TV series fails at.

Helping enormously in that regard is Jared Harris as Moriarty. If you'd asked who would come up with the best take on Moriarty, the BBC or a lowest common denominator brash Hollywood movie, you'd end up with the wrong answer (unless you'd seen the BBC version, that is, in which case there's likely superior home movie performances on youtube). Harris underplays his Moriarty superbly, completely the opposite of that little “I’m mad, me!”-voiced prat in Sherlock. And as a result you believe in the stakes involved. The final showdown between the two is vastly more satisfying than the TV series' Reichenbach "fall" because it combines all the elements of intellectual dueling between the two characters in a gripping, multi-layered scene. Which then out does itself by coming to a very snappy and satisfying resolution that is germane to the established style of storytelling.

While I'm on the subject of Moffat, two other points. What they do with Irene Adler's character here is extremely effective, and spotlights just what a low-rent, low-stakes media whore Moffat is in terms of the way he treats his characters. And Mycroft, as played by Stephen Fry, seems to cement the character as Holmes big gay brother in terms of modern takes; Fry's amusing in the role, but it feels like a "wheel on the guest star" turn; maybe in the US he's just seen as another supporting actor but Fry might as well have just stepped out of a QI filming session (albeit less attired - "Sherlie", indeed). Ironically, and though I'm loathe to say it, Mark Gatiss might have been a better fit.

But overall, far more enjoyable that the over-feted Sherlock -where every bit of dazzling inventiveness is then ruined by lazy characterisation and self-congratulatory dialogue. I'm looking forward to the third installment.

****1/2

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds . Juno and the Paycock , set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.