Posted on 3/13/12 11:48 AM
This wasn't a movie I wanted to watch. When they announced they were going to make another one I remember being confused. Why would they make a second one when the first one was so anticlimactic both in story and in audience reception? No one was giving me weird looks when I said I didn't like Sherlock Holmes and I never heard anyone say it was their favorite movie or even the best movie of the year. The best the first movie got was "I liked it," or "It wasn't that bad."
So why make a sequel to a movie that was merely not that bad?
Because apparently it means the sequel will be entertaining and insert some enthusiasm for future franchise installments. I walked out of the theater hoping they would make a third one. It was the last thing I expected.
I watched this movie much later than the rest of you. Instead I watched Mission: Impossible 4 twice and Tin Tin once. Those movies were fantastic so I didn't think hollywood had a chance at three movies I liked in one month. I was wrong.
The best part of A Game of Shadows is they fixed all the terrible things about the first one. Well, almost all of them. Guy Ritchie is still doing that super annoying slow motion thing that drove me crazy in the first one and added pure annoyance to the running for your lives scene in the second one. The slow-mo works when Sherlock is mapping out his fights before they happen but other than that it should be cut from the third one. Someone pass this review on to the director so he gets my notes on his work.
The first one, for reasons that are beyond me, tried to go for a supernatural storyline (I know it didn't end up being that in the end but starting like that was such a bad idea) and they didn't have a whiff of that in the second one other than gypsy magic. Does that count? I don't think that counts.
The first one turned Sherlock into an action hero. That ticked me off. The dude uses his mind not his brawn to figure things out. It was one of my biggest pet peeves about the first movie. When my friends and critics reported that the second one was more action and less mystery than the first one I made the decision to watch Mission: Impossible again.
The weird thing is they were right. Well, half right. There was more action in this movie. But I think there was also more mystery. The first one you always knew what question Sherlock and Holmes were trying to answer. The way certain scenes were shot you thought you were getting clues that would help you solve it but in the end when Sherlock reveals how he solved the mystery you realizes you were paying attention for no reason because the answer to the puzzle was impossible to figure out from the audiences point of view. That cancelled out the entire mystery of the first movie as a factor of my enjoyment. However small the mystery in the second is doesn't matter. What matters is that they learned from their mistake of boring me and turned the mystery into something that was interesting and kept my mind from wandering.
This is a funny and exciting movie. A solid way to blow a couple hours at the local cinema if you have the time. Considering that the season of terrible movies is upon us you should for sure see this movie over any other that comes out over the next two to three months.
I'm sorry I waited so long to see this and if I told you not to bother with this one please forgive me and go see it.