Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

I wished for a new take on good old Sherlock Holmes. I wanted an interesting, unexpected, and off-the-wall plot. And then all I needed for perfection was something that would take my breath away. But that's not how it works here... Everything is kind of the same as it was before, and I have nothing to be surprised by. I felt like I was watching an attempt to improve on the first episode. I often had to work to keep my attention on the film. I found some of the dialogue to be completely unnecessary. What saves it is the fantastic atmosphere and strong actors. I have to point out in particular the few minutes on the train and the perfect escape through the forest. The ending at least brought a smile to my face. 3.5 stars. (17/01/2012)

Sherlock Holmes: The Game of Shadows is a very specific film. Sherlock, as played by Robert Downey Jr., is a combination of solid British solidity and Jack Sparrow from Pirates of the Caribbean. It is all then thrown into absolutely brutally edited action fun, which has a ton, but really a ton of action, which is shot in such a strange way that some people really like it and some will be really annoyed by it. But I must say that I incredibly enjoyed it. Robert confirmed to me as a great actor who has a gleam of humor and seriousness...and can do a British accent :) Jude Law also did not disappoint, as well as Noomi Rapace, who actually surprised me at how quickly she got beyond the borders of Sweden after the success of the Millennium trilogy. The only flaw this film has is the story, which actually isn't interesting at all. In fact, it's about nothing. The main thing in this film is mainly the action, which I personally absolutely enjoyed in the cinema. (17/01/2012)

The screenplay was a rushed job and has only a couple of really excellent moments and the conflict of the two arch rivals is not depicted appropriately. But it’s still an entertaining romp full of snappy lines with excellent visuals. Effective slow-motion sequences are in exactly the right place and are breathtaking. The scene with “Hansel" in the forest and the final confrontation (an successfully transformed ending of one of the most important stories) and simply awesome. The story is awfully schematic, chases alternate with fights, and there isn’t much room for any hint of inevitability, even though the material for it is here. (12/01/2012)

The first film worked with something like a moment of surprise, with the famous detective navigating Guy Ritchie's exquisite visual world. The second time around, the moment of surprise is gone, and suddenly you start digging into what you didn't mind in the first film. For two hours of runtime, the plot is too diluted, the female protagonists are neglected, the villain is bland, and except for two or three funny dialogue exchanges, there’s a lot of filler. But most importantly, a detective storyline is one you don't care about whatsoever. The action escapades are trite and not saved even by the run through the woods, yet that scene was also genius. During the first half, I was hoping it would pick up in the second half, as some commentators sometimes promised, but for the last half hour, I was praying for it to end. You don't just see blockbuster fails like this. (28/04/2012)

The sequel seems to me even more than ever before, that Ritchie says to the audience “come have fun with me”, but behind the curtain it's nothing but a brutal attack on the wallets of the audience, who go to the cinema almost automatically for guaranteed entertainment. The result is a film where everything is a cliché that people complain about on one side, but still mindlessly watch over and over again. I was not entertained in almost anything. Perhaps only technically, it is a very above-par film and some shots (yes, the action scene in the forest) are worth it. Otherwise, it's boring, clichéd, with a few jokes. Instant fast food that becomes outdated at the speed of sound. (16/05/2012)