Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
359 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
What a relief! The trailers lied--it was awesome. :)
dottyjyoung16 December 2011
We just got back from the earliest showing we could get a sitter for. I can say with confidence that my fears about this movie were totally unfounded, and I now hold Guy Ritchie and these writers in the highest regard. Without going into spoilers, here are the three concerns that were put entirely to rest: 1) After seeing the trailer, my biggest worry was the use of "bullet-time" type photography during a Victorian-era movie. I thought it would be completely anachronistic and pointless. However, they'd already established in this movie and the previous one that Holmes is hyper-aware of his surroundings. The bullet-time was used to convey how traumatic a couple of scenes were to someone with that type of awareness, and it worked beautifully.

2) Jared Harris looked so vanilla and soft in the promo pics and trailers that I couldn't imagine him as a fearsome adversary for Holmes. However, his Moriarty is so devious and cunning, and at one time downright sadistic, that I don't think they could have made a better choice. A couple of times I felt like he was channeling his father (the outstanding Richard Harris) without the warmth and empathy that the late actor conveyed. Can you imagine Richard Harris as a cunning, calculating perfectionist that's totally devoid of concern for human life? You won't have to after watching his son. It's freaky. And he sings.

3) Holmes' relationship with Watson (and in a small way, Irene Adler) is fantastically developed. Saying any more than that would be too spoilery.

So, watching this w/ my husband(who is a die-hard Sherlock fan, and used to read Sherlock Holmes aloud to me every rainy night, complete w/ voices) was a fabulous experience. We can't wait to see it again, and own it.
243 out of 352 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Elementary Holmes
jdesando16 December 2011
Professor Moriarty: Are you sure you want to play this game? Sherlock Holmes: I'm afraid you'd lose.

In Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows, my mind turns two ways: The first half is guns, gunpowder, and gymnastics. Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey, Jr.) and Dr. Watson (Jude Law) contend with the salvation of civilization mostly through athletics, aided by director Guy Ritchie's considerable skill with the camera and graphics.

But in the second half, when the duo moves swiftly but intellectually to confront the arch villain Professor James Moriarty (Jared Harris), my mind is at equilibrium, renewing my love of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's original brainy, eccentric sleuth. The chess game is a marvel of strategy, replete with revenge, intrigue, and just plain ingenuity. Director Guy Ritchie's visuals include delightful Downey disguises and lively speed ramping in a forest bombarded by bullets. Hans Zimmer's music leans heavily on the fiddle to lighten the load of a difficult plot.

Watson's marriage, rather than taking away from the bromance, adds unexpected color and creativity. So Ritchie has ramped up the intellectual content and at least balanced it with the athletic, which was a strength of his 2009 version, Sherlock Holmes. With Inspector Lastrade just a memory and Holmes's love, Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams), appearing briefly, we are left to enjoy not so much the interaction of Holmes and Watson but the explosiveness of Holmes and Moriarty.

After a first half of explosions, the second half satisfies traditionalists like me for the chess game of life and death—and that's the suspenseful fate of the world in those pieces. Director Guy Ritchie has improved on his 2009 version.
148 out of 215 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Sherlock at the movies
remedy30529 January 2012
Doesn't matter how you look at it, this movie is darn good fun. I loved it from opening credits to the close. So what if the acting is a bit over the top, so what if there are probably too many explosions and bullets and bombs. The end result is a thoroughly entertaining 2 hours at the movies with popcorn and Pearl and Dean ads. Moriarty is sufficiently creepy and played with restraint, Holmes is completely over the top but for me if its Robert Downey Jr there are no complaints. The story keeps moving and the action is terrific. The story is loosely based on the last book of the Conan Doyle's first series of Holmes stories ending with the famous Reisenbach Falls in Switzerland. It also gives a great image of early 20th century on the brink of the first world war. If you want to enjoy a good story with great imagery and costume then you will enjoy this, if you are looking for Sherlock ( wonderfully called Shirley by Mycroft ) as Conan Doyle intended then you may be disappointed.
34 out of 46 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Better than the first one
picklechann16 December 2011
This movie was absolutely fantastic. I have been waiting for it for what feels like forever now and it truly did not disappoint. The storyline was clever, the dynamic between Watson and Holmes was charming and beautiful, and the effects were incredible. Honestly, as much of a fan I am of the first movie, its sequel surpassed it and my overall expectation. Some the effects were unnecessary at times, but I really enjoy the style in which these movies are edited. It can be slightly confusing periodically, another reason to rewatch, still pay attention closely. Jude Law and Robert Downey Jr.'s chemistry was compelling and the supporting actors were on par. I laughed, I nearly screamed, and I even cried. Game of Shadows is gripping, exciting, hilarious,and even draws tears. You'll be cheering throughout and satisfied with the end. Too be honest, it is absolutely one of the best movies of this year.
283 out of 456 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
NO disappointment in this sequel
aakinz23 December 2011
Talking about sequels, more often than not, they are disappointment compared to the original. But this team has done again. They brought back the sequel with quality. I enjoyed this film as much as I did in the first part. The action, thrill, intelligence, all are placed perfectly in this film. The screenplay and making pattern is pretty much same as the first part and story moving in good pace. The main characters did a fantastic job once again. Holmes and Watson chemistry is perfect and delivered a great performance. Here I really like the way how the hero and villain play their games, both are very clever and the equality was very interesting. Simply, if you liked the first part, just go for this one. This is perfect entertainment and No disappointments.
165 out of 263 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Honeymoon in Brighton? Not today.
aaronjbong24 December 2011
So what's been happening lately?

There has been a series of bombings and assassinations across Europe and if these activities continue, war will erupt and Europe will become a field of casualties and devastation. And our favorite detective Sherlock Holmes suspects Professor James Moriarty as the mastermind behind all these events.

Meanwhile, amidst the bombings and destruction which are ravaging Europe, Sherlock Holmes's partner, Dr. John Watson is finally getting married with his fiancée Mary. After being engaged in the first film, they are finally getting married and a short funny wedding scene has been reserved in the film. They're even going for a honeymoon in Brighton. Or they were supposed to go for a honeymoon.

The train the couple boarded was filled with Moriarty's henchmen and a loud, explosive battle ensues eliminating any hopes of an upcoming honeymoon. Even though Watson had been planning to retire from adventuring with Holmes after his wedding, he reluctantly becomes Holmes's partner one more time while his wife is taken care of by Holmes's brother, Mycroft. And the duo will receive an additional member to form a trio: the mysterious gypsy Madam Simza. Together, they try to stop Moriarty from continuing his cruel schemes and Holmes learns about Moriarty's plan to start a war in which he will personally benefit from.

There are lots of action scenes that keep the film exciting and keep the film running in a constant, fast pace. The action sequences are louder, much more explosive, and much more energetic than the ones present in the predecessor. They are very loud, operatic, and exuberant. But some of the battle sequences are surprisingly quiet, such as a simple chess game held between Holmes and Moriarty. While you think a chess game would be boring, Guy Ritchie filmed it as if it was a grand battle. The sounds, the atmosphere, and the dialog adds another layer of tension and makes the chess game scene more atmospheric.

Not only the action scenes, but the humor here is outstanding. Most of the jokes and humor come from the titular character himself. His bizarre behavior, regardless of his intelligence add a layer of comedy to the film. His trademark hobby, disguising into several unexpected people is just purely entertaining. If it weren't for Robert Downey Jr., the humor here would have collapsed and become a disaster.

And of course, the acting and performances by the cast were brilliant and outstanding. Robert Downey Jr. is just brilliant in portraying the titular detective. He is admirable and he is really a man of talent. Don't worry, Jude Law also plays the role of Dr. John Watson perfectly. Together, they form an excellent chemistry. Also worth mentioning is Noomi Rapace as the mysterious gypsy Madam Simza, who not too long ago played the role of Lisbeth Salander in the original version of "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo". Stephen Fry plays the role of Mycroft Holmes to perfection.

I'd like to take some time discussing the character of Professor James Moriarty. He is a very compelling villain. His professional life as a criminal mastermind is hidden beneath his profession as a professor in the University of Cambridge. He is much more intelligent, much more cunning, and much deadlier than Lord Blackwood of the previous film. While Holmes seems to be a detective that can do no wrong in the previous film, here, he will make mistakes. Here, he will feel pain. Moriarty is just a very powerful villain and a very suitable opponent for Holmes. (And remember the slow-motion scenes where Holmes elaborates his fighting strategies in his mind, Moriarty can do it too.) And to further compliment this is the performance of Jared Harris. While he may not look suitable as an antagonist, he actually makes a perfect choice.

However, the film uses too much slow-mo effects. This is largely noticeable in one particular scene which has an extensive use of slow-motion. I know the effect is mainly used to make it look more stylish but there is certainly too much of them. Running at a duration of 129 minutes, it could have been shortened if some of the slow-mo effects have been removed.

Not only the slow-mo effects, but this film seems to have lost its trademark element of mystery that is present in the first film. Even though there are some mystery present here, they are not as mind- boggling as the ones present in the first film. In the first film, there are just so many questions that popped up and Holmes really has something to work on. But here, it's not mysterious. You know the full details immediately.

Nevertheless, "A Game of Shadows" is a pleasant experience and a whole lot more fun than the original film. Its operatic action scenes will entertain the audience and its comedic scenes will add a layer of laughter. With powerful performances from the cast, this film is one not to be missed in this movie season.

Final Verdict: "A Game of Shadows" is a stylish, fast-paced, yet comedic adventure which improves upon its predecessor in several aspects, and surely a highly recommended film.

Rating: 8/10

Thanks for reading my review on "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows". I do hope this review is useful.
121 out of 190 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A more action-packed Holmes
jdkraus16 December 2011
"Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadow" picks up where the prequel left off; Holmes is tracking down Professor Moriarty, a man he believes is responsible for a series of bombings and mysterious deaths around world. With the help of his pal Watson (off to be married soon), and a gang of gypsies, which includes The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo's Noomi Rapace, set out on a game of cat-and-mouse to find the schemes of the sinister Professor.

Though there is an element of mystery in this film, it is not as in-depth as the first film. Rather the focus is on the action sequences and clever humor. This is not necessarily a bad thing though; in fact it helps move the plot along. The first film suffered because the story was slow. In this Holmes though, there is not one second that drags. The story itself is not special, but its pace is what counts. Walking out of the theater, I felt refreshed and glad that I saw this movie.

Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law are once again a true treat to watch as Holmes and Watson. Their chemistry and interactions are perfect; it's easy to tell that both had fun with the script and with each other. Jared Harris as Professor Moriarty gives a solid performance, as a cold, manipulative, power hungry villain. Unlike Mark Strong in the first film, he is a believable antagonist. Noomi Rapace is a nice flavor as Madam Sim.

The set and costume designs are exquisite, bringing to life of what Europe was like in the late 1800s. I smell Oscar for these departments. The sound and editing is crisply done, and the music is top-notched—Hans, you're truly the best. The visual effects are mostly good, but some scenes were a bit over the top and borderline ridiculous. One of many examples include a woman being thrown from a fast moving train into a river, without sustaining injury or even dying. This is impossible. Then again, it's Hollywood. The filmmakers aren't doing their job if a sense of the ridiculous is not thrown into an action flick from time to time.

"Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadow" delivers as a great, action-packed, and a rather humorous, popcorn loving flick. Note: the dog dies again.
147 out of 246 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Entertaining and a lot more fun than the original outing
DonFishies15 December 2011
As much as I loved the character interactions and insane chemistry between Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law, I was very much let down by Sherlock Holmes when I first saw it a few years ago. It was a really stylish and well-made film, but the storyline bored me to tears. I came in incredibly excited to see it, and left wishing it had ended sooner. With the obvious sequel Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows upon us, I figured I would go in with much lower expectations and brace for something along the same lines.

Europe is at the brink of war, with many little seemingly unconnected events occurring across the nations. Sherlock Holmes (Downey Jr.) believes it to be the work of the brilliant Professor James Moriarty (Jared Harris). He enlists the help of his sidekick, Watson (Law), to help him uncover the truth, before it is too late.

With less of a focus on the occult, a stronger plot and a significantly more interesting villain, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows outdoes its predecessor in many respects. It ups the thrills and the action, continues the fun, and delivers one of the better sequel going experiences this year.

Even though the story is a bit wonky in certain respects (more on that in a moment), I feel A Game of Shadows manages to feel a lot more grounded than the original. There is a clear storyline, and an even clearer path of where the film wants to go. It stalls here and there, as I imagined it would, but it never lingers like the original did. The art direction is just as incredible as it was, and the special effects seem to have been improved greatly. Where the first film flopped around, this film picks up the slack.

While Downey Jr. and Law are just as impeccable and well matched as they were the first time round, the film benefits greatly from the addition of Harris as Moriarty. The character's presence was felt throughout the first film, but the film noticeable lost its edge by simply referring to him in passing and hinting at what a sequel could have had in store. Bringing him into the fold, he immediately is tenfold better than Mark Strong ever could have hoped to be. Watching Harris match wits with Downey is simply astounding, and makes for the most wildly enjoyable parts of the film. There is never a dull moment when he is around, and instead of making the film drone on, he invigorates it with an immense amount of energy. Harris knows exactly how to look deceptive, even with a wide grin and dialogue that does not even hint at ulterior motives. His looks are downright terrifying in a lot of instances. This is his first major film role, and I can only hope filmmakers continue using his dastardly skills for antiheroes and villains alike.

I think the film's biggest hurtle, and the one that hurts it the most, is that there are simply too many characters and too many of them did not need to appear in the first place. Rapace's character is nothing more than a plot device, used to connect certain sections together and forgotten almost entirely all too often. The practically blink-and-you- will-miss them moments for Rachel McAdams and Eddie Marsan feel more like Richie peddling to the fans, as opposed to actually serving a real point to the film. It is fun seeing them show up again, but considering they have little to no effect on the plot, they could have easily just never showed up at all. But the far worst offender of not serving any purpose is Stephen Fry as Mycroft Holmes. He brings a ridiculous amount of humour to the film, and he is a welcome addition on the onset. But as the film progresses, it becomes clear he is merely there simply to make the film even more ludicrous and silly than Downey Jr. makes it. When the inevitable third film drops, I hope they actually use him effectively, instead of making his appearance feel like a mere tease.

What also hurts the film is Richie's incessant need to use slow motion in every action sequence. While it works insanely and surprisingly well for the film's centrepiece involving a foot chase through a forest, it feels like overkill in almost every other instance. We understand from the first film that Holmes likes to evaluate the moves of both his adversaries and himself before he makes them, but watching him plot it out helps drag the film out longer than it needs to be. It is fun and worthwhile when it is used sparingly, or used to draw attention to something specific. But when Richie is one-upping Zack Snyder in the worst possible way, it begs the question of whether he learned any mistakes from the first film or not. At just under 130 minutes, I feel like a good fifteen minutes of slow motion could have been sped up, and would have looked just as great. Hell, Richie potentially could have shown off a bit of his own style too, instead of just what he cribbed from everyone else.

While the film still has its problems, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows is an enjoyable ride from start to finish. It maintained my interest, where the first film had me counting the excruciating minutes before it would end. Richie still has a lot to learn about as a filmmaker (and even more as a man who creates his own style instead of Tarantino-ing from others), he does know how to make a crafty film. Now if he can stop hinting at future installments and just give us a film that sticks to being about the story at hand, then maybe we might just get the perfect rendition of this legendary detective.

112 out of 202 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
The 1st Movie Was Better
denis88810 June 2012
Well, I am bit puzzled. What can I say? Was the movie well done? Yes and no. There are certain weak parts and obvious stronger bits. Jude Law and Robert Downey Jnr both are great as Watson and Holmes, as well as Stephen Fry is a very funny Microft. But then, there are some big mistakes in casting. Noomi Rapace is The biggest blunder. She was great in The Swedish Girl Who... Trilogy, but here no. She is weak, pale, blunt, shallow and gray. The only part we remember of her? Her eating some food near The Eiffel Tower. Pity that there is no so much Rachel McAdamas this time, she was great then and good here What else can I say? The movie is well cut and shot, it is dark and ominous, as intended, and some scenes are pure Matrix-quality. But then, there are so many goofs and funny anachronisms that make the whole movie a bit unserious. My opinion? it was OK, and fun. A bit too prolonged at times.
11 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
excellent sequel
veronicammartin23 December 2011
I went to see this film last night and was immersed in it from the very first minutes.

The action was constant edge of the set stuff, the locations stunning, the CGI, the acting excellent. The use of slow motion in this film adds to the action.

The only possible minus would be a little too much flesh from the weighty Stephen Fry. How Kelly Reilly kept her composure I have no idea, but I would expect it was easy to look away.

The best part for me was the verbal war of wits between Moriarty and Holmes especially.Clever writing and acting. Also, the ending; it left me wanting more.

It is not often that a sequel is as good as the original film. I would suggest that this is better. I left the cinema saying I wanted to go back in to see all the hints I had missed .
88 out of 163 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
what a mess!
rightwingisevil5 January 2012
what's going on here? the first one was okay, but the second one was totally lost. this is a very messy and pretentious movie. we have seen that r.d.j.'s limit in playing a British detective, his way of speaking was such a pretentious phony accent that most of the time was not quite easy to catch since he got to tighten his jaw and flat out his lips to pronounce the accent, while j.l., an English man, never had such problem, because he did not have to pretend that he was a British. then again, what's the purpose of making a detective work became a completely action and fighting movie? lot of slow motions, lot of purposefully quickened fighting scenes which didn't give any depth to sherlock holmes detecting talent, he just became a MMA UFC contender, a middle aged guy tried so hard to do a lot of physical endeavor. what is the purpose of making a detecting movie into an action packed nonsense? the answer might be using this two movies and balloon them into a marketable video game, so it must be full of action, fighting sequence to make it work. but this movie actually mindlessly ruined a quite deep and mysterious character in a classic way. in this two movies, we've got nothing but pretentious dialog, pretentious and over-the-hill chasing and fighting scenes, a very busy and messy treatment in every way to ruin these two literary characters, they were just clowns and fighting robots, and 'the game of shadow' was even worse, more clueless, messy and unfocused. what we saw in this movie were lot of costumes, lot of mimic pretentiousness. it's a very hollow and blurry movie that kept feeding you fighting scenes but less depth of analysis detective works. it became a MMA movie with some scenario and plot. the directing was so messy since the screenplay was ridiculous. there's no character in this movie worthwhile, nobody was memorable. once the lights dimmed, you were just watching a circus on the big screen, very noisy, busy, funny characters, clowns, music kept coming out one after another....there was nothing for you to go along with the detective to solve a case, the movie was for your eyes but not for your brain, and once you realized it's just a farce, then immediately you lost the interest and patience to watch along. this is a soul-less, mindless messy movie. stay away from it.
16 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Don't waist your time on this
tlewen29 April 2012
No, no, no, this is not a Sherlock Holmes movie. If Sherlock Holmes was an action hero, then this movie would be excellent. But Sherlock is not an action hero. He is gifted with an incredible intellect, that you virtually see nothing of in this movie. What you see a lot of is running, hitting, kicking and shooting, as well as people who don't die even after being knifed several times and falling 20 meters off a building... falling not only once, but three times. Well, I must admit that this review is based only on the first 60 minutes. I did not want to waist more of my time on this. It was already 60 too many minutes. So, don't waist your time on this, like I did.
25 out of 44 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Since when is Mr. Holmes a cartoon character?
PWNYCNY27 December 2011
Sometimes one watches a movie and weeps because the story is so strong and compelling that it evokes a cathartic experience. And then there are movies that cause the eyelids to grow heavy and the mind to wander off to slumber land. This movie is in the latter category. Sherlock Holmes is not a cartoon character, yet this movie not only transforms Mr. Holmes into a cartoon character, he is a cross between Daffy Duck and James Bond. Not surprisingly, the movie provokes some unintended (or maybe intended) laughter, but with a ridiculous story that brings new meaning to the word contrived, there is little that can save this movie from DVD land where it belongs. Robert Downey and Jude Law give it a try, but their efforts are for naught. Sometimees the current is just too strong. The story is simply too implausible and the special effects too gratuitous. Okay, tastes change and maybe the producers are playing to a certain audience. But one thing that does not change is quality, and in this respect the movie could have been better.
21 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A Shadow of What It Should Have Been
gary-44424 December 2011
I thoroughly enjoyed the first Sherlock Holmes and approached this sequel with optimistic anticipation- only to be very disappointed. A budget that had doubled, multiple locations, and the confidence of a well received first instalment should have proved a solid platform for further success. Sadly, Director Guy Ritchie lost his way.

As a pairing, Holmes, played by Robert Downey Jnr ,and Watson, by Jude Law, worked first time around. This time , Jude Law saves the pairing from disaster. I can run with Holmes as a cocaine snorting eccentric, but his eccentricities are so overwrought in this outing that his credibility as a formidable intelligence becomes unconvincing. Although I am happy to see historic capabilities rewritten and reinterpreted, his ability and acumen at street-fighting place an emphasis on the visceral, rather than cerebral which takes the character, for my tastes, far too close to Jean Claude Van Damme and Vin Diesel territory. Those thoughtful deductive powers eschewed in favour of occasional machine-gun analysis.

Rachel McAdams role is reduced to a bit part, and is a peripheral figure. Noomi Rapace instead supplies the glamour in a tentative performance as Gypsy Madam Heron which doesn't convince. The Villain, Prof Moriarty, is played , uneasily, by Jared Harris whose visual likeness to Richard Stilgoe does not help the cause. Yet all is not lost. Stephen fry is excellent as Sherlock's brother, Geraldine James has pitifully little screen time as housekeeper Mrs Hudson yet delights whenever she appears, and Kelly Reilly does well in an underwritten role as Dr Watson's new wife.

The plot is a noisy mess, and is largely threadbare. Swooping camera shots, fast editing and slow motion have their place but quickly the action becomes all, and the law of diminishing returns quickly comes into play. Which is a shame, because when Ritchie gets it right, it can be very good. This time an escape from an arms and munitions works shines as an ever escalating armoury of weapons is employed against them. Indeed it is such a good scene that the final reel, an attempted assassination, becomes an anti-climax.

In summary, the familiar Director's curse of too much money, too weak a script/story, and indiscipline, with no-one around to say "Guy, No!," strikes, which is a shame. Ritchie can write good, funny dialogue (see "Lock Stock, etc")but it is not much in evidence here, he can also handle a good action scene (the dry dock fight in the first film). But here he tries to reinvent the Holmes legend again, but only succeeds in losing the good bits and failing to improve with what he attempts in its place.
45 out of 87 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Wildly entertaining
UniqueParticle9 August 2020
Guy Ritchie can't go wrong all his films have incredible action and story among other things! Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law are enriching greatness throughout! An adventure of many sorts filled with witty dialogue, action madness, and soundtrack that is glorious. I originally saw this in the theater that was fun especially when I had someone to go with.
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Abomination of the Doyle
viciouscircle29 December 2011
Bad movies are inevitable. Some can be loved for camp quality, others endured or even forgiven due to accidental missteps. But this title cannot be forgiven as its sins are, apparently, intentional.

The over-the-top optics and emphasis of action over narrative or character led me to ask whether I was watching Sherlock Holmes or Spider Man. Whatever happened to good old storytelling? Is this what iPhone and Google have wrought?

In full disclosure: I'm a traditionalist. It's hard for me to imagine a more faithful version than Granada's Jeremy Brett. I can't believe the only way for "modern" audiences to know Conan Doyle's detective is a Victorian veneer and visual vomit. At least BBC's latest incarnation with Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman preserves author's intent but is placed in a contemporary setting. It doesn't mock the originals.

There are a few bright spots - thanks chiefly to Jude Law, Jared Harris, and Stephen Fry. The rest of the troupe could benefit from a Stanislavski house call.

If you want to watch a superhero film, this site will give you plenty of excellent titles to choose from (i.e. "The Dark Knight"). Otherwise, just watch the Brett series on DVD. Lastly, If anyone reading this is a doctor, kindly prescribe Mr. Ritchie a strong dose of Adderall before he strikes again.
30 out of 56 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Boring, Dull and Overrated
claudio_carvalho5 May 2012
Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) is investigating terrorist attacks in London alone since his old partner Dr. John Watson (Jude Law) will get married a few days later with Mary (Kelly Reilly). His investigations point to Professor James Moriarty (Jared Harris) as the responsible for the explosions.

When Dr. Watson and Mary are attacked in the train while traveling for their honeymoon in Brighton, Sherlock Holmes delivers Mary to the protection of his brother Mycroft Holmes (Stephen Fry). Sooner Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson disclose that Professor Moriarty has bought arms and ammunition factories and is trying to start a war in Europe killing political leaders and politicians. Now Sherlock and Watson have to stop Moriarty and his dangerous associate, the skilled former Colonel Sebastian Moran (Paul Anderson) to avoid the imminent war.

"Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" is a boring, dull and overrated film by Guy Ritchie. The story is silly and annoying, and Sherlock Holmes prefers to play chess with Professor Moriarty instead of eliminating him while people are murdered in his terrorist attacks.

The scenes of Mycroft Holmes coming naked to talk to Mary Watson and Sherlock Holmes dancing with Dr. Watson are among the most ridiculous ones that I have recently seen. My vote is five.

Title (Brazil): "Sherlock Holmes: O Jogo de Sombras" ("Sherlock Holmes: The Game of Shadows")
30 out of 57 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
horrible stupid teenager flick
calypsex30 December 2011
This movie is bad in everything I may Imagine,

I can save cinematography and thos high speed camera shots. All the rest is crap. There is not story, the plot seems to be wrote by an high school teenager. The lines are basically senseless just to get one or two smiles. Everything has been already seen, no pathos, no mystery.

Acting is terrible and there is nothing to be remembered, is it a sequence on sketches like benny hill meets Bud Spencer, a lot of teenager jokes and stupid fights, this is a movie well focused for young teenager that will smile for old jokes between the characters and macho statements every scene or two. This movie will be easily forgotten by everyone (just to test: ask someone who saw the movie what was the story about three days after he saw it, you will be amazed by his reply)

what a waste.
32 out of 62 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Do Not Waste Your Time
johnp204015 January 2012
My girlfriend and I just returned from seeing this extremely sad excuse for a movie. For the first time in a very long time I actually considered walking out of the theater. If It wasn't for the fact that I invested thirty dollars into it we would have left. I'm not sure what was worse: the plot line that was way to hard to follow, the unnecessary amount of explosions, or the fact that I had to endure seeing Robert Downey, Jr. dressed in drag. But put them all together and you have one of the worst movies ever made. Many times I had to keep myself from nodding off only to be awoken by an explosion of some sorts (I wasn't aware they had machine guns in 1891). How many times do I have to watch the same fight scene taken straight out of Snatch? I get it Guy Ritchie, you have access to a high speed camera. I'm not sure how dumb you think the general public is but how long are we going to have to see movies that have zero substance? By the end of the movie I was genuinely hoping that Sherlock would die so that I wouldn't have to even think that a third one of these movies could be made. Unfortunately, Mr. Ritchie, you and Hollywood win in the end because I just blindly handed my money over to you. I thank you in the long run because the next time I consider going to a movie I might think otherwise or just take my money and flush it down the toilet, at least then I'll know I kept a few dollars out of your pocket.
31 out of 60 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
no charm, forced humour & detective part replaced by running around and action
paussse22 December 2011
What a pity that such a complicated and complex character is portrayed by Robert Downey Jr. and in the hands of Guy Richie. It could and should have been an deep, intelligent, complex, wit and promising theme for a movie...The humour is forced, shallow and lame, there is a plot but it is not represented in the rank of Sherlock Holmes's all mixed up and I don't like the result. The detective part of the story is lost and shallow and is replaced by running around and action...WOULDN'T WATCH IT TWICE!...where is the detective charm of the story? What a pity that such a complicated and complex character is portrayed by Robert Downey Jr. and in the hands of Guy Richie. It could and should have been an deep, intelligent, complex, wit and promising theme for a movie...The humour is forced, shallow and lame, there is a plot but it is not represented in the rank of Sherlock Holmes's all mixed up and I don't like the result. The detective part of the story is lost and shallow and is replaced by running around and action...WOULDN'T WATCH IT TWICE!...where is the detective charm of the story? What a pity that such a complicated and complex character is portrayed by Robert Downey Jr. and in the hands of Guy Richie. It could and should have been an deep, intelligent, complex, wit and promising theme for a movie...The humour is forced, shallow and lame, there is a plot but it is not represented in the rank of Sherlock Holmes's all mixed up and I don't like the result. The detective part of the story is lost and shallow and is replaced by running around and action...WOULDN'T WATCH IT TWICE!...where is the detective charm of the story?
44 out of 90 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
sherlock holmes? where?
unbekannternutzer15 April 2012
this movie is a(nother) disappointing proof of the impression that most of the money in movie business is in the hand of the wrong people.

this has nothing to do with anything anyone would associate with the sherlock holmes that has been main character of real literature. there is no connection visible whatsoever to that kind of clever developed character.

dialog is stupid, unrealistic and scripted to a point that makes it unbelievably disappointing that the makers obviously think that the audience is completely dumbed down and wont recognize a pile of verbal garbage that is desperately modified to sound good.

characters are completely unbelievable, shallow and exaggerated in a way one would expect to see in a comic movie. with the difference that in those movies the components fit together to create something interesting at least. this movie fails miserably there. it's a mess.

story is non existent, calling it an excuse for the action scenes would give it too much credit. they are not even trying to do that.

the action scenes you would expect from a super-hero movie. and that's what it actually is. it's iron man in medieval times without that metal suit trying to do some kind of parody of sherlock holmes. this is the only point of view that would make it work somehow.

the actors are trying but it's a pointless effort with this direction and script.

there is a lot more that is just wrong about this movie. i don't have words for it at the moment. it feels like the mess that they call movie has left my brain in a similarly messed up state.

i am actually shocked to see this average rating it has at the moment. it cant be right. it just cant.
50 out of 104 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Sherlock Holmes it ain't
trans_mauro15 April 2012
They could call the main character in this film John Archibald, Peter Smith, Vera Gardner, or whatever because it makes no difference

He simply has no resemblance whatsoever with Doyle's creation. Those things should not be allowed. It is like painting mustaches on Mona Lisa or adding another leg to Michelangelo's David.

What we have here is a guy, a "thing" who is a mixture of a buffoon with an adult with ADD (nothing against the folks with ADD!!!). He is not a hero, nor anti-hero, he is just a messy individual.

And to make things worse, the story is not that interesting. It has a feel of deja-vu. It is an effortless to capitalize on the success of the first film...

Too bad they don't make Sherlock Holmes like before...
45 out of 93 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A buddy cop movie from 1800s! What's wrong with Guy Ritchie?!!
wotsonurmind22 December 2011
I watched Game of shadows with hope as I enjoyed his earlier outing of Sherlock Holmes even though I am a big fan of the books and TV series. The last movie was different and attempted to modernise the story to keep the interest of the game generation. This one is truly awful! Firstly Both Sherlock and Mycroft are reduced to being clowns at times in the hope of funny lines which just fall flat.The movie is just a buddy cop movie from 1800s and not even a great one at that!Watson played by the directors buddy curiously seems to have more to do than Shelly(yes,that's what his brother Mycroft calls him in the movie!)himself. Whats wrong with British Directors and their obsession with homosexuality! Here there are numerous double entendres and references to gay time with Holmes and Watson! A particularly ugly scene is one where Watson falls between Holmes's legs and they banter!Holmes doesn't wear masks but looks more like a Tranny with his ladies attire with lipstick all over his face.Sadly all these don't even raise a smile which I could have accepted if that was the reason behind everything.The idea that Holmes was a cerebral sleuth is long left behind with the director Guy Ritchie's obsession of slow-motion action scenes. The point is Guy Ritchie had one of the best characters, scripts,etc and didn't need to reduce it to just plain rubbish British crime caper.If the names weren't Sherlock Holmes and Watson, I could have accepted it as a pretty ordinary buddy action movie with some good scenes.This is pathetic!
30 out of 59 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
One of the best movie of this year
maryan_madalyn9412 December 2011
A lot of action and of drama.Robert Downey Jr makes a great job with Jude Law.The movie combine very well the action wtih comedy.Irene Adler it's fabulous in his role.She is very beauty.Jared Harris makes a great job in the role of the bad guy .I wait for this movie for 2 years,but the waiting it wasn't in van.Special effects are very good.The plot is very nice write.Guy Ritchie is one of my favourite directors.The music is epic .Hans Zimmer made a great job for this movie.After my opinion Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows it's better than Sherlock Holmes(2009).I hope he will win al least one Academy award.If i make a list of movies from 2011 which you should watch this is for sure on that list.
47 out of 98 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
A Blunder of a Sequel
DJRMewzique27 December 2011
Sorry Holmes fans, but this one falls flat on its face. And breaks its nose. And then gets kicked in the gut.

It's as if Guy Richie took courses from Michael Bay on how to make a typical American movie: Think about the cool special effects first and try to build a story around them after...though, really, the story is not that important.

After an astonishingly good first instalment that featured top-notch acting, storytelling AND great special effects (and despite Rachel McAdams), Holmes returns for another caper with Jude Law's Watson in tow. This time, they are facing Professor Moriarty. What the movie is really about is hard to say, however, as the script was so weak, it kept getting lost in the line of fiery explosions, effects and Downey Jr. in drag.

Were the special effects good? Sure...but we saw similar ones in the first one which were not really improved upon, and the fact that there was more story, less effects last time made them all the more impressive. This time around, you are beaten over the head with them and left wondering what they were trying to get across in the first place.

Yes, Holmes has a misfire. With Downey's acting wasted on a second-rate script (if you could call it that), the two-year wait for this dismal sequel was a waste. We can only hope they learn from this, though a third instalment couldn't get much worse. Unless it's actually directed by Michael Bay.
33 out of 66 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

Recently Viewed