Sherlock Holmes 2: A Game of Shadows

[DanielJones]

I rather excited to see this one. Plenty of action and period weapons. Looks like we'll get to see Watson in action with his Army training.
[video=youtube;lNxhpNpnAkk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNxhpNpnAkk[/video]

This one brings Professor Moriarty out of the shadows now.

Cheers!

Dan

 

[MisterCairo]

My wife and I are beyond excited about this. We're already looking for babysitting help!

 

[C-dot]

Ooo I didn't know about this! I'm excited!

People were very critical of the first movie because he didn't fit their mental image of Sherlock Holmes. Those people had obviously never read the book

 

[The Good]

I wasn't too impressed with the first movie, and my siblings were even less impressed, saying that it bored them and that the actors were incomprehensible when they spoke. We never actually even finished watching it after the half-way point. Should I give the first one another chance? The trailer for the second looks pretty decent though. Seems that maybe this one looks like there's a bit more action involved, huh? Holmes is facing Moriarty, his greatest villain, so I would figure that it may be more in line with what my siblings were after as well.

 

[DanielJones]

Yeah, I would give the first one a second chance. You may want to keep the siblings away though otherwise you may not be able to get to enjoy it.

Cheers!

Dan

 

[Dan'l]

I'm looking forward to seeing the new one, being a huge Sherlock Holmes fan. I do think they could do a better job of making RDJ look more period correct and look cleaner and better groomed. In the canon, 221b Baker street may have been cluttered but Holmes always had a respectable look.

I do like how these new adaptations have Watson more in line with the canon and not the buffoon that others have portrayed.

Of course, this is just my humble opinion. If nothing else it's good to see Holmes presented to a new generation.

 

[Edward]

I wasn't too impressed with the first movie, and my siblings were even less impressed, saying that it bored them and that the actors were incomprehensible when they spoke. We never actually even finished watching it after the half-way point. Should I give the first one another chance? The trailer for the second looks pretty decent though. Seems that maybe this one looks like there's a bit more action involved, huh? Holmes is facing Moriarty, his greatest villain, so I would figure that it may be more in line with what my siblings were after as well.

More action? I hope not. I very much enjoyed the first one - a fun romp - my main criticism being that it was a bit too focussed on set-piece action for my liking. Still, great fun all the same and hopefully some of the kids who discover it will also get into the original stories. I very much enjoyed RDJ's prima facie quixotic Holmes, very nicely rounded. A fresh take on the character, which is a nice thing to see. And not a deerstalker in sight! Don't get me wrong, I love the 'stalker, but I really felt they always did Holmes a dreadful disservice on-screen when they limited him to country attire at all times. I suppose this tradition came in part from the success of Hound of the Baskervilles as a story, set in the countryside where he wears such garb, establishing that as the quintessential Holmesian outfit as much as Bond's DJ or Indian Jones' fedora and leather jacket.

I'm looking forward to seeing the new one, being a huge Sherlock Holmes fan. I do think they could do a better job of making RDJ look more period correct and look cleaner and better groomed. In the canon, 221b Baker street may have been cluttered but Holmes always had a respectable look.

I do like how these new adaptations have Watson more in line with the canon and not the buffoon that others have portrayed.

Of course, this is just my humble opinion. If nothing else it's good to see Holmes presented to a new generation.

Yes - particularly agree with your views on Law's Watson.

Actually, IMO the truest interpretation of the nature of those characters as written was the most recent BBC adaptation. Yes, it reset the stories in early twenty-first century London, but nonetheless the actual personalities of the two men and their relationship to each other was beautifully faithful to the books IMO. I especially loved that they brought out Holmes' sociopathic side: Of course he was an insufferable smartass who didn't care whom he offended - that's why he was so brilliant!

 

[Baron Kurtz]

Good god in heaven, what a dreadful franchise.shakeshead

More importantly the new series of "Sherlock" should run soon.

bk

 

[W-D Forties]

Actually, IMO the truest interpretation of the nature of those characters as written was the most recent BBC adaptation. Yes, it reset the stories in early twenty-first century London, but nonetheless the actual personalities of the two men and their relationship to each other was beautifully faithful to the books IMO. I especially loved that they brought out Holmes' sociopathic side: Of course he was an insufferable smartass who didn't care whom he offended - that's why he was so brilliant![/QUOTE]

I agree wholeheartedly. Despite the updating, they also managed to keep the tone of the original settings. Mark Gatiss to thank for that perhaps. His Lucifer Box series of novels were also great for their detail in this respect.

I was extremely impressed and can't wait for the new series.

 

[Quixote]

I kind of liked the first film. Not as a Sherlock Holmes film though - the "mystery" wasn't really that intriguing - but I enjoyed watching it.

The trailer for the second film looks awful though. It comes off as a period war film with whimsical crossdressing. I also find it dull that they kept professor Moriarty in the shadows for the entire first film, and then he gets revealed unceremoniously in the trailer for the second.

 

[Yeps]

I'm looking forward to seeing the new one, being a huge Sherlock Holmes fan. I do think they could do a better job of making RDJ look more period correct and look cleaner and better groomed. In the canon, 221b Baker street may have been cluttered but Holmes always had a respectable look.

I agree, but that was clearly a conscious choice, to emphasize the contrast between Holmes and Watson, and I think it works alright.

Good god in heaven, what a dreadful franchise.shakeshead

More importantly the new series of "Sherlock" should run soon.

bk

I can't wait for Sherlock to come back, but that won't be till the spring on account of "The Hobbit."

I kind of liked the first film. Not as a Sherlock Holmes film though - the "mystery" wasn't really that intriguing - but I enjoyed watching it.

I thought it portrayed some parts of the character (boxing and such) that had been really neglected. The main problem in my mind was that Sherlock Holmes does not translate well to anything beyond a short story. Even the Hound of the Baskervilles was rather dull, and that was actually by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. It could have been told, and much more effectively, in the same length as a standard Holmes story. If the original author can't make a full length story interesting, how can we expect adapters to be able to do it and remain faithful?

The trailer for the second film looks awful though. It comes off as a period war film with whimsical crossdressing. I also find it dull that they kept professor Moriarty in the shadows for the entire first film, and then he gets revealed unceremoniously in the trailer for the second.

The trailer for the second film looks just as bad as the trailer for the first film. I thought the first one was going to be horrible and focused entirely on action, but they had put every single bit of action (and nothing else) in the trailer. I assume this is the same. Hopefully the mystery is a bit better though, because I think the characters are well realized.

 

[m0nk]

I definitely enjoyed the first one, showing the side of Doyle's Holmes that has been long forgotten (the drug induced rants, odd experimentation, arrogance, fighting style, etc) and can't wait to see the second. Don't get me wrong, Basil Rathbone played an amazing Holme's, and I grew up watching all of those movies, but while he was great, the script writing and interpretation of the character wasn't true to the books.

I'm also a fan of Guy Ritchie, he has a way of putting a story together that makes it "interesting" to watch. The fast paced, sometimes unintelligible banter makes it rather fun, I think...

 

[kinghtalexis]

I liked the movie, but i didn't like the part that the movie wasn't anywhere close to the book.

 

[djd]

I don't know. I read a feature in a film mag with Ritchie promising more action and bigger action scenes. ..... As a big Holmes fan who wants that?? Give me Jeremy Brett's version any day over this dumbed down tripe

 

[Fly Boy]

I'm expecting this to be thoroughly entertaining, without being truly Holmes.

 

[AdrianLvsRocky]

Actually, IMO the truest interpretation of the nature of those characters as written was the most recent BBC adaptation. Yes, it reset the stories in early twenty-first century London, but nonetheless the actual personalities of the two men and their relationship to each other was beautifully faithful to the books IMO. I especially loved that they brought out Holmes' sociopathic side: Of course he was an insufferable smartass who didn't care whom he offended - that's why he was so brilliant!

I agree wholeheartedly. Despite the updating, they also managed to keep the tone of the original settings. Mark Gatiss to thank for that perhaps. His Lucifer Box series of novels were also great for their detail in this respect.

I was extremely impressed and can't wait for the new series.[/QUOTE]

Agreed!

 

[Steve]

I definitely enjoyed the first one, showing the side of Doyle's Holmes that has been long forgotten (the drug induced rants, odd experimentation, arrogance, fighting style, etc) and can't wait to see the second. Don't get me wrong, Basil Rathbone played an amazing Holme's, and I grew up watching all of those movies, but while he was great, the script writing and interpretation of the character wasn't true to the books.

IMO, that was both a strength and a weakness to the film. They physically showed Holmes exercising all of the skills of which the stories simply alluded to him as being capable. The bar boxing in particular was incredibly entertaining, but removed a lot of mystery about Holmes's boxing prowess. A little bit of mystery/storytelling restraint makes characters much more menacing, IMO.

I love Guy Ritchie's treatment of Holmes, but so long as I'm pontificating, I have to say that I also fall into the camp that considers the most recent BBC adaptation to be the best in years. The dynamic between Cumberbatch and Freeman is incredible.

 

[AmateisGal]

I liked the first one, though I think I'll really like the second one!

 

[Shangas]

I watched the first movie and I can't say that I was impressed. It played out more like an action movie than a detective movie.

 

[Hemingway Jones]

More importantly the new series of "Sherlock" should run soon.

bk

Yup, BBC announced it for 2012! Only 3 episodes again but I'll take what I can get.