Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows: Review By slysnide

Based in part on Arthur Conan Doyle's true final Sherlock Holmes tale "The Final Problem" (1893), this game of shadows must build up Professor Moriarty's crime syndicate in such a way that you don't feel like you're missing a few films in between, but no matter how hard they try, you just can't avoid that, no matter how simple the professor's scheme really is. For when adapting such a popular story with a unique spin, your greatest enemy is its reputation.

Robert Downey Jr & Jude Law reprise their roles of the world's smartest detective and his streetwise sidekick employing the same relationship and humor they did before. Nothing is really added to their characters, so don't expect any character development here besides Watson's marriage. For that's really the only dynamic that changes for them, and even that's not saying much as Watson made his intentions clear in the predecessor. However, this doesn't really hurt the film. It is the same pairing employing the same sparring techniques, but it's the right pairing that counts. It's enjoyable, even if it may seem a bit repetitive. After all, we're at twenty-two James Bond films already and I don't see anyone complaining. As for the other reprising roles, you can also expect the same things, if not the same screentime, as is the case with Inspector Lestrade (Eddie Marsan), and more pleasantly Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams). Not pleasant because she's better than Lestrade, but rather because her role is short lived. There are after all lots of women from Doyle's stories to draw from, so no need to bring back old baggage.

Only three of these new characters are from the original stories, such as Sherlock's bizarre bureaucrat brother Mycroft (Stephen Fry) and the gun for hire Sebastian Moran (Paul Anderson) whom appeared in just one story, but doesn't amount to anything more than a gun for hire here. Now the brand new character who has nothing new to bring to characters like her is the gypsy fortune teller Sim (Noomi Rapace). She's rather boring and naive; just another tag along character who contributes nothing to the story besides droll dialogue, as it's Holmes who deduces the plot points surrounding her character's plight. Now I know this all sounds rather negative, but it stresses the point that this is a true buddy movie. Sherlock & Watson really take center stage in this story, with perhaps even more screentime together here going on-on-one than in the predecessor. And because it's the right pairing, it's enjoyable, even if the supporting roles are somewhat underwhelming. Though these films must stress that Sherlock Holmes is the genius, so more emphasis on him is to be expected.

Now that third new addition is Sherlock's arch nemesis James Moriarty (Jared Harris), a mathematics professor who's fiendishly clever, and whom Sherlock believes is responsible for a series of terrorist attacks which are pushing France & Germany closer to war. Being 1891, the Industrial Revolution is in full swing, and a mathematics professor who's very charming, wealthy, has got connections high up, and has a squeaky clean reputation is the perfect person to take advantage of everyone simultaneously. But to what end? Jared Harris conveys a very unscrupulous characterization as the story is told from Sherlock's perspective. Moriarty therefore doesn't seem to have any redeemable qualities, but is just normal enough to not be suspected of tyranny. For remember, those attributes can be bestowed on numerous people throughout history. And while I was initially surprised at Jared Harris' casting, it made complete sense for the audience, as subconsciously we wouldn't think much of Moriarty either if we weren't too familiar with the actor inhabiting the role, such as so often imagining exactly what the guy's going to do cause we've seen the actor play the same role the same way a million times before. That's not the case here, and it works well for the audience. However, I must say I wanted more out of Moriarty. His scheme may have been brilliant, and he may have been given enough screentime to serve the story, you just can't help but want more. Similar to the Riddler's role in "Hush" (2003), who only has two scenes, but the latter is brilliant and leaves you wanting more. Now Morarity has more screentime here than the Riddler had pages there, but you get the point. For the Napoleon of Crime you've got to play a game of give and take. You want to see this brilliant dark mastermind like Blackwood from the predecessor, but at the same time that wouldn't fly for this type of villain. He needs to be underwhelming and can't stand out in the crowd. So as far as his scheme goes, and the way he played his role, Jared Harris gave the character justice, and was pleasing to watch.

Director Guy Ritchie improved on lots of things with this sequel. First and foremost was the visuals. Rather than remaining in a bleak smog & smoke covered gray London, we actually see sunlight, rolling green pastures, a forest like the ardennes, and a snowy mountain fortress. So major props there. Secondly he brought Sherlock back to the level of detective rather than action hero. The plot of the last film seemed too 'James Bond' like in its execution. Sure the plot is far more realistic and feasible here, but it wasn't so big to the point where it seemed silly that a socially awkward shut in coke addict could bring him down. For that's really who Sherlock is. Just such a person would suspect that Blackwood's black magic was bull, or that Moriarty's perfect reputation around town is bull, but unlike other cases, none had gotten as high stakes as Blackwood's case. It was a classic Bond climax where Sherlock had to foil the villain's plans in the nick of time, and kill him before sundown. Not that it made for a bad movie, it wasn't, but it also wasn't classic Sherlock. Here, the stakes aren't nearly as high, for as Moriarty says, his ultimatum is inevitable whether he brings it about or not. So this allowed the story to really become a true detective story rather than a fast paced actioneer like the predecessor or the Bond films. Ergo, this leads into the third great improvement, being Sherlock's piece de resistance. It's huge, classic Sherlock, and is a perfect substitute for a fast paced action packed climax. Fans of the original stories know exactly what I'm talking about. This put the greatest grin on my face all year from watching films. And it'll be tough to beat for a third outing. The classic detective revealing his methods and conclusions rather than an elongated duel to the death. And while such a riveting duel atop Reichenbach Falls would've been great as much fan fiction has illustrated {as Conan Doyle only implied it}, even that scene in the original story had no piece de resistance. It was just Sherlock meeting Moriarity for a duel to the death for the hell of it. Here we get a detective giving the greatest one-ups-manship ever. And that aint a spoiler as Sherlock is the greatest detective in literature, so it's not so much if Sherlock can solve the case, but rather how that keeps you intrigued.

The title itself refers to a game of chess. You may be able to predict the types of moves your opponent will make, but you can't see what specific play will serve as their victory against you. Such a scenario plays out here in that in the first half of this film, Guy Ritchie has to build up Moriarty's reputation through Sherlock Holmes' detective skills, and frequently uses Sherlock's reputation as an out to not extrapolating on Moriarty's plans. He can just say that because Sherlock's a genius he figured out in the interim between films, which is pretty much what happens. Now when you think about it, Moriarity's attributes makes such a scheme easy to accomplish such that you need no elongated extrapolation, but the fact that he's referred to as the Napoleon of Crime just begs for it. So in that sense some fans may be displeased. Overall, the film is great as a third act. Just if they had a second act building up Moriarty with a different main villain to keep things interesting and non-repetive, then this film would be perfect. On the flip side of that, the fact that the plan doesn't require extrapolation and is as large scale as it is thus makes it live up to Moriarty's reputation. So that's a double edged sword. Some will be pleased, and others will be irked. But either way, this film certainly goes to show that a screenwriter's greatest enemy is the reputation of the work they're adapting.