PDA

View Full Version : S. Holmes: A Game Of Shadows



Thanqol
2012-01-05, 02:37 AM
Non spoilers: This movie was absolutely ace and you should totally watch it.


Actual spoilers below

*

*

*

Just got back from the first day screening and absolutely loved it. A brilliant adaptation. I admit, I was worried when I heard the premise. In the book, the first time Moriarty entered the scene was when his empire was already crumbling and he was out for revenge. Further, a lot of the book takes place through the medium of letters. A straight up conversion would have been awful (and a lot of Holmes movies are awful). I was also worried by the past film - I liked that one, but I wasn't sure how they'd handle the iconic villain.

But the way it worked out was ace. Best movie I've seen in a real while. Consistently hilarious, wonderfully paced, fantastic action scenes. Moriarty had an absolutely sublime establish-villainy scene. It takes real skill to make Victorian era firearms seem as menacing as modern assault rifles, but they managed it - the shootouts were as intense as anything out of the 21st century.

But best of all was the homosexual subtext. That was really what made the entire movie. Never called attention to directly, completely misdirected from both the characters, but I was not expecting to see Holmes and Watson waltzing on the big screen. I was impressed at how well they did that; somehow absolutely confirmed and absolutely denied at the same time. Goodness.

Anyone else see it? What did you think?

Fri
2012-01-05, 04:41 AM
Yes, it's a cool enough sequel, but I prefer the first movie. The case is simply cooler for me. Really just that.

and spoiler

I kept waiting for Irene Adler to pop out and show that her apparent death is just another ruse. I can't believe they simply killed her like that. Even now, I still wonder if they're going to make her appear in the third movie, if there ever any plan for another sequel.

Bouregard
2012-01-05, 05:13 AM
Non spoilers: This movie was absolutely ace and you should totally watch it.

Anyone else see it? What did you think?


And how I liked it... Good action, a good adaption of the books and great actors.
I really liked Mycroft, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle never quite managed to explain the character to me, however after seeing the movie i reread some old parts again and I start to like him, awkward yet brilliant.

And I really liked the part in the train. Had to rewatch the trailer a few dozen times just to see it again. I will definitly buy the blu ray once available.

Sunken Valley
2012-01-05, 05:53 AM
I don't think they are planning on making a three-quel. Nobody's confirmed it like they instantly did for the 2nd film. Besides who would Holmes fight. They killed Moriarty.

kpenguin
2012-01-05, 05:55 AM
I don't think they are planning on making a three-quel. Nobody's confirmed it like they instantly did for the 2nd film. Besides who would Holmes fight. They killed Moriarty.

Holmes survived the fall.. its quite possible Moriarty did too. He did in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, for instance...

Alternatively, he could be cloned in the distant future as Sherlock Holmes is revitalized after being preserved for centuries in beeswax

SHERLOCK HOLMES THREE: THE TWENTY SECOND CENTURY

Mauve Shirt
2012-01-05, 05:55 AM
This movie made me so happy I exploded. :smallbiggrin:

Thanqol
2012-01-05, 06:19 AM
I don't think they are planning on making a three-quel. Nobody's confirmed it like they instantly did for the 2nd film. Besides who would Holmes fight. They killed Moriarty.

The Hound of the Baskervilles!

I have no idea how they'd do that story in this series' style. But I can imagine Holmes slow-motion predict-fighting a giant dog. And that would be the greatest thing ever.

It tries to bite me. Because it's a dog. Punch to the muzzle. It tries to bite me again. Because it's a dog. Run screaming over treacherous bog water...

Mauve Shirt
2012-01-05, 06:47 AM
The Hound of the Baskervilles!

I have no idea how they'd do that story in this series' style. But I can imagine Holmes slow-motion predict-fighting a giant dog. And that would be the greatest thing ever.

It tries to bite me. Because it's a dog. Punch to the muzzle. It tries to bite me again. Because it's a dog. Run screaming over treacherous bog water...

I can't draw, but I NEED to draw this. :smallamused:

Thanqol
2012-01-05, 07:03 AM
I can't draw, but I NEED to draw this. :smallamused:

Give me a few days to get home to my tablet and I'll see what I can do :smallwink:

The Glyphstone
2012-01-05, 07:08 AM
Holmes survived the fall.. its quite possible Moriarty did too. He did in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, for instance...

Alternatively, he could be cloned in the distant future as Sherlock Holmes is revitalized after being preserved for centuries in beeswax

SHERLOCK HOLMES THREE: THE TWENTY SECOND CENTURY

It was honey, actually.
[/lovedthatshowasakid]

Teron
2012-01-05, 07:11 AM
Holmes survived the fall.. its quite possible Moriarty did too. He did in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, for instance...

Alternatively, he could be cloned in the distant future as Sherlock Holmes is revitalized after being preserved for centuries in beeswax

SHERLOCK HOLMES THREE: THE TWENTY SECOND CENTURY
Heh, I remember that show. I wonder now if it was any good... it's not like I could tell at the age I was then.

Nothing to say about the movie, I'm afraid, as I haven't seen it yet.

KillianHawkeye
2012-01-05, 08:22 AM
But best of all was the homosexual subtext. That was really what made the entire movie. Never called attention to directly, completely misdirected from both the characters, but I was not expecting to see Holmes and Watson waltzing on the big screen. I was impressed at how well they did that; somehow absolutely confirmed and absolutely denied at the same time.

Two men dancing is not necessarily homosexual. Especially when it is just a cover for them to discuss their plan in the middle of a formal ballroom.

Mauve Shirt
2012-01-05, 08:27 AM
True, two men dancing is not necessarily homosexual. And Watson was getting married. Still, this movie seemed to me to be even less heterosexual than the first. And it was excellent. :smallcool:

Thanqol
2012-01-05, 08:42 AM
Two men dancing is not necessarily homosexual. Especially when it is just a cover for them to discuss their plan in the middle of a formal ballroom.

Oh sure. There's a perfectly innocent explanation. And the whole kidnapping him from his wife to take him honeymooning in Paris, constantly asking if Watson enjoyed this more than he would have his honeymoon, the crossdressing, the "I'm sure he would have preferred to come with us" when discussing the honeymoon...

Oh, sure, it was all business. It was all completely innocent. That's what makes it excellently done. It was a deliberate tease, the entire way through. It'll never happen, and yet it somehow happened.

DiscipleofBob
2012-01-05, 09:39 AM
It's scary how much the movie actually gets right from the book.

The homosexual subtext was in the books as well. Wattson went through a number of wives, each of whom Holmes disapproved of and each of which died either in childbirth or by a freak carriage accident or something, and each time when he informed Holmes, the latter would shrug it off as yesterday's news, and you're left wondering, "There's no way Sherlock could have assassinated someone by childbirth... Is there?"

I'm glad they killed off Irene Adler. It gave Moriarty points for villain intelligence, and really Irene Adler should never have been in the movies in the first place (at least not as a spunky Carmen Sandiego). Holmes really just hated women with the exception of Adler. He had a grudging respect for her after the two matched wits, but there was never any romantic connection between the two in the books, seeing as Adler got married and left the country shortly after they met.

The only complaint I have about the movie is the parts that just go on full Michael Bay explosion mode. Of course, that climax more than made up for everything.

Fri
2012-01-05, 10:04 AM
It's scary how much the movie actually gets right from the book.

The homosexual subtext was in the books as well. Wattson went through a number of wives, each of whom Holmes disapproved of and each of which died either in childbirth or by a freak carriage accident or something, and each time when he informed Holmes, the latter would shrug it off as yesterday's news, and you're left wondering, "There's no way Sherlock could have assassinated someone by childbirth... Is there?"

I'm glad they killed off Irene Adler. It gave Moriarty points for villain intelligence, and really Irene Adler should never have been in the movies in the first place (at least not as a spunky Carmen Sandiego). Holmes really just hated women with the exception of Adler. He had a grudging respect for her after the two matched wits, but there was never any romantic connection between the two in the books, seeing as Adler got married and left the country shortly after they met.

The only complaint I have about the movie is the parts that just go on full Michael Bay explosion mode. Of course, that climax more than made up for everything.

Actually, the part about irene is the thing that bothers me in the first movie as well.

but really I just don't expect of her getting dropped by a bus just like that

Surrealistik
2012-01-05, 10:18 AM
I don't think any interpretation of Holmes will ever top Star Trek's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jteYwm_elwo).

Haruki-kun
2012-01-05, 10:21 AM
I loved this movie, did not see the first one. But I do have to say the ending.... was I the only one that felt the ending was kinda...? I mean... (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NoOneCouldSurviveThat)


Alternatively, he could be cloned in the distant future as Sherlock Holmes is revitalized after being preserved for centuries in beeswax

SHERLOCK HOLMES THREE: THE TWENTY SECOND CENTURY

http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t288/Vaarsuvius89/whathassciencedone.png

The Glyphstone
2012-01-05, 10:25 AM
I loved this movie, did not see the first one. But I do have to say the ending.... was I the only one that felt the ending was kinda...? I mean... (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NoOneCouldSurviveThat)



http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t288/Vaarsuvius89/whathassciencedone.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_Holmes_in_the_22nd_Century

Haruki-kun
2012-01-05, 10:38 AM
Sorry, we didn't get that show in Mexico... Figured it was referencing something, but I didn't know what.

dehro
2012-01-05, 01:09 PM
it was like watching the bastard son of Wild Wild West and rush hour...with a bit of Hero thrown in as well.

I've yet to decide whether I'm sold on this style (I haven't watched the first one.

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll
2012-01-05, 01:30 PM
T'was awesome. Kinda glad they killed of Rachel MacAdams early, as she's a bit... flat in acting style. Noomi Rapace was awesome, and Kelly Rielly was much better than in the first movie. I HATED her in the first movie.

Kairaven
2012-01-05, 02:10 PM
not so much homosexual overtone, rather the ultimate expression of Bro-love.

Of course, there are those that would argue that ultimate bro-love is simply repressed homosexuality.

I can almost hear that unspoken "Bro! this is for you!" right before the plunge.

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll
2012-01-05, 04:44 PM
Nah, right before the plunge, that look is "Oh, I forgot to take my partner into account. Too late now..."

Because the whole first fight, they were both assuming the fight would be one-on-one, not considering that Watson might jump in.

ninja_penguin
2012-01-05, 04:54 PM
I had assumed that look was more of a 'oh blast it he's going to have to see this' look of regret, and would have preferred to just disappear off the balcony.

That said, the Holmes Moriarty head fight was my favorite part of the movie.

Shyftir
2012-01-06, 06:51 PM
I loved this movie, did not see the first one. But I do have to say the ending.... was I the only one that felt the ending was kinda...? I mean... (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NoOneCouldSurviveThat)


It was a nod to how Sir Arthur Conan Doyle attempted to kill off Sherlock in just that same way, but popular appeal was so great that he brought him back anyway. It's okay to ignore reality like "hard water" (Falling that far into water still results in death by massive trauma.) Because no matter how fast your mind is, fighting is done by instinct and muscle memory with a bit of situational awareness. It's Rule of Cool.

Mutant Sheep
2012-01-06, 08:08 PM
I don't think any interpretation of Holmes will ever top Star Trek's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jteYwm_elwo).

Thank you so much for this.:smallbiggrin:

Sherlock Holmes in the 22nd was an awesome show. Terribly written futuristic redos of poorly done classics? Recipe for awesome tv show.:smallcool:

Atreyu the Masked LLama
2012-01-09, 12:18 PM
It was a nod to how Sir Arthur Conan Doyle attempted to kill off Sherlock in just that same way, but popular appeal was so great that he brought him back anyway.

Technically, popular appeal was so great that a company paid Sir Arthur lots of money to bring him back. Sir Arthur was done writing stories for the Great Detective and had wanted to move on to other things.

As for the movie, I enjoyed it. I thought it expounded well on what the first one established and brought back some good running gags. I did have one problem with it, though.

In the first movie, its revealed that everything that happened was orchestrated by Moriarty so he could steal a piece of the machine for radiowave technology. However, that technology never came up in the second movie. Did I miss something in the second movie that referenced it? (Details may be slightly off, my apologies if they are.)

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll
2012-01-09, 08:29 PM
In the first movie, its revealed that everything that happened was orchestrated by Moriarty so he could steal a piece of the machine for radiowave technology. However, that technology never came up in the second movie. Did I miss something in the second movie that referenced it? (Details may be slightly off, my apologies if they are.)

No, I don't believe you did miss anything... Huh, I hadn't thought of that.

comicshorse
2012-01-09, 09:15 PM
Technically, popular appeal was so great that a company paid Sir Arthur lots of money to bring him back. Sir Arthur was done writing stories for the Great Detective and had wanted to move on to other things.

As for the movie, I enjoyed it. I thought it expounded well on what the first one established and brought back some good running gags. I did have one problem with it, though.

In the first movie, its revealed that everything that happened was orchestrated by Moriarty so he could steal a piece of the machine for radiowave technology. However, that technology never came up in the second movie. Did I miss something in the second movie that referenced it? (Details may be slightly off, my apologies if they are.)

Didn't they use a remote controlled bomb to blow up the meeting where Moran shoots the target as well ?

Renegade Paladin
2012-01-09, 09:40 PM
and spoiler

I kept waiting for Irene Adler to pop out and show that her apparent death is just another ruse. I can't believe they simply killed her like that. Even now, I still wonder if they're going to make her appear in the third movie, if there ever any plan for another sequel.
Moriarty's too competent for that. If he meant to kill her, she died.

The Durvin
2012-01-09, 09:47 PM
The only complaint I have about the movie is the parts that just go on full Michael Bay explosion mode.

I felt like it was not so much Michael Bay as it was Guy Ritchie. I'm pretty impressed with him; I mean, his previous movies were pretty good, but I didn't expect him to make a good movie out of Sherlock Holmes. (Didn't actually expect anybody to make a good movie out of Sherlock Holmes.) The running-through-exploding-woods scene went on for longer than it should have, and I find it highly unlikely that Moriarty would use a machine gun on a train, but still.

That said, there were two issues I had with it:

1. If they were going to be blowing up that meeting in Paris anyway, why did they shoot the one guy? Yes, an explosion is a good cover for a murder, but if you're going to blow a room up, why bother shooting the guy with a weird gun from a peculiar perch when your adversary is the world's greatest Aspie detective?

2. And this is a minor one...but the guy playing Moriarty, with that weird smile and that beard, kept reminding me of Zach Galiafankis, and I kept expecting him to do something funny. To be honest, that might have made the movie better for me, since you could assume Holmes was about to do something funny, and it made them better mirrors, but still.

Mewtarthio
2012-01-09, 11:35 PM
1. If they were going to be blowing up that meeting in Paris anyway, why did they shoot the one guy? Yes, an explosion is a good cover for a murder, but if you're going to blow a room up, why bother shooting the guy with a weird gun from a peculiar perch when your adversary is the world's greatest Aspie detective?

Because bombs are a pretty lousy way to kill a particular target. Unless it's a really big bomb or you have some way to ensure it detonates at point-blank range, there's no guarantee your target will die. They could simply be injured, for example. The bombing in the movie would have killed a few random people at the meeting and injured a whole bunch of others, but Moriarity could not have been sure exactly which people would get killed. And, remember, that's an advantage for him: He doesn't want anyone to realize that the target was explicitly assassinated. The bomb makes all the deaths look like random casualties, while the sniper ensures the target is one of those casualties.

Nightmarenny
2012-01-10, 01:16 AM
Yeah explosions in movies are not the same as Baysplosions. Baysposions are pointly and just there for spectacle. They are pointless and overly dramatic. Holmes has a lot of explosion but they are all germane to the plot and understated. You know in the beginning were a shop explodes and its depicted mostly as concussive force and dust? That's not how bay rolls. If he were doing the movie it would be a giant fire ball.

AgentofHellfire
2012-01-11, 03:58 PM
1. If they were going to be blowing up that meeting in Paris anyway, why did they shoot the one guy? Yes, an explosion is a good cover for a murder, but if you're going to blow a room up, why bother shooting the guy with a weird gun from a peculiar perch when your adversary is the world's greatest Aspie detective?

Apparently, Moriarty is a perfectionist.

Karoht
2012-01-13, 06:40 PM
I don't think they are planning on making a three-quel. Nobody's confirmed it like they instantly did for the 2nd film. Besides who would Holmes fight. They killed Moriarty.

Source: Wiki

Professor Moriarty's first appearance and his ultimate end occurred in Doyle's story "The Final Problem."
Moriarty plays a direct role in only one other of Doyle's Holmes stories: "The Valley of Fear", which was set before "The Final Problem", but published afterwards.
The original Sherlock Holmes stories consist of fifty-six short stories and four novels written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
Relevance: Moriarty is not the 'main villian' as he features in two stories, representing little more than 5% of the works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle.
Moriarty is the most famous of the Holmes villians because for whatever reason, popular media latched on to him. Likely something to do with that title 'the Napoleon of Crime' that Holmes gave him.
In other words, Moriarty was not the 'main villian' and there indeed can be films without him.

Also, Holmes never said "Elementary dear Watson" in any of Doyle's works, again, popular media screwed that up. I'm extremely happy he has never said this in these new films, the minute he does is the minute I walk out of the theatre. Thankfully I don't think that will ever occur.

cleric_of_BANJO
2012-01-14, 05:18 PM
Am I really the only one that didn't like this movie? The humor was well placed and the fight scenes were cool, but it wasn't a good movie overall. The plot was needlessly complicated, the science was bogus (though not nearly as much as in the first movie) and the dialogue... sucked. When Moriarty says (and I'm paraphrasing) "You're not just fighting me - you're fighting the human condition" I actually burst out laughing in the theater. It was one of the worst and most poorly scripted reveals I've ever seen. And there were several moments like this, that were so unbelievably cheesy I couldn't take the movie seriously.

One great thing about the movie though: Stephen Frye was in it. That sort of made it more enjoyable, but I was still very disappointed.

Karoht
2012-01-16, 06:57 PM
Am I really the only one that didn't like this movie? The humor was well placed and the fight scenes were cool, but it wasn't a good movie overall. The plot was needlessly complicated...It's Holmes? Complicated plots were sort of his thing.


...the science was bogus (though not nearly as much as in the first movie) If anything there was less science this go around, not more. And bogus science was also kind of a big deal in Holmes stories as well, though Holmes spent more time making fun of and dissecting said bogus science and informing the audience (blandly) about how real science worked.


and the dialogue... sucked. When Moriarty says (and I'm paraphrasing) "You're not just fighting me - you're fighting the human condition" I actually burst out laughing in the theater. It was one of the worst and most poorly scripted reveals I've ever seen.Meh. I thought it really added to the Hubris of Moriarty and implied a bit of a savior complex. Added depth of character for me.


One great thing about the movie though: Stephen Frye was in it. That sort of made it more enjoyable, but I was still very disappointed.Interestingly enough, in the stories, Mycroft was actually stated as being much much smarter than Holmes. By Sherlock himself no less. However he suffers from a lack of initiative. He's lazy beyond belief (hence the nudity in the film) and is probably due to the fact that if the British government could have used him as an income tax return processing computer, odds are they would have. Brilliant at parsing out facts and figures, has no attatchment to them because of the drudgery involved, and no real initiative to further investigate something.

That said, I do hope he features in more Holmes films.

WalkingTarget
2012-01-16, 11:24 PM
Interestingly enough, in the stories, Mycroft was actually stated as being much much smarter than Holmes. By Sherlock himself no less. However he suffers from a lack of initiative. He's lazy beyond belief (hence the nudity in the film) and is probably due to the fact that if the British government could have used him as an income tax return processing computer, odds are they would have. Brilliant at parsing out facts and figures, has no attatchment to them because of the drudgery involved, and no real initiative to further investigate something.

His job was stated, metaphorically, to be omniscience. All of the governmental departments report to him and his information processing capabilities are utilized by the British government. Occasionally, for all intents and purposes, he is the government.

Karoht
2012-01-16, 11:39 PM
His job was stated, metaphorically, to be omniscience. All of the governmental departments report to him and his information processing capabilities are utilized by the British government. Occasionally, for all intents and purposes, he is the government.Exactly, although that last part I just assumed was an exaggeration on the part of the wiki article I read regarding the character. Of course then Holmes is also quoted saying something similar in the film, which I also assumed was exaggeration on the part of the film. If that is canon, well, there you go.

WalkingTarget
2012-01-17, 12:13 AM
Exactly, although that last part I just assumed was an exaggeration on the part of the wiki article I read regarding the character. Of course then Holmes is also quoted saying something similar in the film, which I also assumed was exaggeration on the part of the film. If that is canon, well, there you go.

*dusts off copy of Holmes stories*

The Adventure of the Bruce-Partington Plans:

"By the way, do you know what Mycroft is?"

"I had some vague recollection of an explanation at the time of the Adventure of the Greek Interpreter.
You told me that he had some small office under the British Government."

Holmes chuckled.

"I did not know you quite so well in those days. One has to be discreet when one talks of high matters of state. You are right in thinking that he is under the British Government. You would also be right in a sense if you said that occasionally he is the British Government."

"My dear Holmes!"

"I thought I might surprise you. Mycroft draws four hundred and fifty pounds a year, remains a subordinate, has no ambitions of any kind, will receive neither honour nor title, but remains the most indispensable man in the country."

"But how?"

"Well, his position is unique. He has made it for himself. There has never been anything like it before, nor will be again. He has the tidiest and most orderly brain, with the greatest capacity for storing facts, of any man living. The same great powers which I have turned to the detection of crime he has used for this particular business. The conclusions of every department are passed to him, and he is the central exchange, the clearing-house, which makes out the balance. All other men are specialists, but his specialization is omniscience. We well suppose that a Minister needs information as to a point which involves the Navy, India, Canada and the bimetallic question; he could get his separate advices from various departments upon each, but only Mycroft can focus them all, and say off-hand how each factor would affect the other. They began by using him as a short-cut, a convenience; now he has made himself an essential. In that great brain of his everything is pigeon-holed, and can be handed out in an instant. Again and again his word has decided the national policy. He lives in it. He thinks of nothing else save when, as an intellectual exercise, he unbends if I call upon him and ask him to advise me on one of my little problems."

***

So, yeah. Mycroft really is all that and a packet of crisps.

DiscipleofBob
2012-01-17, 09:23 AM
I don't think they are planning on making a three-quel. Nobody's confirmed it like they instantly did for the 2nd film. Besides who would Holmes fight. They killed Moriarty.

I know this quote's from the first page, but I see no one's pointed out the obvious yet:

Moriarty may have died in the fall, but Moriarty's sniper, Sebastian Moran survived. In fact, in the books, Sebastian Moran is the villain of the very first story after The Final Problem.

Villain found.

Dienekes
2012-01-17, 11:55 AM
So, yeah. Mycroft really is all that and a packet of crisps.

And besides one scene where they're trying to outdo each other none of Mycroft's genius really appears. His laziness was self evident though. Personally I though Stephen Fry was one of the weakest bit of the movie. He wasn't funny, wasn't interesting, he was just sort of there. And in general I really like Stephen Fry, but this, meh.

Ultimately I felt this movie had some of the same problems as the first one. It was an enjoyable action movie. But where was the mystery? This is Sherlock Holmes he pretty much popularized the genre and yet there is no mystery we can all pretty much tell what Moriarty is trying to do.

Also, while Holmes, Watson, and Mrs Watson where entertaining I never really felt for the other characters. It's a pity they dropped off Mrs Watson so soon, as she was a rather enjoyable character for her 1 scene in the train. But besides her, Mycroft was dull, Moran was boring (at least try to make him intimidating), Moriarty was just alright. He did come across as a genius and his scene where they both thought out their attacks was great.

Overall, I did enjoy it. I really did, I think I've just been spoiled by the Sherlock tv show.

erikun
2012-01-17, 01:46 PM
I can almost hear that unspoken "Bro! this is for you!" right before the plunge.
I took it more as a "You knew this was coming" kind of a look. I mean, throughout the whole movie, Holmes was talking about how this would be his last job with Watson and everything...

Also, I liked the movie. I actually liked both movies, because as a friend pointed out, Holmes was portrayed differently in each. In the first, he was on top of his game and mysterious assassin killing people through unknown causes. In this one, he has reached his limit fighting against a better-known opponent with much better resources.

Honestly, I'm not all that sure I'd like to see a sequel. Yes, it could be done well, but it could also end up re-treading ground and turning out as good, but otherwise similar to one of the first two.

comicshorse
2012-01-17, 02:40 PM
A Moran was boring (at least try to make him intimidating),

This was definitley one of the disapointments of the film for me, Moran is meant to be one of the most dangerous men in the world but in the film he was just so bland.

Karoht
2012-01-17, 07:13 PM
This was definitley one of the disapointments of the film for me, Moran is meant to be one of the most dangerous men in the world but in the film he was just so bland.He was also remarkably discrete for such a man, normally used to shooting at people, in a shooting war. Discrete typically comes off as bland, if the person attempting to be discrete. Also, most of his best work is probably done off-camera and merely implied. What, you think all those other bombings were just bombings and not more sniper kills covered by explosions? The minute it is implied that he shot Meinhardt, it's implied that he's probably shot many others involved in or around those bombings.

Then there are the anarchists themselves, who build the bombs. And while I'm sure that Moriarty has a little something to do with the intimidation keeping them in check, which rook do you think he used to intimidate them in the first place?

But then one must bring up the logical question. How did Moriarty and Moran cross paths? Amazing sniper from Watson's past, working with an astronomy professor? Hmmm. Astronomy and ballistics do have some relationships, I suppose it wouldn't have been that difficult for Moriarty to be put in touch with a ballistics specialist for some experiment or another, or nefarious scheme disguised as an experiment. Still, that seems a bit too simple for these two to have simply crossed paths.
But if there is a better explanation that I seem to have missed, or even a canon explanation, well then I'm fully prepared to be corrected on the matter.

SlyGuyMcFly
2012-01-17, 07:29 PM
But if there is a better explanation that I seem to have missed, or even a canon explanation, well then I'm fully prepared to be corrected on the matter.

Moran was dishonourably discharged, and probably worked with assorted criminal elements until Moriarty got wind of him via his innumerable underworld contacts. That's my guess, at least.

WalkingTarget
2012-01-17, 08:00 PM
Moran was dishonourably discharged, and probably worked with assorted criminal elements until Moriarty got wind of him via his innumerable underworld contacts. That's my guess, at least.

Something like that. The Adventure of the Empty House (the story that ended the Great Hiatus and is the one that featured Moran) has a brief biography that Holmes relates to Watson, but only mentions that Moriarty recruited Moran after "He retired, came to London, and again acquired an evil name" so the supposition that it was at that point that Moriarty became aware of him seems as sound as any alternative.

Friv
2012-01-18, 09:21 AM
Ultimately I felt this movie had some of the same problems as the first one. It was an enjoyable action movie. But where was the mystery? This is Sherlock Holmes he pretty much popularized the genre and yet there is no mystery we can all pretty much tell what Moriarty is trying to do.

This was actually my only complaint with the movie as well. It wasn't a Sherlock Holmes movie, it was a James Bond movie with Sherlock as the protagonist. He was running around Europe foiling a madman's scheme for world domination, with each location giving him exactly the information needed to reach the next location.

Which isn't to say I didn't like it. Action Holmes is a ton of fun, and I would not mind a third installment. But it was a little odd.

BRC
2012-01-18, 07:38 PM
"You're not just fighting me - you're fighting the human condition" I actually burst out laughing in the theater. It was one of the worst and most poorly scripted reveals I've ever seen. And there were several moments like this, that were so unbelievably cheesy I couldn't take the movie seriously.

How was that a "Reveal"? That was just Moriarty taunting Holmes/a reference to the fact that eventually there WILL be a war on an industrial scale, World War I, Moriarty is just trying to start it earlier.
That said, I didn't really care for their Moriarty. RDJ's Holmes is a runaway train of personality quirks. I was told that Moriarty was intelligent, and I knew he was, because he was Professor Moriarty,but the acting didn't really come off as the type of man who could bring the western world to it's knees. It seemed like they were trying to set up a Subdued Moriarty to contrast with RDJ's Manic Holmes, but it just seemed like Crazy Holmes vs some guy who talks slowly. It wasn't bad, but it was kind of underwhelming. In a way, Moran seemed to compliment this, an understated Lieutenant for an understated mastermind. In a way, all the toned-down characters just served to elevate RDJ's hammy acting. When even the Napoleon of Crime talks like a DMV employee, the crazy guy seems that much crazier.

An interesting contrast can be drawn with the BBC Sherlock, which had Holmes as subdued and withdrawn, and Moriarty as extroverted and manic.


As for the Sniping, I thought that made perfect sense, it's a way to ensure the Target is killed.


The big thing that bothered me was the Anachronistic weapons, specifically the handheld automatics. I keep thinking back to the scene at the German weapons factory. I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure they did not have handheld automatic weapons like Watson was running around with at that time. I know the last one had a radio-detonated gas bomb, but that was a major plot point, so it's excusable. As it is, I can't think of any way giving Watson an assault rifle really improved the scene. He could just as easily been shooting at offscreen germans with a standard rifle or a handgun.

All in all, it's a good movie. It's not exactly a Sherlock Holmes movie as one traditionally considers it, but at this point I'm willing to consider Action Holmes as a perfectly valid take on the character.

And it WAS true to Holmes in one very important way.

Despite all the running and shooting and explosions. Moriarty's real defeat was not due to combat. His scheme was not foiled because Holmes and Watson were able to outfight him and his minions. Yes, there was a fight, but by that point the damage had been done.
In the end, the Napoleon of Crime was brought down, not by fists and guns, but by observation and trickery. Whether or not Watson could tackle somebody was not the question, the question was could he, using the techniques Holmes taught him, identify the assassin while Holmes kept Moriarty busy. Morairty's empire was dissolved because Holmes spotted the codebook and made a deduction, then slipped the ledger from Moriarty's pocket.

Were this truly an action movie, the plot would have climaxed with a fight, and the danger would have been overcome through violence. Instead, it climaxed with a deduction and a revelation of things already done. The violence was just window dressing.

Was it perfect, no, but nothing is.

Talya
2012-01-20, 03:27 PM
Moriarty's too competent for that. If he meant to kill her, she died.

Not saying I think she's alive, but this logic doesn't work...simply because, ultimately, Sherlock Holmes was more competent than Moriarty, but Irene Adler was more competent than Sherlock Holmes.

Mewtarthio
2012-01-20, 03:54 PM
Not saying I think she's alive, but this logic doesn't work...simply because, ultimately, Sherlock Holmes was more competent than Moriarty, but Irene Adler was more competent than Sherlock Holmes.

It's not a question of who's more competent. It's a question of whether Moriarty is competent enough. Moriarty had Irene trapped in a restaurant full of his loyal henchmen; he'd have to be severely incompetent to botch that assassination.

Besides, he tells Holmes that "she succumbed in a few hours," implying that he had a trained doctor show up a few hours later to confirm her death. The only way Irene could be alive would be if Moriarty was deliberately faking her death.

SlyGuyMcFly
2012-01-20, 04:12 PM
Besides, he tells Holmes that "she succumbed in a few hours," implying that he had a trained doctor show up a few hours later to confirm her death. The only way Irene could be alive would be if Moriarty was deliberately faking her death.

That's basically the tiny, tiny sliver of hope I still have. We're going on Moriarty's word that she's dead, and he may have been lying to Holmes just to shake him up.

It's slim, but I really don't want Adler to be dead. Her interactions with Holmes were just too entertaining.

Janus
2012-01-20, 04:37 PM
I loved this movie, did not see the first one. But I do have to say the ending.... was I the only one that felt the ending was kinda...? I mean... (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NoOneCouldSurviveThat)
I saw it a second time, and this was my thought-
The shot of Holmes and Moriarty falling is Watson's imagination. The reality is Holmes (and maybe Moriarty) didn't fall all the way.
Yes, it's implausible for there to be anything for them to catch and save themselves, but I think it's more plausible than falling the whole way and coming out of it alive.

Talya
2012-01-20, 04:59 PM
I saw it a second time, and this was my thought-
The shot of Holmes and Moriarty falling is Watson's imagination. The reality is Holmes (and maybe Moriarty) didn't fall all the way.
Yes, it's implausible for there to be anything for them to catch and save themselves, but I think it's more plausible than falling the whole way and coming out of it alive.

The ending is a nod to the history of the character.

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle killed off Holmes unequivicably and intentionally, not intending to bring him back, but bowed to public pressure and brought him back after all.

Holmes did die. Then it was retconned into his survival. The movie doesn't need to be any different.

Personally, I find this touch rather brilliant.

Athaniar
2012-01-20, 05:31 PM
I found this to be an great movie, better than the first. Not much to add, really, other than I was hoping Moriarty would look more like in contemporary illustrations (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/Pd_moriarty_by_Signey_Paget.gif) than a homage to his possible inspiration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Newcomb).

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll
2012-01-20, 06:01 PM
I didn't like Adler at all in the first game, I thought she wasn't well acted. So, I approve of her being killed off. Rapace made a much better female lead than McAdams did.

Dienekes
2012-01-20, 06:48 PM
I didn't like Adler at all in the first game, I thought she wasn't well acted. So, I approve of her being killed off. Rapace made a much better female lead than McAdams did.

I was pretty unimpressed with both. But Adler had the benefit of being Adler, I never even knew the name of the replacement chick. Though she admittedly did have a purpose for being in the movie since the plot revolved in part around her brother. Irene was in the first movie because... the writers wanted to put Irene in.

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll
2012-01-20, 08:40 PM
Noomi Rapace, also famous for playing Lisbeth Salander in the Swedish-language Millenium Trilogy film adaptations. She's good. I like her.

Dienekes
2012-01-20, 11:50 PM
Noomi Rapace, also famous for playing Lisbeth Salander in the Swedish-language Millenium Trilogy film adaptations. She's good. I like her.

She might be good, but I honestly can't say she impressed in this particular movie. Maybe it was the writing, or the directing, or whatever. But while she did nothing that made me say "wow that was just poorly delivered" nothing about the performance was even interesting to me. I watched the movie less than a week ago and all I even remember about her performance was that she was a gypsy.

Athaniar
2012-01-21, 12:16 AM
Yeah, I found her to be rather bland as well. But maybe that's just something that happens in a movie with guys like Robert Downey Jr.

erikun
2012-01-21, 01:23 AM
Re: Miss Adler
I felt that Moriarty killing off Irene Adler was rather fitting. It pretty much pointed out that the second movie wasn't intended as just a continuation of the first, but the idea that Moriarty was stepping up his plans, along with his attacks against Holmes.

I didn't much care for killing off one female lead to just introduce another, though. It actually felt cheaper that way.

Gaelbert
2012-01-21, 01:41 AM
Yeah, I found her to be rather bland as well. But maybe that's just something that happens in a movie with guys like Robert Downey Jr.

Really? That character made me want to be a gypsy woman when I grow up. To each their own, I suppose.

I greatly enjoyed the movie. I'm a big fan of RDJ, and I think he nailed the role. I like how Watson is competent in his own right, I like how they killed off Adler (I didn't like the romantic tension that seemed to be building up, and they addressed that concern perfectly), the chess motif was well done, if a bit heavy handed, I enjoyed the ending, what with its reference to the real life writing of Sherlock Holmes. Oh, and if that wasn't enough, naked Stephen Fry sealed the deal for me.

That being said, I thought there was a bit much action for a Sherlock Holmes movie. I enjoyed it, don't get me wrong, but it left a nagging feeling in my head afterwards.

AtlanteanTroll
2012-01-21, 02:45 AM
naked Stephen Fry sealed the deal for me.
Worst. Part. Of. The. Film.

Well, besides the fact that:

Holmes was brought back from the dead, not once, but twice. I knew he wasn't going to die in the end being familiar with the source material and I knew he wasn't going to die on the train. I assume I wasn't the only one who knew/could deduce this. What was the point?

Thanqol
2012-01-21, 03:00 AM
Worst. Part. Of. The. Film.

Well, besides the fact that:

Holmes was brought back from the dead, not once, but twice. I knew he wasn't going to die in the end being familiar with the source material and I knew he wasn't going to die on the train. I assume I wasn't the only one who knew/could deduce this. What was the point?

"Being familiar with the source material" being the operational phrase here. The options are either, be true to the source material, stretch the bounds of possibility and basically wink at the audience over it, or defy the source material, kill Holmes, and strike a blow for some vague philosophical point and make the movie end on a super depressing note?

Seriously, what? How would you have handled that? Outright said in the movie, "No, Doyle got it wrong and Holmes totally should have died at Reichenbach?"

It's like having Frodo get immolated in lava at the end of Lord of the Rings.

Talya
2012-01-21, 09:41 AM
Seriously, what? How would you have handled that? Outright said in the movie, "No, Doyle got it wrong and Holmes totally should have died at Reichenbach?"

It's like having Frodo get immolated in lava at the end of Lord of the Rings.

Uh, no?

Doyle did kill off Holmes, completely, at the Reichenbach Falls. Holmes was dead as a doornail. It was his end. Doyle was tired of writing him and killed him off on purpose.

He brought him back some time later due to public outcry.

The movie perfectly captures that history of the character. Holmes did die. But the author brought him back. I thought it was brilliant.

Janus
2012-01-21, 10:05 AM
Well, besides the fact that:

Holmes was brought back from the dead, not once, but twice. I knew he wasn't going to die in the end being familiar with the source material and I knew he wasn't going to die on the train. I assume I wasn't the only one who knew/could deduce this. What was the point?
It was the train scene that bugged me the most. I thought Holmes was gone at the end, but I could see his revival on the train a mile away (the whole time I sat there thinking "Wedding present. Wedding present. Wedding present."). At least Holmes's reaction to it was funny.


Doyle did kill off Holmes, completely, at the Reichenbach Falls. Holmes was dead as a doornail. It was his end. Doyle was tired of writing him and killed him off on purpose.

He brought him back some time later due to public outcry.
I misremembered the story and thought that Doyle only brought him back because his mom told him to. Apparently that's not quite how it happened, but I think it makes for a good story. :smallsmile:

Thanqol
2012-01-21, 10:21 AM
Uh, no?

Doyle did kill off Holmes, completely, at the Reichenbach Falls. Holmes was dead as a doornail. It was his end. Doyle was tired of writing him and killed him off on purpose.

He brought him back some time later due to public outcry.

The movie perfectly captures that history of the character. Holmes did die. But the author brought him back. I thought it was brilliant.

Yeah, I agree; I thought the movie handled that transition perfectly. I'm reacting to the implication that the movie should have left him dead for realsies despite the narrative precedent for him surviving the fall.

AtlanteanTroll
2012-01-21, 10:22 AM
Seriously, what? How would you have handled that? Outright said in the movie, "No, Doyle got it wrong and Holmes totally should have died at Reichenbach?"

Not having him die on the train.

Dienekes
2012-01-21, 01:49 PM
Uh, no?

Doyle did kill off Holmes, completely, at the Reichenbach Falls. Holmes was dead as a doornail. It was his end. Doyle was tired of writing him and killed him off on purpose.

He brought him back some time later due to public outcry.

The movie perfectly captures that history of the character. Holmes did die. But the author brought him back. I thought it was brilliant.

Unfortunately that's not how it appears when watching the movie as a self-contained story, it just looks like he survived the fall without a scratch even. And honestly your concept that he did die and was brought back from the dead do to an unmentioned all-powerful author drastically changes the feel of the movie.

BRC
2012-01-21, 06:47 PM
Unfortunately that's not how it appears when watching the movie as a self-contained story, it just looks like he survived the fall without a scratch even. And honestly your concept that he did die and was brought back from the dead do to an unmentioned all-powerful author drastically changes the feel of the movie.

Well, that's the way it happened. Originally, Conan Doyle really intended to kill off Holmes at Reichenbach Falls. In fact, Moriarty was invented for the purpose of killing Holmes. Later, public outcry and lots of money convinced him to bring the character back.
He wasn't actually "Brought back from the dead" in-story. I don't think Watson actually saw him fall, and they certainly never found a body, he just read the note Holmes had left him before he went to fight Moriarty, and Watson assumed that the two men had died. Holmes was Supposed to have died, and had Doyle stopped writing, Holmes would have been dead.

WalkingTarget
2012-01-21, 07:21 PM
He wasn't actually "Brought back from the dead" in-story. I don't think Watson actually saw him fall, and they certainly never found a body, he just read the note Holmes had left him before he went to fight Moriarty, and Watson assumed that the two men had died. Holmes was Supposed to have died, and had Doyle stopped writing, Holmes would have been dead.

Watson did not see Holmes fall (as you say). Moriarty did Holmes the courtesy of allowing him to write a note to Watson about what was about to go down and the fact that he didn't return (and the evidence of a struggle) was the circumstantial evidence that showed that they had both fallen.

In The Adventure of the Empty House Holmes details the fact that only Moriarty fell and that Holmes then climbed up to a ledge to hide until Watson and the others investigating the scene concluded that he was dead as well.

The general public (if they know anything about the Holmes/Moriarty fight) "knows" that they both went over the cliff, though. The ret-con just hasn't filtered through popular consciousness (and probably won't now that this movie's around).

Dienekes
2012-01-21, 07:39 PM
Well, that's the way it happened. Originally, Conan Doyle really intended to kill off Holmes at Reichenbach Falls. In fact, Moriarty was invented for the purpose of killing Holmes. Later, public outcry and lots of money convinced him to bring the character back.
He wasn't actually "Brought back from the dead" in-story. I don't think Watson actually saw him fall, and they certainly never found a body, he just read the note Holmes had left him before he went to fight Moriarty, and Watson assumed that the two men had died. Holmes was Supposed to have died, and had Doyle stopped writing, Holmes would have been dead.

Yes I read the Final Problem and subsequent stories. However I'm talking about the notion that the same logic (creator killed him and brought him back to life) can apply within the framework of a movie as Talya suggests. Since the movie it is entirely clear to the creators that Holmes was not dead, as well as the audience. So all that the audience sees is that Holmes seems to have a strangely specific super power of not being able to be injured at all from large falls into water.

BRC
2012-01-21, 07:47 PM
Yes I read the Final Problem and subsequent stories. However I'm talking about the notion that the same logic (creator killed him and brought him back to life) can apply within the framework of a movie as Talya suggests. Since the movie it is entirely clear to the creators that Holmes was not dead, as well as the audience. So all that the audience sees is that Holmes seems to have a strangely specific super power of not being able to be injured at all from large falls into water.
Oh, that's just Soft Water, which shows up everywhere. In the movie, it was implied that both survived the fall just fine, it was the drowning that killed Moriarty, and Holmes would have died, except that he had grabbed Mycroft's personal oxygen thingy.

Dienekes
2012-01-21, 07:59 PM
Oh, that's just Soft Water, which shows up everywhere. In the movie, it was implied that both survived the fall just fine, it was the drowning that killed Moriarty, and Holmes would have died, except that he had grabbed Mycroft's personal oxygen thingy.

Ahh, that works. Still ridiculous for physics (but that doesn't really bother me too much in an action flick) but it has a reasonable solution if you squint at it.