So yeah this wasn't very good. The biggest problem I had was that the film goes by very slow and with the film clocking in over two hours, that got pretty frustrating. Also since Moriarty is suppose to be a huge Holmes villain, I feel his character wasn't as bad as he could have been. The slow motion was a bit overused and Noomi Rapace was sadly kind of useless as the film went on. Robert Downey Jr still is a great match to play Holmes but his work couldn't save this drag. *

Review: http://www.worldofkj.com/article.php?i=543

So it's like the first .

I enjoyed the first, and I also enjoyed the sequel tonight.

This was awesome! This is probably the most like Sherlock Holmes we'll ever seen, and the last act is pretty spectacular. I liked the more mystery aspect of the first than the cat and mouse sequel, but it is a great companion piece.

Solid A like the first

Really really bad. It seems like they *want* to make this a big game of chess, but I dunno, I guess they lack the intellectual capital to have the plotting necessary for that - For the first 2 hours the plot consists of a shallow Sherlock basically trying to get to the same place as Moriarty and not anything interesting in the way of planning and double crosses - and then the Face/Off device and red book twist... yeah... enough said

I mean there's probably no better evidence that this was written by action plugs and not clever plotters, when their big speech analogy by Moriarty to describe the situation is you're a fish getting caught in a fisherman's trap... LOL

The Rapace plot is just bad

I'm still lost over

- Why Sherlock thought it was the Opera getting blown up/why it was a double cross
- How they found Rapace in Paris
- How they sent the telegram from Moriarty's factory and why it had to be sent from there
- Moriarty's code somehow meant bank account numbers holding money that the police could take?

It's also just boring

D.

I completely loved this movie. Jared Harris was very impressive and RDJ and Jude Law are so . I do have to say that something about the Noomi Rapace parts didn't hit as good as the rest. Maybe they weren't written well, and though they weren't acted bad there wasn't anything about her performance that intrigued me. Oh, yeah, also Mycroft being naked...is there some basis for that? It seemed like a cheap joke to me.

Can't wait for #3!

Better than the first. The first part dragged on a bit but the second part was really well done. The slo-mo scenes were really good...almost too good. This was much more satisfying than the first one.

7.5/10 (B)

The film was very entertaining and fun.

It was a lot like MI4 in that it was bloated, the action scenes were too long and too many of them, not enough character development. Each was basically about a mutant or even alien super hero, and would have benefited from being a little more down to earth and real.

But also like MI4 it was a fun film that I don't regret seeing at all and the supporting cast was everything you could ask for. If you go with the attitude "I just want to spend 2 hours with all these actors I like", then you'll probably have a good time.

I think I liked the first one better, it had more style - I still remember that great final scene on the bridge, so well shot. But then again I like Noomi Rapace and her character more than Adler.

I liked the slow motion action scenes and the whole ending part of the film. The tricks and mindgames were hilarious.


The film is nothing special but quite entertaining, I expect the film will likley get a better multiplier then the first one, likely a 4.0

I loved the brilliance of Sherlock figuring out how to outmatch Moriarty in a fight. I think it was probably the best version of that fight ever. And very poignant.

Entertaining but fairly forgettable. RDJ and Jude Law once again have fun chemistry, and Jared Harris' Moriarty is a good representation of the iconic villain, although I think the movie makes an error taking Irene out of the picture in the first 10 minutes. Rachel McAdams brought more to the first film than Noomi Rapace did in the sequel in her utterly thankless role, if it was going to be necessary to have a female character tagging along on the adventures. B-

From a marketing perspective it was an odd choice to get rid of Rachel McAdams in favor of an actress most people have never heard of. B- seems about right.

Rachel McAdams hardly contributed very much to the first movie's financial success. The Downey Jr./Law chemistry, which borders on homoerotic, is the primary draw. Whoever is playing the obligatory female character is entirely beside the point.

This is the rare film Jude Law does not look like a wimp, he looks cool and funny.

Meh. It was enjoyable, but largely unsatisfying, not just for the plot problems Shack mentioned, but because there just wasn't enough, well, deducing! I thought the first film did that better, with Holmes figuring out the entire plot and explaining it at the end, where it all made sense. Not so much here.

And I've been sick of the damned strobe light fight scene trick ever since Gladiator.

C.

Guy Ritchie is slowly and unhappily slipping toward mainstream conventions and cliches he used to avoid in favor of semi-bizarre character arches and witty rapid dialogue. A Game of Shadows is certainly not the rough, dark entertainment that Snatch. Even Rock N Rolla had more far twists and clever speech, but big budgets and major studios means dumbing down and simplifing I suppose. I'm okay with this version. It's a slight step down from the original, both are slick, amusing, entertaining action-buddy comedies. Fine to sit through especially with the excellent scores. There were considerably more cringe-worthy moments, both from dialogue and abuse of the overrated slow motion technique. But it was also a bit more fun overall and featured a far more engaging villian for a good 3rd character of value, since the women are mostly disposable, though I liked Kelly Reilly as Mary.

I also must say Noomi Rapace is absolutely and utterly wasted in this film. I've seen her talent, it is bright, and she shed's no light or energy or purpose at all here. Really awful that they pushed and marketed her in this and then... nothing, of note anyway. McAdams was at least twice as interesting and worthwhile character and I'm sure most of you remember how little that means in the first place.

9/10 -> A-

I loved the first one so it's no surprise I loved this one too. Unlike most sequels it doesn't try (that) hard to do everything bigger, better, flashier and sexier. It has a good story and the phenomenal charm between Downey Jr. and Law that sold the first movie and sells it again this time.

Ritchie again made a visually great movie while utilizing his usual gimmicks in a refreshing manner.

The only thing I liked slightly less was the soundtrack. Zimmer made one of the best soundtracks with the one for the first Sherlock Holmes. This one is just more of the same. Which isn't a bad thing, it's just disappointing.

Yes, I agree, they made Sherlock more of an action hero than a master detective (My father, a diehard Sherlock Holmes fan, also felt the same way).

Also, I hated the plot convention where Sherlock could accurately predict the fighting moves of people he just met for the first time. I found that ridiculous. He would have to have psychic powers in order to do that, because, otherwise it's theoretically impossible. He's lacks the personal experience of knowing the people he's fighting in order to speculate on what their fighting moves might be. In other words, it's possible to anticipate possible moves of sports figures, chess masters, and the like, based on their prior habits (i.e. if a pitcher has a known penchant for curve balls the batter might anticipate that, etc.). Basically, it was lazy writing, because it didn't need to involve deductive reasoning.

The Canadian show Endgame shows a better way. The lead character (Arkady Balagan) imagines various scenarios to try and uncover the truth. Not just one scenario, but, multiple scenarios (in a somewhat comedic way). This is something that would be beneficial in real life crime solving.

If they make a third one, I wish that they would hire a new writer. Keep the two lead actors, but, make it more of an actual detective movie. They could use Steven Moffat (Doctor Who, the new BBC Sherlock series, etc.) or the writer(s) who wrote the Death Note anime (which is a good example of intelligent characters battling wits) or someone else.

Regardless -- Grade C+.

I love this Sherlock Holmes series. I like RDJ presentation and the style of the film overall. Bummer it's gross went down but I would like to see a third film.

Yeah, it went down domestic, but it went up overseas. SH1=$524,028,679, SH2=$534,848,418. But anything over $400m would mean another sequel. So I guess you're looking forward to 2014. It's when SH3 is slated for.

SH2 had very good legs, and in all honesty considering it had Mission Impossible stealing most of its thunder, its 89% retention in the states and increase overseas will be more than enough for a 3rd if the cast and crew want to do one, I mean it only cost 125 million