Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

The first film worked with something like a moment of surprise, with the famous detective navigating Guy Ritchie's exquisite visual world. The second time around, the moment of surprise is gone, and suddenly you start digging into what you didn't mind in the first film. For two hours of runtime, the plot is too diluted, the female protagonists are neglected, the villain is bland, and except for two or three funny dialogue exchanges, there’s a lot of filler. But most importantly, a detective storyline is one you don't care about whatsoever. The action escapades are trite and not saved even by the run through the woods, yet that scene was also genius. During the first half, I was hoping it would pick up in the second half, as some commentators sometimes promised, but for the last half hour, I was praying for it to end. You don't just see blockbuster fails like this. (28/04/2012)

If all of the visual tricks, acting exhibitions, screenwriting ideas and fantastic locations were part of a clear and engaging story, this would be one of the top blockbusters of the year. But I really didn’t care about what was happening or what was going to happen next. And what’s the point of those drawn-out, several-minute ultra-dramatic scenes in which Sherlock and Watson are in danger of actually being killed, when we all know that neither one of them can die?! (21/12/2011)

This is exactly how I imagined that a pop culture update by Sherlock Holmes might look. A gourmet experience with a completely exclusive Holmes vs. Moriarty gambit. Despite many mistakes, a beautiful, intense and charmingly deliberate blockbuster, which has what the first film lacked the most... A soul. (30/12/2011)

Guy Ritchie at his peak again (albeit a slightly different peak than in the late 90s). Everything that worked in the first one (i.e. excellent conversational duels between the central duo, great slow-motion sequences, excellent period atmosphere, and overall dynamism and looseness) is enhanced here by a more pronounced Ritchie imprint and, of course, a near-perfect Downey and Law + the naked Fry cameo was absolutely unbeatable. It's important to note that while such mainstream entertainment may look like mere sequence of clips in terms of craft (from a certain perspective, a sequence of several consecutive but technically proficient clips), the artistic value inherent in its execution (in short, the formal polish) is so brilliant that it hides the various imperfections related to ambiguous or underdeveloped character motivations and so on... I like to mention this fact from time to time, but in the case of the second Sherlock Holmes, I find the script a very worthy and the motivations of the characters completely sufficient and ultimately convincing. And if anyone claims that the second film is for those "who want to ride the wave of Ritchie's slow-motion and explosions, not caring what actually happens on screen", they should also realize that the story is very well thought out – given its genre, budget, location, and the necessary prerequisite of commercial success, the script is even excellent. And in my opinion, A. C. Doyle would have liked it, at the very least because of Downey's British accent. :) (28/12/2012)

The sequel seems to me even more than ever before, that Ritchie says to the audience “come have fun with me”, but behind the curtain it's nothing but a brutal attack on the wallets of the audience, who go to the cinema almost automatically for guaranteed entertainment. The result is a film where everything is a cliché that people complain about on one side, but still mindlessly watch over and over again. I was not entertained in almost anything. Perhaps only technically, it is a very above-par film and some shots (yes, the action scene in the forest) are worth it. Otherwise, it's boring, clichéd, with a few jokes. Instant fast food that becomes outdated at the speed of sound. (15/05/2012)