MovieChat Forums > Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (2011) Discussion > mediocre crap for the masses

mediocre crap for the masses

posted 11 years ago by The_Critical_Eye
7 replies | jump to latest

so i've just come off watching the latest bbc series, and haven't seen the first film.

I watched this film late at night and had to turn it off as i was getting tired and the formulaic hollywood fair and it was boring me to sleep. I finally got through it after a couple of days days, but am shocked at the high scores it is getting here.

The problems:

1) it hollywoodises a traditional english character.

2) RDJ plays holmes as an obnoxious t***, overacting throughout.

3) holmes seems to be a superhuman fighter

4) holmes can predict the future

5) slow mo scenes that only serve to accentuate the above problems and prove the restricted capabilites of Guy Ritchie as a director

6) moriarty - he just comes across as a little maggot that needs a few punches in the face.

7) what's holmes doing travelling all round europe - of course everyone around the world just speaks english.

If you want fluffy entertainment then i guess it's ok.

[–] Proffesser-t 11 years ago

Awe muffin

[–] Lianachan 11 years ago

Indeed. Standard issue action film, which bears very little resemblance to the literary character. I rated this one at 4 out of 10, and at least 2 of those are for the inclusion of Ennio Morricone's excellent music from "Two Mules For Sister Sara".

Far an taine ‘n abhainn, ‘s ann as mò a fuaim.

[–] Mandy999 11 years ago

"Very little resemblance to the literary character"? Clearly you haven't actually read the stories then.

This article has a nice summation of how well Ritchie has adapted this character to the big screen:

http://www.nerve.com/movies/five-things-most-sherlock-holmes-movies-ge t-wrong-that-guy-ritchie-gets-right

[–] T-eschberger 11 years ago

People love to act imperious and haughty about adaptations of things like this. They pull stuff out of their ass constantly. Not only are these films very close to the stories and novels, the stories themselves are remarkably fast paced and easy to follow mystery/adventures. For how old they are, they read very modern and aren't some dense scholarly text like these wannabes seem to act like they are.

[–] MtnMan13 11 years ago

"Not only are these films very close to the stories and novels..."

I have to question whether or not you've read the originals, because these films are nothing like them. While the literary Holmes was a man of action, he wasn't the action man as portrayed by Robert Downy, Jr. Yes, the short-stories are fast-paced, but it's because of Doyle's easy to read writing style and not because Holmes and Watson literally ran from one set piece to the next and then immediately solved the entire crime in an instant.

On the contrary, the literary Holmes would spend hours scouring a crime scene for clues, would spend days and sometimes weeks following leads to gather as much data as he could, and then would sit up all night with a pipe and a bag of tobacco puzzling through a difficult case. We see none of that in these films where Holmes is portrayed as just another Hollywood action hero.

I'm sorry to say but these films really are a terrible adaptation. Compare them to the definitive Granada Television series starring Jeremy Brett. The contrast is quite stark.

[–] T-eschberger 11 years ago

^^^^Yes, because endless scenes of a guy sitting around with a contemplative face for hours is truly compelling.

The assertion is that these films MAKE UP stuff that aren't in the novels, which is very far from the real truth.

[–] MtnMan13 11 years ago

Have you ever watched the Granada television series? They manage to convey Holmes' intellect and crime solving techniques, often quoting the original dialog word for word, without being dull or tedious. One of the show's greatest triumphs is in "The Sign of Four" when they filmed the steamboat chase at realistic speeds and still made it suspenseful and exciting.

The point is not so much that the movies add things but that they subtract them and leave us with a shell of a character who just happens to be called Sherlock Holmes despite having little in common with his literary counterpart.