Well-Played: Guy Ritchie's "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows"

In general, there is little that can be said about “Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows” that was not already said about its predecessor. Because the 2009 reboot of Arthur Conan Doyle’s famous detective series was one of the best films of its year, this is almost better than anyone could have hoped for. Robert Downey, Jr. is still manically brilliant as the eponymous master sleuth. Jude Law’s Watson, ever the straight man, still rolls his eyes and covers his partner’s back. Sherlock purists are still balking at the very idea of this update, but as far as I’m concerned, that’s their own fault. I too grew up reading the short stories, but made a promise to myself before seeing the first installment of this new used franchise that I wouldn’t try to fit director Guy Ritchie’s gritty, action-heavy product into Conan Doyle’s decidedly more urbane mold. It worked; I think the only film of 2009 I enjoyed more than “Sherlock Holmes” was “Avatar.”

I will say, however, that the purists do have a point this time around. “A Game of Shadows” isn’t only a loud “Sherlock Holmes” movie; it’s just a loud movie. It’s got enough explosions, gunfire, and slow motion to make Michael Bay take notice for more than his typical fifth of a second. The crime-fighting duo are always running, gunning, or both, usually with their gypsy client Simza (a cruelly underused Noomi Rapace) in tow. 

Granted, the stakes here are high: either Holmes and Watson succeed, or World War I breaks out thirty years early. But the level of action in the first film, though undeniably high for anything Conan Doyle might write, never struck me as gratuitous. Here, it’s occasionally distracting, and I felt that certain story elements, like Holmes’ signature powers of deduction, were left in the dust while we careened from one set piece to another. “A Game of Shadows” is really more of a chase movie than a mystery, so there’s woefully little detective work for Holmes to do here, unlike before. I also think that with a little more breathing space in between action sequences, as spectacular as some of them are, poor Noomi Rapace (the original “Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”) could have shown American audiences more of what she can do. Apparently, she’s an incredible actress. You’d never know it from this film – she exists here more as a plot device than an actual character.

Thankfully, the same cannot be said of Holmes’ arch nemesis Professor James Moriarty. I had concerns that he would become simply another “villain of the week,” and that his implications in story and theme would go untapped. They are not, and whatever criticisms I level at “A Game of Shadows” in terms of action and pacing are completely redeemed by the sheer power of the scenes between the Professor and Holmes. 

The “Napoleon of Crime” is played by relative unknown Jared Harris, who has apparently existed on the lower levels of the Hollywood superstructure until now. He’s brilliant, and his portrayal of Moriarty is, in my opinion, definitive.  He doesn’t speechify on matters of twisted philosophy like Ledger’s Joker, but he exists on a very similar plane. Harris is masterful at hinting at the madness behind Moriarty’s placid façade. We see it in subtle ways, like the manner in which he’ll stare blankly at whoever he’s speaking to regardless of whether he is being conciliatory or making a dire threat. Indeed, there’s a torture scene that features the cultured Moriarty, for dramatic effect, singing a Schubert art song with complete and terrifying lack of expression. Harris’ performance is deeply unsettling, bordering on sociopathic. In other words, pitch perfect. And don’t even get me started on the final showdown between Holmes and Moriarty, in which Holmes’ habitual previsualization of fighting moves is cleverly turned against him. This is a moment of inspired storytelling, and would be worth the price of admission even by itself. 

For the second time this week I am in danger of churning out another review that seems to be divided against itself, so let me be clear. “Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows” is more than worth a view, and establishes itself as a very worthy sequel to the excellent 2009 film. Though it doesn’t quite improve on the formula set by the first installment, it is at the very least a highly successful carry over. I enjoyed it just as much, and for a sequel that’s no elementary achievement.