If you can forego little character development, use of incredible foresight and other improbable plot devices, then A Game of Shadows will prove to be a palatable popcorn movie, rife with action and thrills and an effective chemistry between its leads, that course perfectly served after the draining holiday offerings of the past film fest.
The Good
- fast-paced and action-packed
- Downey's charm and Law's dead-on timing and effective humor wagon for Downey is still easy to appreciate and has not yet trudged the lines of annoyance.
The Bad
- almost cartoonish improbability of some plot devices and scene progressions
- little use of other cast members; largely non-nefarious villain
Synopsis
Sherlock Holmes (Downey Jr.) traces a sequence of bombing and assassinations to one man, Prof. James Moriarty (Harris), whom his lover-adversary, Irene Adler (McAdams) is working for. As this early part of the plot unravels, Holmes requires the services of his assistant and dear friend, Dr. Watson (Law), who is to marry. Unfortunately, Watson refuses to participate and Holmes seems to rest his case, even offering to bring Watson to his "stag party," which is apparently a visit to a casino where one of the clues to his new case is at in the form of a gypsy fortune-teller, Madam Simza (Rapace). As Holmes digs deeper into his case, the newly-married Watson is forced to join his friend in a case big enough to start a world war.
Bad Bromance
Like the first installment, on-screen chemistry between Downey Jr. and Law is familiar to that of man and wife, which is to say that they're both effective and believable. While often Watson has to play comic relief on which Holmes pulls his tricks on, he is shown to be more hands-on in this movie, being allowed to use his own form of deduction he grew from watching Holmes; Holmes on the other hand is shown to be a more devoted friend than a jackass as he is shown in the previous installment. This is the case perhaps because Holmes does not have any lady in this film. Watson marries here, but for most of the time, he does not endeavor in any on-screen romance with his wife, either. So what it lacks in romance, Guy Ritchie fills in with action and brotherhood. I do not mind, I like the burger better without the cheese.
19th Century Fringe Science
It is both a blessing and, er, a curse that Shadows was shown late here in the Philippines due to the annual Metro Manila Film Fest. What's good about that is that you get to see reviews ahead of watching the movie, what's bad is you'd get spoiled. For weeks, I instead just watched the tomatometer (in Rotten Tomatoes) for this movie to battle it out for freshness. Unfortunately, the movie has bordered the rotten territory and I eventually lost interest, given how not enthralled I was with the first film. Now that I have seen it for myself, I do not understand why the critics were not pleased. What I will do is attempt to discuss probabilities why they did not like it all while reviewing it.
First (and least important) of all, the musical score was not really memorable, albeit for an action flick such as this, it does not always need be, as long as it plays at the right time and helps build up the thrill. During the holidays, I've seen some old movies myself and what I noticed is that films back then rely heavily on dialog and acting. There is little to no musical score unless the film itself is a musical or comedy, and even then, most scenes are left out without any background music, especially if it has a dialog. For modern movies, however, music is key albeit it is most of the time not noticed on first viewing. For a casual moviegoer, music is merely a natural addition, the salt to the dish, that if left out, may make the dish bland. Did Shadows have enough music? Not that you'd notice. It's mostly noise, explosions, grumbles, and bantering.
First (and least important) of all, the musical score was not really memorable, albeit for an action flick such as this, it does not always need be, as long as it plays at the right time and helps build up the thrill. During the holidays, I've seen some old movies myself and what I noticed is that films back then rely heavily on dialog and acting. There is little to no musical score unless the film itself is a musical or comedy, and even then, most scenes are left out without any background music, especially if it has a dialog. For modern movies, however, music is key albeit it is most of the time not noticed on first viewing. For a casual moviegoer, music is merely a natural addition, the salt to the dish, that if left out, may make the dish bland. Did Shadows have enough music? Not that you'd notice. It's mostly noise, explosions, grumbles, and bantering.
Second, while Jude Law and Robert Downey Jr. were terrific in their roles and have a convincing chemistry, they barely had anything bright to say. Unlike the first movie where wit is present and the jokes are actually based on smarts, this one goes more for banter and a bit of slapstick. Don't get me wrong, the dialog is not bad, but if you compare it to the previous installment, this one falls flat on the smarts department. Funny, yes. Smart, I have my reservations.
Third, If you'd give props to Downey Jr. and Law, the rest of the cast inspires your ho-hum. You wouldn't particularly like Watson's wife (I actually didn't), nor will you find Mycroft Holmes (Stephen Fry) irresistible. He does not provide any good insight as the Mycroft Sir Arthur Conan Doyle painted. He was instead depicted as streaking government official with minor importance to the storyline. Another troubled character is that of Madam Simza's. The writers did very little for the audience to like her and she is also not blessed with a good character development. Noomi Rapace, who appeared in the Swedish version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and its sequels, was wasted in this film. Her facial expressions were either angry or pondering angry. Given that Sim is quite an important character in this film, she could've been given more character depth. Although I find it relieving because I dislike her based on the trailers as she's replacing Rachel McAdams as the movie's dame. And speaking of McAdams who plays Irene Adler, I actually personally like her; There is something charming about her, something charming about the way she plays Irene Adler. Then boom, she is given very little screen time! Injustice! And last for this barrel: Jared Harris who plays the main antagonist, James Moriarty. While you couldn't fault Harris' acting, there is something about the way the movie played out that didn't seem to make him menacing at all. You will know he's the villain, but you couldn't hate him so much. He's just not that detestable. He suggests that he lacks a soul, but he does not show it so much. The way his character was written just did not allow that. It's possible that his character's screen time is sacrificed to focus much on Holmes and Watson. But either way, Ritchie should have made him more menacing, more cold, more nefarious. He just didn't become any of those. He's just that. A token villain.
Fourth and last, this Sherlock is possibly a psychic who has insanely inhuman foresight. That plus the several practically improbable plot devices running throughout the film, which can be excused as passable.
Luckily for me, I was able to look beyond those and enjoyed the film thoroughly. If the film had any dragging moments, they were very few and very little to be noticeable, to destroy the movie. The real challenge perhaps is the suspension of your disbelief, which more often than not can be accomplished if you get too engrossed with the movie. Gladly, the movie is engaging enough that you can easily forgive its various flaws if it does engage you. If it doesn't, I think you can still appreciate the fight scenes, the destruction, the trickery, and some semblance of play on logic in the film. Ultimately, I find this film more memorable than the last one as this one just makes you wish for a third installment while the first one makes you wish that that's about it.
Third, If you'd give props to Downey Jr. and Law, the rest of the cast inspires your ho-hum. You wouldn't particularly like Watson's wife (I actually didn't), nor will you find Mycroft Holmes (Stephen Fry) irresistible. He does not provide any good insight as the Mycroft Sir Arthur Conan Doyle painted. He was instead depicted as streaking government official with minor importance to the storyline. Another troubled character is that of Madam Simza's. The writers did very little for the audience to like her and she is also not blessed with a good character development. Noomi Rapace, who appeared in the Swedish version of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and its sequels, was wasted in this film. Her facial expressions were either angry or pondering angry. Given that Sim is quite an important character in this film, she could've been given more character depth. Although I find it relieving because I dislike her based on the trailers as she's replacing Rachel McAdams as the movie's dame. And speaking of McAdams who plays Irene Adler, I actually personally like her; There is something charming about her, something charming about the way she plays Irene Adler. Then boom, she is given very little screen time! Injustice! And last for this barrel: Jared Harris who plays the main antagonist, James Moriarty. While you couldn't fault Harris' acting, there is something about the way the movie played out that didn't seem to make him menacing at all. You will know he's the villain, but you couldn't hate him so much. He's just not that detestable. He suggests that he lacks a soul, but he does not show it so much. The way his character was written just did not allow that. It's possible that his character's screen time is sacrificed to focus much on Holmes and Watson. But either way, Ritchie should have made him more menacing, more cold, more nefarious. He just didn't become any of those. He's just that. A token villain.
Fourth and last, this Sherlock is possibly a psychic who has insanely inhuman foresight. That plus the several practically improbable plot devices running throughout the film, which can be excused as passable.
Luckily for me, I was able to look beyond those and enjoyed the film thoroughly. If the film had any dragging moments, they were very few and very little to be noticeable, to destroy the movie. The real challenge perhaps is the suspension of your disbelief, which more often than not can be accomplished if you get too engrossed with the movie. Gladly, the movie is engaging enough that you can easily forgive its various flaws if it does engage you. If it doesn't, I think you can still appreciate the fight scenes, the destruction, the trickery, and some semblance of play on logic in the film. Ultimately, I find this film more memorable than the last one as this one just makes you wish for a third installment while the first one makes you wish that that's about it.
My verdict:
No comments:
Post a Comment