Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows

Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law return as Sherlock Holmes and Dr.John Watson in ‘Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows’, the first sequel to Guy Ritchie’s big intentional hit in 2009. I enjoyed many of Guy Ritchie’s previous films, including ‘Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels’, ‘Snatch’, ‘RockNRolla’, and the first ‘Sherlock Holmes’ picture. Which is why I’m bummed to report that this sequel is one of the worst films of 2011 (and since we’re approaching the end of the year, I can guarantee that it will occupy a spot on my Bottom 10 films of 2011).

The plot, which will probably be of little importance to most viewers, is nonsensical and convoluted, but I’ll do my best to explain it. It’s the late 1800s and tension escalates between “those who speak German and those who speak French”, something that was plotted by Professor Moriarty (Jared Harris). He owns shares in multiple war-profiting companies and plans on instigating a war to make a fortune. Along comes detective Sherlock Holmes and he’s convinced Moriarty is the culprit, but needs further data. Holmes seeks out a gypsy named Simza (Noomi Rapace from the Swedish version of the ‘The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo’), who he believes knows something about what’s happening. After defeating an assassin sent to kill the gypsy, Holmes, Simza, and Dr.Watson embark on a journey to prove Moriarty is the mastermind behind recent assassinations, bombings, and try to prevent him from starting a war.

Robert Downey Jr. is actively involved in two franchises at the moment – ‘Iron Man’ and ‘Sherlock Holmes’. Can we forgive him for appearing bored of his own character here? He spits out his lines quickly in a British accent, sports various costumes and disguises including going drag, but doesn’t seem like he’s having much fun as the title character. Or he could just be in a rush to collect his paycheque. Halfway through ‘Sherlock Holmes 2’, the audience is treated to a several-minute montage with Holmes riding a pony as his companions race ahead of him in their horses. This is one scene that illustrates a big problem with the picture. There’s no construction in the comedy – a comic scenario is set up and seems funny initially, but then it goes on endlessly until the joke becomes unfunny and annoying. It’s the equivalent of taking a good joke and telling it badly, which Guy Ritchie does repeatedly throughout this sequel.

As mentioned above, the comedy isn’t really directed, but neither is the action. Ritchie reutilizes the slow-motion fight scenes he demonstrated in the first film. We see the Holmes character figuring out what his opponent will do, thought for thought, blow for blow. Again, it’s a neat technique that’s visually interesting the first time, but Ritchie (not being familiar with the less is more approach) injects the same visual trick repeatedly through the film until it becomes exhausting. Even the grey, bleak background from the first film is used again here, but this time, it drains the action and excitement from the picture. Repetition and sameness seem to be the two major elements which hurt this film the most.

Also, this story of world dominance feels like something out of a James Bond film. There’s no mystery or suspense, and nothing really seems at stake. The main villain isn’t particularly memorable. In one scene, Moriarty rams Holmes onto a meat hook, nearly bleeding him to death. It’s a pretty dark scene that is completely out of tone with the rest of the picture (which has a campy, slapstick feel). The chemistry between Robert Downey Jr. and Judd Law is still present, but their constant bickering bromance grows tired rather quickly.  

My criticism has nothing to do with the spirit of the original ‘Sherlock Holmes’ stories. I don’t care about that. I care about the results of the revisionist approach to this film, and unfortunately Guy Ritchie has travestied Conan Doyle’s creation of the greatest criminal investigator of the century. I should note that at the end of my screening, several members of the audience applauded the film in appreciation. This means I could be in the minority on this one, but I’m fairly certain that a second (or third or x’th) viewing won’t change my mind. Holy tedium, ‘Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows’ was one of the most boring cinematic experiences I had in 2011.

– Jerry Nadarajah

Hugo

‘Hugo’ is a big-budget 3-D family film with Dickensian overtones from master filmmaker Martin Scorsese. Yes, the same Scorsese who brought us ‘Raging Bull’, ‘Goodfellas’, and ‘The Departed’. This is the first Scorsese film without Leonardo DiCaprio in 7 years, and his first PG-rated film in 18 years. The theatrical trailer for this film left me wondering what in God’s name Scorsese was thinking, but I should have known better than to doubt a master filmmaker – ‘Hugo’ is one of the year’s best films.

It’s the 1930’s, and the title character (Asa Butterfield) is an orphan living in the clocks of a Paris train station. He steals food when he’s not maintaining the station’s enormous clocks. What makes his escapades a challenge is the presence of the station inspector (and his Doberman), played by Sasha Baron Cohen. Hugo also steals mechanical parts from a toy store owner (Ben Kingsley) in an attempt to fix an automaton, which he believes to contain a message from his late father. The toy store owner’s goddaughter, Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz looking like a miniature star from that era) is then introduced to Hugo’s world, and his to hers. She is his first true friend yearning for the adventures Hugo gets to live but she only reads about in library books.

A number of characters in the film are craftsmen. Both Hugo and his father have a knack for assembling and repairing mechanical objects. There is also a magician turned filmmaker whose magic transfers gracefully from the stage to the screen. This character constructs a movie studio, which consists of elaborate production sets. We learn that this filmmaker was responsible for the 1896 silent film ‘L’arrivee D’un Train a La Ciotat’ (film history buffs will know I’m referring to George Melies). As silent films shifted over to sound films, Melies work as a filmmaker was dismissed to the extent that they were burned and converted into material for women’s shoes (this scene had me reaching for my Kleenex). However, one film remained unburned – ‘Le Voyage Dans La Lune’ from 1901. The second half of ‘Hugo’ shows the filmmaker’s fall from his glory days, and how the title character tries to fix this broken person by proving that he hasn’t been forgotten. In doing so, ‘Hugo’ has shown us filmmaking at its genesis as well as the importance of the preservation of film.

Ironically, this movie about the early days of filmmaking is presented in 3-D. However, unlike most films that are converted post-production, this entire project was conceived with an added dimension and is part of Scorsese’s visual aesthetic. As close friends of mine know, I am not a fan of this medium. To me, it exists solely as a gimmick to charge audiences a premium for an inferior viewing experience. My thoughts on the subject are a little more optimistic having seen ‘Hugo’. This is by far the best use of 3-D, supplanting James Cameron’s ‘Avatar’, which was the film that caused the upsurge of 3-D. The added dimension is used to create an immersive experience and the lighting is adequate enough for the viewer to derive detail from scenes in dim settings. Hugo’ opens with a helicopter shot of Paris, as the camera shoots in from above and ends with Hugo peeking out of the opening of a clock in the upper-level of the station. It’s these breathtaking visuals that remind the viewer that this is a Scorsese film. While the material is unlike anything Scorsese has ever done, his creativity and visual intelligence remains strong.

‘Hugo’ is a movie about movies that will play better to adults than kids. I noticed several kids in my screenings shifting in their seats due to film’s deliberate pacing. Cinephiles will be in for a treat, though no knowledge of silent films or film history is necessary to enjoy this picture. This is Scorsese’s love letter to the films of the early 1900s and its worthy of a Best Picture nomination and a Best Supporting Actor nomination for Ben Kingsley. With wonderful source material and featuring perfect performances, Scorsese has crafted a film that is delightful, charming, entertaining, and a reminder to most of us about why we love going to the movies.

– Jerry Nadarajah