Directed by:
Guy RitchieCinematography:
Philippe RousselotComposer:
Hans ZimmerCast:
Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Noomi Rapace, Jared Harris, Eddie Marsan, Kelly Reilly, Stephen Fry, Rachel McAdams, Paul Anderson, Thierry Neuvic (more)VOD (3)
Plots(1)
When the Crown Prince of Austria is found dead, the evidence, as construed by Inspector Lestrade (Eddie Marsan), points to suicide. But Sherlock Holmes deduces that the prince has been the victim of murder - a murder that is only one piece of a larger and much more portentous puzzle, designed by one Professor Moriarty. Mixing business with pleasure, Holmes tracks the clues to an underground gentlemen’s club, where he and his brother, Mycroft Holmes (Stephen Fry) are toasting Dr. Watson on his last night of bachelorhood. It is there that Holmes encounters Sim (Noomi Rapace), a Gypsy fortune teller, who sees more than she is telling and whose unwitting involvement in the prince’s murder makes her the killer’s next target. Holmes barely manages to save her life and, in return, she reluctantly agrees to help him. The investigation becomes ever more dangerous as it leads Holmes, Watson and Sim across the continent, from England to France to Germany and finally to Switzerland. But the cunning Moriarty is always one step ahead as he spins a web of death and destruction - all part of a greater plan that, if he succeeds, will change the course of history. (official distributor synopsis)
(more)Videos (5)
Reviews (10)
The screenplay was a rushed job and has only a couple of really excellent moments and the conflict of the two arch rivals is not depicted appropriately. But it’s still an entertaining romp full of snappy lines with excellent visuals. Effective slow-motion sequences are in exactly the right place and are breathtaking. The scene with “Hansel" in the forest and the final confrontation (an successfully transformed ending of one of the most important stories) and simply awesome. The story is awfully schematic, chases alternate with fights, and there isn’t much room for any hint of inevitability, even though the material for it is here.
()
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.
()
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.
()
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. :)
()
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?!
()
Ads