Sherlock Holmes : Jeu d'ombres

Si toutes ces astuces visuelles, performances d'acteurs, idées de scénario et lieux fantastiques faisaient partie d'une histoire claire et captivante, ce serait l'un des blockbusters de l'année. Mais honnêtement, je me fichais de ce qui se passait et de ce qui allait se passer. Et à quoi servent ces scènes ultra-dramatiques, qui s'éternisent pendant plusieurs minutes, dans lesquelles Sherlock ou Wattson semblent réellement menacés de mort alors que nous savons tous les deux qu'aucun d'entre eux ne peut mourir ?! (21/12/2011)

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. (28/04/2012)

This is exactly how I imagined that a pop culture update by Sherlock Holmes might look. A gourmet experience with a completely exclusive Holmes vs. Moriarty gambit. Despite many mistakes, a beautiful, intense and charmingly deliberate blockbuster, which has what the first film lacked the most... A soul. (30/12/2011)

Loaded guns, brains in full swing, deduction vibrating at maximum. When Holmes' thought-wrestling escapades conquered cinemas for the first time, I eagerly swallowed every idea of Ritchie's, and when Robert Downey, with a sparkle in his eyes, uncovers a web of intrigues for the second time, I applaud again. Moriarty is indeed the perfect nemesis, capable of threatening the most mundane situation, and in such moments, one needs not only a loyal partner but perhaps also an exhibitionistically tuned brother with a shaky staff. This impressive action-oriented approach simply suits me amidst the faltering Victorian era, and the whole creative team effortlessly navigates through emotions and locations with me. Please, dear Watson, bring on the trilogy. (16/01/2012)

I wished for a new take on good old Sherlock Holmes. I wanted an interesting, unexpected, and off-the-wall plot. And then all I needed for perfection was something that would take my breath away. But that's not how it works here... Everything is kind of the same as it was before, and I have nothing to be surprised by. I felt like I was watching an attempt to improve on the first episode. I often had to work to keep my attention on the film. I found some of the dialogue to be completely unnecessary. What saves it is the fantastic atmosphere and strong actors. I have to point out in particular the few minutes on the train and the perfect escape through the forest. The ending at least brought a smile to my face. 3.5 stars. (16/01/2012)

I liked the first installment of the Holmes series by Guy Ritchie and I appreciated the modern, action-packed style, the cast of actors, and the chemistry between the characters. The trouble is that the second installment meets expectations in the sense that there is more of everything, more action, bombast, and humor, but unfortunately, it's not immediate, rather forced, and above all, the film is somewhat one-dimensional and does not correspond to internal logic as much as purposefulness. Who's popular among young actresses today? Noomi Rapace made a name for herself in the Millennium series, so let's cast her and not worry too much about the fact that this is not her acting type in a comedy-themed blockbuster. Her character as a gypsy is a typical example of how the chemistry between the main male and female characters does not work. Rachel McAdams was perfectly cast type-wise, as she is exactly the kind of femme fatale who can flirt with you pleasantly and at the same time, pour poison in your best friend's coffee. Kelly Reilly as the newlywed life partner of Dr. Watson is cast excellently and her character has huge potential, which could be based on the contrast between an honest Victorian lady whose goal is to take care of her husband's wardrobe and other life necessities while being pressured by circumstances to face the most feared criminals of her time. However, the script completely fails to take advantage of this possibility. The chemistry between the main partners Holmes and Watson is also transferred to the second installment, but it somehow gets lost in the bombastic journey, in constant shifts here and there, which often do not even have a basis in narrative logic - in short, it reminds me of some later Bond films with all their flaws. While Guy Ritchie can surprise me when it comes to the details, as a whole, A Game of Shadows seems like a step back to me. The industrial retro, the atmosphere of Victorian England, and the connection to the literary character of Sherlock Holmes are truly minimal. A Game of Shadows is ideal for someone who just wants to rinse their brain with a grand blockbuster with a generous production design, rather than someone who appreciates smart filmmaking and subtle directorial and actor finesse. Stephen Fry is more embarrassing than funny, and while Jared Harris as the main antagonist does his best, it's difficult when you have nothing to surprise and fool the audience with. From my perspective, the action and Sherlock's abilities are so exaggerated that even within the genre, when we are somewhere within the boundaries set by Indiana Jones, it is too much and it rather resembles a comic book character than a person made of flesh and blood. Overall impression: 45%. (07/01/2012)

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. (11/01/2012)

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. (15/05/2012)

Hmm, the second time around this game is much better. A star better. The boredom disappeared, the unclear became clear, the funny often even funnier – and the brilliant invisible suit became even more brilliant. (29/12/2011)

Bien que je sois très friand des histoires policières et de détectives, Sherlock Holmes n’a jamais beaucoup eu mes faveurs et cela, tant dans les versions livresques que filmiques. Cela dit, quand j’ai vu la première itération de cette nouvelle adaptation, ça m’a plu. J’attendais donc au moins autant de fun dans cette suite, mais celle-ci m’a plutôt laissé un arrière-goût amer, un sentiment de déception et l’impression que Guy Ritchie a rapidement brûlé toutes ses cartouches. L’histoire est complètement nulle et confuse ; l’intrigue manque d’intelligence. Rachel McAdams, qui a marqué le premier film, a été rapidement et inutilement remerciée, Noomi Rapace ne convenant pas du tout au rôle et ne pouvant pas décemment la remplacer. Quant au professeur Moriarty, je l’imaginais lui aussi plus menaçant et pas comme un psychoterroriste de seconde zone. Pour finir, je dois dire que le métrage me semblait interminable et je devais lutter constamment pour éviter que mes paupières se ferment. (16/01/2014)

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. :) (28/12/2012)