Sunday, December 18, 2011

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

Dear Readers,
As I posted via Twitter Friday evening, emerging into the cold night air after the warmth of the crowded theater, Sherlock Holmes A Game of Shadows was EXCELLENT. That is all there is to it. I had read other reviews (specifically that from NPR) and they said that it was quite a disappointment because it was basically smoke and mirrors, but I didn't find that to be the case one bit: why? Chaos theory, gentle reader, the theory of chaos. Those reviewers know nothing of chaos and its subsequent branches, thereby, they were disappointed (and I can assure you that the audience applauded the film at the end because it was so good and that just doesn't happen here). But rest assured, I do know chaos and will happily expound on why this was such a (not good, but) great film in an upcoming post.
If the film were a disappointment, I would not hesitate to say so (I am not getting paid or any kind of kick-back at all for saying it was good) and to prove it, I will let you know my two greatest worries: first, and foremost, they switched writers. I was desperately concerned about this because there is so much depth and understanding of the characters and symbols in the first one, that when I realized there were new writers I thought, "For woe! Surely it is doomed!" but they did a fantastic job of providing us with something fresh that is still familiar and building upon foundations which were laid in the first and completed in this one.
My second concern: Ritchie would try to impress rather than think through the directing required of him, and I am pleased to say, he certainly impressed, but it was because he thought through everything very carefully that he does so. Please, a word of advice: I arrived at the theater 30 minutes early, ticket in hand and when I entered the auditorium (30 minutes early) there was hardly a good seat left and I had to sit towards the front which was still a better seat compared to what others were getting, but I do advise sitting back a little so you can fully enjoy the great shots Ritchie serves up for you.
Any critic saying this is a disappointment or not as good as the first is exposing themselves as being unknowledgeable about the simple theory of chaos (if you are not, that's one thing, you are not a critic being paid to critique films the way they are, so don't put unnecessary burdens upon yourself) but I can tell you that on my Rotten Tomatoes review I will be giving the film a 100% rating because it is flawless, there is nothing more or less that Ritchie could have done nor the cast for that matter, it was done as it should have been done and I can't wait to see it again! I hope that you will see the film BEFORE you read my review of it so I won't be giving anything away, trust me, it's worth it!
Merry Christmas!
Post Scriptum--  The honor of being a trailer to Sherlock Holmes was highly contested and reputedly, The Hobbit, bound for release in December 2012 was to have one of the spots and it didn't; another fairy tale film has the spot; which one? I will let you see for yourself.
Post-Post Scriptum--  There are numerous references to other films, but none of them very blatant, just a "cameo" of a reference, you might say: Pulp Fiction, A Beautiful Mind, Hero, North by Northwest, The Pit and the Pendulum (Bela Lugosi and Boris Karloff), Foreign Correspondent and those were just the ones I picked up; maybe you can do better!
Post-Post-Post Scriptum-- And by the way, I am surprised at critics lamenting what has happened in this second installment of Sherlock Holmes after the first; on Rotten Tomatoes, critics only gave the film a 70% approval rating, so it's not like they liked the first one anyway, unless now they are admitting they were wrong about how good the first one was.