Click here for the review of Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

SPOILERS must be tagged with the "SPOILER" tag!

"Lisbeth Slander"---it's "Salander".

Very glad to hear that Moriarty is handled in an interesting way. It usually bugs me when Moriarty is shoe-horned into dramatizations of other Holmes stories, like Red Headed League. But he's an interesting character, so it's always fun to see how an original Holmes story deals with him. After the vaguely disappointing way he was handled in the otherwise fantastic BBC series last year, I'm looking forward to a Holmes/Moriarty story told well. Can't wait.

That "Sherlock" mini-series was really good and much better than the 2009 movie, but I'll agree that Moriarty was incorporated in an unsatisfying manner, mainly because the series ended on a cliffhanger. I'd urge anyone who hasn't seen it to check it on on netflix streaming.

I've been reading the reviews as they've been coming in, and I've noticed that several critics who didn't like the first movie are reacting more warmly to this one. Good news for me, because I liked the first one just as much as the BBC series. Purists be damned.

You mentioned weaknesses in the first movie... what were these exactly? I suppose being my film of the year makes me biased!

To all the Americans here: Stephen Fry is the other half of 'Fry and Laurie' and 'Jeeves and Wooster'. Also probably the one person who wont, but should appear in House MD.

Also calling Salander a freak; really?

It's funny, there was actually going to be a Holmes series at one point with Fry as Holmes and Laurie as Watson, but it was never made.

It seems they both got consolation prizes: Laurie is playing a modern day Holmes on House and Fry is playing Mycroft in A Game of Shadows.

Funny that you address this to the Americans for clarification, most of whom will have no idea what a Fry and Laurie or a Jeeves and Wooster are either.

From the review--



Is that correct, or should it be "torture sequence?" Torturous has such a negative connotation...

It's as meant. The sequence is uncomfortable to watch. And, yes, it's a play on words.

I'm pretty sure Fry "bared" all in the movie.

After the trailer I wasn't really interested in the movie, but due to JB's positive review I might actually check it out.

For some reason I have missed that Stephen Fry is playing Mycroft. While I haven't seen the result yet, the casting seems spot on in that case.

I plead guilty to being a Sherlock Homes purist. While most parents read Grimm fairy tales and Dr. Seuss to their kids, I was reading Conan Doyle's stories to my kids, and they loved them. So I had very little use for the first film. I'll admit it was exciting to watch (like a comic book), and I always enjoy Robert Downey Jr. But his character simply shared the same name as Sherlock Homes; he existed in a different universe than Conan Doyle. Since JB was fairly positive, I'll check out the new film on DVD, but I can't muster the enthusiasm to go to a theater for this.

Oddly, I did enjoy the BBC miniseries, despite having profound misgivings over the show's premise. Cumberbatch was just outstanding. But I would agree that the cliffhanger with Moriarty was odd.

You can see a YouTube clip of Fry as Mycroft here. Also, here's one with Jared Harris as Moriarty, and here's an action scene on a train with Holmes in drag.



It's funny, I find it hard to be a purist about anything, no matter how big a fan I am. To say that I'm a huge Holmes fan would be an understatement. What obsessive Trekkies are to Star Trek, I am to Holmes. I'm constantly adding new Holmes books to my shelf, and I could talk about the films and TV shows all day. And yet when I see a Holmes film that changes something about the source material, I rarely complain as long as the film is good.

I've heard a lot of people say that the name is the only thing that Downey has in common with Doyle's Holmes, but I wouldn't go quite that far. I think that if the first film had been released under a different title and Holmes had been given a different name, people would have been remarking on all the similarities to Holmes. Not that I'm claiming it's a perfectly accurate adaptation, but the film is a lot closer to Doyle than it gets credit for.

But even if I agreed with the purists who claim that Ritchie's Holmes is just Holmes In Name Only, it's still a very well-made and entertaining movie, and by all accounts, the sequel is even better.

Prior to 'House', it's what he was best known for having done. I think in the states, Laurie was most known as 'that funny British guy who trolls Rachel on the plane in Friends'.

I strongly urge people to look into these shows. Well worth it!

It always amuses me that despite being a great director, Brian Singer had somehow never heard of Hugh Laurie and consequently had no idea that he wasn't American when he auditioned

I think this is my favorite Bit of Fry and Laurie, Tricky Linguistics== http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFD01r6ers

Hugh Laurie is my idol.

That's odd-you'd think the roles would be the other way around.

In any event perhaps I'll break my theatre-fast with this film this weekend.

I think I would go with Fry as Holmes if forced to choose, but I can honestly imagine it going either way.

I can understand the logic behind it from before House, since Fry tended to be the more dominant personality (especially on things like A Bit of Fry and Laurie) and Fry was/is well known for being intellectually curious.

Ebert gave it a 3.5 out of 4 (link).

Seems the consensus is that it's an improvement over the first movie.