I was truly astounded by horrible Sherlock Holmes 2 was. I greatly enjoyed the first film, and was even looking forward to this one, Robert Downery Jr., a "fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes, yeah I was prepared for it to be mediocre but...it was just a failure on so many different levels, the only ones where I thought it succeeded where the beautiful sets and costumes.
The characters? Wow they made sure to get Mary off the screen right quick, it's obvious the screenwriter was not happy being saddled with Watson's engagement. Stephen Fry is wasted, and I am sorry because I love the actor, that was not Mycroft he was playing. Mycroft is the person who is so intricately important that he never has to leave his room and can still manage the whole of the English Government. The least of the problems with him in this film was how proactive he was.
If this film is remembered several years from now, I look forward to the comparisons between Robert Downey Jr.'s performance of Sherlock and Johnny Depp's Jack Sparrow. Wonderful in the first movie when it's all a part of the whole show, but over-used in the following ones for cheap comedy and wholly responsible for moving certain parts of the plot along because the lazy screenwriter can't see any other way of getting the characters to where they need to be.
The storyline? I've never before wanted to walk out of a movie, but this time I wanted to do it 20 minutes in with a death of a certain character that only exists to blatantly up the villain's bad guy status. A villain who if done properly shouldn't remotely need such a cheap ploy.
They up the number of action scenes to a ridiculous level, not a one that well choreographed, and made Sherlock far to good of a fighter, when the entire reason he did okay in the first movie is his strategy of cheating.
About half way through the movie, they slow things down to explain what exactly Moriarty's plan is, and it's a damn good thing they do, because there is no evidence up to that point at all of what it is. Oh yes they mentioned the tension between countries once or twice, but nothing really to show what he was even trying to do. And on the other hand you could see the other half of the plot threads a mile away and knew exactly what ploys they were going to try to use.
I think what offended me the most of the whole movie was not the stupidity of a lot of the scenes or the comedy, not the shoehorning of generic action movie plot to try and fit the characters (and failing), but how smart it thought it was. The ending Chess game just made me facepalm at the blatantness of it all, it wasn't clever. It was obvious, and you could see the results in advance and it was a chore to sit though.
I probably would have enjoyed the film so much more if it was the bland action movie the script was obviously based on, then it wouldn't have misused so many of my favorite characters and the whole pretentious air about it could have been forgone.
The characters? Wow they made sure to get Mary off the screen right quick, it's obvious the screenwriter was not happy being saddled with Watson's engagement. Stephen Fry is wasted, and I am sorry because I love the actor, that was not Mycroft he was playing. Mycroft is the person who is so intricately important that he never has to leave his room and can still manage the whole of the English Government. The least of the problems with him in this film was how proactive he was.
If this film is remembered several years from now, I look forward to the comparisons between Robert Downey Jr.'s performance of Sherlock and Johnny Depp's Jack Sparrow. Wonderful in the first movie when it's all a part of the whole show, but over-used in the following ones for cheap comedy and wholly responsible for moving certain parts of the plot along because the lazy screenwriter can't see any other way of getting the characters to where they need to be.
The storyline? I've never before wanted to walk out of a movie, but this time I wanted to do it 20 minutes in with a death of a certain character that only exists to blatantly up the villain's bad guy status. A villain who if done properly shouldn't remotely need such a cheap ploy.
They up the number of action scenes to a ridiculous level, not a one that well choreographed, and made Sherlock far to good of a fighter, when the entire reason he did okay in the first movie is his strategy of cheating.
About half way through the movie, they slow things down to explain what exactly Moriarty's plan is, and it's a damn good thing they do, because there is no evidence up to that point at all of what it is. Oh yes they mentioned the tension between countries once or twice, but nothing really to show what he was even trying to do. And on the other hand you could see the other half of the plot threads a mile away and knew exactly what ploys they were going to try to use.
Why did they feel the need to fake out Sherlock's death twice, they established both of the Chekhov's guns which allowed him to survive in such blatant manner, that it felt insulting how long it took the characters to remember them.
And the movie was so obvious, that I actually told my friend "look out for waterfalls", because I could just tell they where going to try and reenact the Reichenbach Falls.
And the movie was so obvious, that I actually told my friend "look out for waterfalls", because I could just tell they where going to try and reenact the Reichenbach Falls.
I think what offended me the most of the whole movie was not the stupidity of a lot of the scenes or the comedy, not the shoehorning of generic action movie plot to try and fit the characters (and failing), but how smart it thought it was. The ending Chess game just made me facepalm at the blatantness of it all, it wasn't clever. It was obvious, and you could see the results in advance and it was a chore to sit though.
I probably would have enjoyed the film so much more if it was the bland action movie the script was obviously based on, then it wouldn't have misused so many of my favorite characters and the whole pretentious air about it could have been forgone.
