I wasn't going to see the new Sherlock Holmes (2: a Game of Shadows) film. I hadn't seen #1 and I'd read this review of #2 by the San Francisco Chronicle's Mick LaSalle. LaSalle gave it an "empty chair," which is reserved for nucular bombs like "Gigli."
The real creator of Sherlock Holmes found here.
But I have a stepson currently in the 7th grade.
So it was a family togetherness thing.
First, we rented #1 so stepson could get reacquainted with Sherlock (he'd seen it a couple of times before) and so the beloved and I could brace ourselves.
It was fine. Yes, someone took a hatchet to the original Holmes and put him back together in a Frankenstein's monster type of way. Instead of cerebral and spooky, you get campy, ninja, steampunk lite. But that's par for the course in the 21st century. And it was entertaining, in a goofy sort of way.
So, I thought, how much worse can the second one be? What so got under Mr. LaSalle's skin?
#2, as far as I could tell, was nearly identical to #1. Same Holmes, played by Robert Downey Jr. as a seriously bent genius whose brain-activity needle is always pinned against the red zone, and who can plan out all the moves of his ninjatastic street fights before they even unfold. Same Watson, a good role for Jude Law, as the eye-rolling sidekick who enables Holmes' crackpot scientific experiments and hair-raising dances with death.
The villain in #2, Professor Moriarty, is a real stinker played by Jared Harris. Of course, in #1 we had a real stinker in Lord Blackwood, played by Mark Strong, the resurrecting phantom of the gallows.
In #1, we had a fairly incoherent plot that you just have to go with to enjoy. Same with #2, except that I thought it was less incoherent, maybe because I was trying to pay attention to make sure Mr. LaSalle's review didn't overly influence me.
In fact, I thought #2's plot was clever. There were gadgets and twists that made me admire the writers in their quest to give something to moviegoers that would keep their interest. I'm not going to give any of them away, but if you want to talk about them in the comments, fire away.
I personally didn't see what was coming. I couldn't guess. Which is uncommon in Hollywood nowadays.
So after I got out of the movie, I began to think, "This has to be a collaboration. There's no way one person can come up with so many different creative ideas."
I was right. Michele and Kieran Mulroney partner on this screenplay. And it underlines the genius of the original author, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, in coming up with such an original character as Holmes.
It's something I think about with my own writing. I have had friends-- people who are biased-- say about a chapter from one of my novels, "How did you ever think that idea up?" I'm pleased they think I'm imaginative. But I don't think I could ever write anything alone that is as plot-driven and yet surprising as "Game of Shadows."
Right now I have two novel drafts finished. One is being submitted, and the other is just barely drafted. Neither of the endings are even close to perfect. But I can't think of better. That's sometimes the problem with writing in the partnership of me, myself and I.
I once had a writing buddy. He is a good man. We collaborated on a novel in high school. It was dreadful, of course. It was science fiction. We went on to college and roomed together our first year. I thought we'd continue to work together. But he didn't want to. He told me so, in no uncertain terms.
So we will never know what could have been--unless...?
"Game of Shadows" is fine. It is sort of loud. There are lots of explosions. Lots of fistfights. Lots of chases. Lots of frozen screen tableaux, for which director Guy Ritchie is famous. There's still a fair amount of deducing as well (stepson disagrees-- so does Mick). And campy ninja steampunk-lite stuff. But it isn't an "empty chair" movie. You can't always trust movie critics.
Comments