Homes would say, “Go,” and Watson, “Whoa!” Introducing the pair in 1887, Conan Doyle devised a formula that was replayed in dozens of good-cop/mad-cop movies ( Lethal Weapon, 48 Hrs., Die Hard With a Vengeance) and also defined the relationship of most comedy teams. Indeed, Watson was the audience’s surrogate, the “normal” one, who would filter, explain and occasionally apologize for the exploits of his more gifted and eccentric pal. Friend and foil, colleague and biographer, Watson marveled at Holmes’ powers of deduction no less than the reader did. Holmes was the superman - a hero above and apart, keen of intellect, able to deduce grand schemes from minute evidence - and Dr. He invented one of the world’s most famous characters, pioneered the modern detective tale and, in a way, created the buddy movie.

Maybe, the fact that Brad Pitt was suppose to play Holmes' arch enemy creates a sense of disappointment.Follow Conan Doyle achieved quite the hat trick in his four novellas and 56 short stories about Sherlock Holmes. Here, he is dwarfed by the other players and the events. Needless to say, you might end up a wee bit disappointed with Professor Moriarty who has always been a larger than life figure in the Holmes scenario. once again walks away a scene stealer and Jude Law assiduously walks along. A bit of your brilliance blended with the vision of Doyle will subtly do the trick. Don’t transform Holmes into a totally new character from the one Arthur Conan Doyle conceived in the 1980s, Mr. But here we hardly get to see Holmes playing Rodin even for a moment and showing us how he reaches conclusions and places. For, Sherlock Holmes deductions were beyond the realm of normal intelligence. After all, we did love the intellectual scholar that lay beneath that hat and loved to follow his deduction when crimes occurred and solutions were needed. Here there is too strong a reinvention of our favourite detective. Too long a film that might make action buffs go wild with joy but for those who like their films with a bit of drama, they will end up with a hollow feeling. So where lies the problem? Too much action, infact it seems there is only action. A word about the dialogues: Arresting, humourous and laced with Downey's characteristic sardonic wit. The visual appeal will not leave you disappointed nor will the plot which travels all across the globe and climaxes in a peace summit in Switzerland. Shot in dense, damp, depressing and dark London's foggy weather, the visuals show you only as much as you need to see. Other than that is the atmospherics of the film that are admirable. The film is a relentless action experience which gives enough to adrenaline hunters to get an overdose. Some of the action sequences which include a train fight (a war rather than a fight) with Holmes’ unconventional act against Watson’s newly wed wife, a forest escape, a pub brawl on Watson’s stag party, Holmes’ attempt to downsize an enemy whom he visualizes as a primate bird, are absolutely mesmerising.

Hence, like the first film, Game Of Shadows also follows the same idiom of action cuts classically put together to create a fast paced, visually stunning film.

The only way the maverick director tells his stories is to go Lock Stock Smoking Barrels. Also, you can’t expect Guy Ritchie to lie low in his story telling.

Film review sherlock holmes