A Tale of Two Sherlocks - Part II

Conspiracies, detectives, exploding woods, and Moriarties

Looking back down my blog history, one might recall a compare/contrast post I did almost a year ago now, called A Tale of Two Sherlocks, that discussed the casting, premise, and execution of two very different adaptations of the original works of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, one which moved into a modern setting yet stayed truer to the stories, whereas the other kept the Victorian setting, but went for a more bombastic, stylish to the point of steampunk, Hollywoodized action-fest that still managed to be well-characterized and entertaining. And now, having seen the second series of the Steven Moffat-headed BBC series Sherlock, as well as the Guy Ritchie sequel Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows, I have returned once again, this time to evaluate the second act of these respective stories. Again, I feel I must reiterate that I believe Jeremy Brett's Holmes is THE definitive version of the character. Period. Robert Downey Jr. and Benedict Cumberbatch are terrific actors, to be sure, but they don't exude the exact quality that made Brett feel like Doyle's creation straight off the page. Anyways, on we go. This time, I'll do Sherlock first:

Joker ain't got nothing on me.

Sherlock basically continues onward, exactly as you would expect, for the first two episodes of Moffat's second series. I found "A Scandal in Belgravia" (Of course, a riff on the classic "A Scandal in Bohemia" tale from Doyle's canon) to be somewhat of a disappointing first installment, quickly brushing aside Moriarty and the explosive (LOL) bomb jacket cliffhanger from Series 1's "The Great Game" in favor of a side story loosely connected to the Moriarty story, but mostly a standalone tale, featuring the most vanilla incarnation of Irene Adler ever. Certainly, Lara Pulver does an admirable job with the material given, and shows some fearlessness in certain scenes (the nude sequence surprisingly served a purpose, to throw Holmes off his game), but the character ends up feeling like a mere underling/pawn between Holmes and Moriarty, and lacks the general femme fatale feel that Rachel McAdams brought to the role so ably in Ritchie's film. It succeeded in moving the story forward, and I enjoyed the meta elements (mentioning various Holmes cases while also referencing the deerstalker's cap and other Holmes iconography), but the Adler elements were disappointingly lacking. Thankfully, this was quickly rectified in the second episode, a standalone, but Moffat's take on one of the best Holmes stories, that being "The Hounds of Baskerville". Many critics hated this one, criticizing it for its placement, similar to last season's "The Blind Banker", but I personally thought that it was fantastic, sufficing as an imaginative modern spin on the classic "Hound of the Baskervilles", while giving us some excellent Holmes-Watson face time. Did I mention that Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman continue to excel in their roles? No? Well, they both seamlessly carry over from the first series, perfectly modernizing the classic duo while staying true to the characters of the original stories. However, they, as well as Andrew Scott as Moriarty, take it to a whole new level in the virtuosic finale, "The Reichenbach Fall". It perfectly turns the entire series (and I mean all 6 episodes) completely on their heads, making us question all of the events thus far, as well as Holmes' integrity, and Moriarty's true identity, leading to a frankly trascendent climactic scene where Moriarty is revealed to be the orchestrator of all the events. Scott strays pretty far from the source material in his manic, mood-swinging Machiavelli, but creates a whole new interpretation all the same, owing just as much to Heath Ledger's Joker as he does Doyle's character. It is also the later scenes of "The Reichenbach Fall" where Cumberbatch and Freeman are at their best, bringing levels of heightened emotion to their characters, and leaving us with one heart-wrenching hell of a cliffhanger. It's hard to tell where Sherlock will go now (other than at least part of the first episode of series 3 adapting "The Empty House"), but I have confidence in Moffat, Cumberbatch, and Freeman, and we'll see what happens. Now, on to Ritchie's own Moriarty-infused sequel, Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows:

It takes a lot to match wits with Tony Stark

Many have lambasted A Game of Shadows as Ritchie and screenwriters Kieran and Michele Mulroney ignoring what made his take on Holmes work last time, relying instead on noisy action sequences and an overly complicated mystery plot. However, I feel that it's a pretty logical extension of what Ritchie set out to do the first time around, and especially in light of the arrival of the BBC series, it was wise to take the sequel further in the action direction. It allows the film to still be tied to Doyle's stories without ruining them, and presenting a fresh, slick, and exciting take on the proceedings of Doyle's "The Final Problem", complete with gypsies, much witty Holmes-Watson banter, and ACTUAL Reichenbach Falls for Holmes and Moriarty to grapple over. It is disappointing, however, that Rachel McAdams' role had to be cut short. Noomi Rapace does the best she can, but Simza is simply a plot device, not a character, and Irene Adler could have organically worked in the role as well. They also really underused Jared Harris as Moriarty, who isn't as central as his role in the plot should suggest he be. It's even more disappointing when you see how good Harris is in the role. As good as Scott is on Sherlock, his character isn't really like the character written in Doyle's stories, instead going for a more manic take in "Jim Moriarty". Harris, on the other hand, is a dead ringer for the iconic professor. From talking about how Holmes has been "disrupting" and "meddling" in his plans, to matching wits with the detective every step of the way, to his almost banal, gentlemanlike manner with just a hint of the rage boiling underneath occasionally escaping to the surface, I am so happy they cast for quality rather than big names (Brad Pitt and Daniel Day-Lewis, great actors though they are, wouldn't have been good fits). Anyone who's seen Fringe or Mad Men can attest to Harris' aristocratic style, and Fringe definitely sells his ability to go all Hannibal Lecter on people. And he brings this to Moriarty, making for an ideal antagonist to the bonkers, bohemian character that is Downey's Holmes. Downey still exudes charisma, even if he's still not a perfect take on the detective, and Law is still a capable and sardonic Watson. Ritchie's direction improves, and while the script may have some problems, I think that A Game of Shadows matches its predecessor time and time again.

So, in conclusion, the second series of Sherlock does best the movie, but not by as much as you'd think. I implore for people to think of them separately rather than competing, and would hope everyone can enjoy both. Sherlock offers a deeper, more deductive take with a far more insane and personal villain, while A Game of Shadows offers a fun, big-budget, popcorn style adventure with far higher stakes for the world at large. Just watch both. You probably won't be disappointed with either, as long as you go in with the right mindset.

Sherlock Series 2:

"A Scandal in Belgravia" - 7/10

"The Hounds of Baskerville" - 9/10

"The Reichenbach Fall" - 10/10

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows - 8/10

You said it, Jim.