I welcome 2012 lamenting the failed directorial antics of Guy Ritchie in Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows. This is rather dismal for me, given that I assumed myself to be a Ritchie follower (Holmes, as well - but I assure myself this fact will remain so perennially).
Ritchie, the presenter of a beautiful mess in his earlier films - take Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, Snatch, Revolver and RocknRolla - and the forte with which Ritchie seals the fate of these films into halls of glory is sorely missed in Holmes 2. I'm afraid Ritchie's downfall is inevitable, unless he can find a resurrection, but we are informed that Guy Ritchie is plunging into an espionage project? Is that wise? His protagonists aren't swanky or gadget-wielding heroes; they are in fact the small-time crooks, unorganized and 'messy'. This is what makes Ritchie 'Ritchie' - the mess he creates with his plots, simultaneous sub-plots, confusions, unabashed action are missing in Holmes 2. Therefore, my outburst to Ritchie:
Dear Mr. Guy Ritchie,
Sherlock is calculating, strategic and never leaving anything to chance, but your characters are not - they are 'messy', without a plan, and their salvation (if any) is always out of a mere chance. Sherlock is not for you to articulate - it does not suit your signature. It is now decided that Sherlock Holmes is too competent for your competency in creating the 'incompetent character' (a characterization style that made You). With regret, I inform you that your attempt at Holmes 2 has clearly failed.
A thoroughly dejected follower.


