Review this tv show
Jun 23, 20123The writers blew it in season two with a preposterous ending. If Moriarty was only an actor and Sherlock was a fraud, who was the mastermind behind the break-in at the Tower of London and the theft of the crown jewels? Sherlock could have simply pointed this out to Scotland Yard (and the media) and moved on with the case. No need to run. Better luck next season.
May 8, 20121This review contains spoilers. The baskerville episode was un-watchable.
But the whole series has a feel of the authors dumbing things down for the rubes.
1. the conceit of having the murder being shown in the scene why? so we don't have to be troubled solving anything. what is this CSI?
2. Labeling the clues with cg text so the writer can be lazy writing dialogue and the watcher can be lazy on figuring out what is important. This robs us of the two joy of mysteries being surprised or figuring them out.
3. having Jim Moriarty be behind every single crime but having the worlds greatest consulting detective never say maybe "hey Jim is behind this on too ?" as his first guess. like it is a saturday morning cartoon.
4. having Jim Moriarty be behind every single crime by inserting a Post-mortem "some guy named Moriarty told me to do it"
5. Irene Adler her password was "sher"-locked? also in that episode the cameras and graphics told us Holmes could not read her but 1 minute later Holmes reads her.
It is stupid and sloppy show ,it is fun, but it is not smart. I like it but I also like the A-team mostly for the same reasons.… Collapse
100In season 2 of PBS's richly clever Sherlock, the Victorian tales have been refitted to our century. [14 May 2012, p.44]