Season #: 1, 2, 3
User Score
8.5

Universal acclaim- based on 555 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 36 out of 555

Review this tv show

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. Jun 5, 2014
    3
    While I loved a lot of the previous episodes, in season 3 the explanation of Sherlocks death was disappointing, the wedding episode much too streched out and as in the other seasons, everything regarding Moriarty a joke.
  2. Apr 15, 2014
    2
    they really downgraded this show from previous 2 series this time, and lowered the IQ of the show and many audience's as well.

    let's just say that i prefer there's no series 3 at all, and Sherlock show should just end at series 2 for good. although there are still some good acting, music and cinematography at some moments in series 3, but the writing, plots or stories just suck and
    they really downgraded this show from previous 2 series this time, and lowered the IQ of the show and many audience's as well.

    let's just say that i prefer there's no series 3 at all, and Sherlock show should just end at series 2 for good.

    although there are still some good acting, music and cinematography at some moments in series 3, but the writing, plots or stories just suck and are not even believable or logical at time, plus character assassination to Sherlock himself (just counting how many times in the episodes you don't believe the things he said, the way he acted or the cold blood killing itself). do we really believe this is THE Sherlock ACD created? really? no, this series showed only a genius detective no more!
    Expand
  3. Jun 13, 2014
    3
    We LOVED the first two season of Sherlock, which were based on Sir. Arthur Conan Doyle's works; however, this third season is more into personalities and "emoting" than plot or story structure. The two episodes so far were filled with flashbacks, memories, and opium dreams. I'll have to talk my husband into watching the third episode against his better judgment. This is the "Monarch ofWe LOVED the first two season of Sherlock, which were based on Sir. Arthur Conan Doyle's works; however, this third season is more into personalities and "emoting" than plot or story structure. The two episodes so far were filled with flashbacks, memories, and opium dreams. I'll have to talk my husband into watching the third episode against his better judgment. This is the "Monarch of the Glen" problem. A hit show tries to attracts additional demographics, becomes soap opera-esque, and ruins a fine series that could have gone on for a decade. Drama is a poor second to believable stories based on human behaviors. Expand
  4. Jan 22, 2014
    3
    I am compelled to write this as I feel there is nothing worse than a series which starts good, becomes great and falls so far from grace its unreal. For me its classic BBC. Like Luther, the popularity becomes such that it feels its untouchable and it can get away with the quirky and the overdramatic. Sherlock season 3 is a disorganised nose dive from season 2. For me Scandal in BelgraviaI am compelled to write this as I feel there is nothing worse than a series which starts good, becomes great and falls so far from grace its unreal. For me its classic BBC. Like Luther, the popularity becomes such that it feels its untouchable and it can get away with the quirky and the overdramatic. Sherlock season 3 is a disorganised nose dive from season 2. For me Scandal in Belgravia was one of the finest episodes of any series ever - the series started to show its bbc quirkyness with the introduction of the camp moriarty and the gay innuendo between Watson and Sherlock which is completely out of place and adds nothing to the story. Season 3 was simply forgettable in every sense. The explication of Sherlocks return was handled appallingly. His media stardom and the silly detectives Empty hearse group just seems so far from reality and the show loses all credibility thereafter. Without trying to spoil the 'twist' at the end of ther series - cheap ....is the only way i can describe it. "did you miss me" does anyone care???? Expand
  5. Aug 9, 2014
    0
    Dis they just changed the whole writers team? That would be the only thing that could explain that insane drop in watchability from the first to seasons to the third.
    Seriously. I can't watch this, and especially when compared to the other seasons. It's like a new series. Bad puns are coming in in uncount numbers, absolutely no feeling of any seriousness, total change in characters. I
    Dis they just changed the whole writers team? That would be the only thing that could explain that insane drop in watchability from the first to seasons to the third.
    Seriously. I can't watch this, and especially when compared to the other seasons. It's like a new series. Bad puns are coming in in uncount numbers, absolutely no feeling of any seriousness, total change in characters. I moan a good TV series.
    Expand
  6. Jan 23, 2014
    2
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I've had it with Sherlock and the pretentious way it presents itself.
    It isn't smart.
    It isn't funny.
    And it's downright insulting to your intelligence.

    Where to start?
    Everything about the first episode is styled to make you want to like a **** who-apparently-informed everyone in his life except the one man he calls friend. And as the rest of the group never bothered to tell the pained and scarred friend. No. That's melodrama meant to distract you from the fact that the creators never had a way out for the end of season 2.
    Then comes the really painful part. Episode 2. That was SO much better written, acted, directed and overall a better production than 1, it was what I expected to see in a Sherlock show. I have nothing but praise for that episode because it's so well done.
    Shame episode 3 came along to F0ck that all up.
    Episode 3 has good points, characters like Magnussen should have been seen far more in this iteration of Holmes than has been shown. Lars Mikkelsen played the perfect counter to Holmes in this, he was as smart as him-if a little creepier than I'd like-and the type of person who can be a mirror to Holmes, something like 'he's the type of person I would be if not for you, John.'
    Shame that the title character is so off base again that I couldn't stand him in a single scene.
    Pretentious...totally and utterly pretentious, this isn't a slight against Cumberbatch, he's a terrific actor, but the role and lines in this episode were utterly crap.
    And the reveal at the end...well I hate to use too much profanity, but Gatiss and Moffat, you can go away and never touch Sherlock again as far as I'm concerned.
    Because that reveal was a load of Donkey Bollocks. And it's just reset the writing to season 1 level now, we'd passed this, it was over with. You'd written yourselves into a position where it would mean the show would end.
    LET IT! Not all shows have happy endings, look at The Soprano's for god sake, just as he'd reunited his family after all the **** as his daughter sees him as she's coming in, BAM!
    But as this is a staple of the British Broadcasting Company now, as it's raking in a load of money, why not wring as much out of it as possible, eh?
    What matter to literary integrity when you can line your pockets?
    I'm done, Sherlock is dead to me now, he died as he hit the pavement in season 2, I'm not buying this boxset just for one good episode.
    I'm done.
    Expand
  7. Feb 1, 2014
    0
    In this season Moffat and the gang have given up the pretense that this is a mystery program and have presented us with unadulterated Conan Doyle themed Yaoi. The plots are tortured there is no mystery individual scenes are clever but lend nothing to the plot. (but how could they there is no plot). I guess we should be grateful there are only 3 episodes per season.
  8. Jan 20, 2014
    0
    I hate this show, I know I'm alone on an island but the term style over substance fits it perfectly. Super close up shots of Sherlock's eyes, camera work to induce travel sickness, texts on screen and at least a dozen slow motion or film in rewind shot, the one thing it lacks is a story. What made Sherlock Holmes so popular was the writing of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the cases were superbI hate this show, I know I'm alone on an island but the term style over substance fits it perfectly. Super close up shots of Sherlock's eyes, camera work to induce travel sickness, texts on screen and at least a dozen slow motion or film in rewind shot, the one thing it lacks is a story. What made Sherlock Holmes so popular was the writing of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the cases were superb with a incredible depiction of Victorian London. This has none of that its a mess and Professor Moriarty is the one of the worst casting decision in the history of television. If people want to watch the Sherlock Holmes try ITVs version staring Jeremy Brett at least a hundred time better than this pile of modern crap. Expand
  9. Jan 22, 2014
    0
    This modern garbage storytelling should not be allowed to carry the Sherlock name in any respect. This is weak writing and is a slap in the face to people that really like mysteries. This is the equivalent of a bad star trek movie. The opening scenes in the first episode are laughable. The quality of the production is cheap.
  10. Apr 9, 2014
    0
    Love it!!! Season 3 is better than the previous seasons. Can't wait for season 4. Sherlock basically spoiled me from other shows that are almost the same type.
  11. Jan 19, 2015
    3
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. The show is straying further by the season. Holmes is a murderer, Watson loves a government paid serial killer, no one has integrity, they focus mostly on shiny packaging and witty insults, not on actual murder mysteries, with suspects and insights into human motivations and flaws, the soul of the source material. Now it’s flash and melodrama over substance. What started out promising is now cheap and lazy, bordering on a betrayal of the characters. I give it three stars simply for the watchability of Cummerbund and Bilbo--that and a nice Derren Brown cameo.

    The Sherlock from the books used to sympathize at times with the plights of his clients. This one is just a massive jerk, if jerk could be a stronger word.

    The Empty Hearse was a stop-the-terrorist plot out of the show 24, and more fabricated mush between Holmes and Watson, along with more unnecessary gay innuendo. Two guys can be friends, get over it and get on with interesting cases. One thing I do appreciate is the sharp humor, and nods to elements from the short stories can be fun, the sleek text and on-screen clues are inventive, but I'll get to my low score shortly.

    In The Sign of Three, the only attempt at a proper murder mystery this season, they spend all of 90 seconds explaining the motivation of the murderer and a throwaway line about a dead brother, as an afterthought. In the books, a good few pages would go into the scheming of the crime, shedding some light on the dark side of human nature. How could you not feel being impaled in the gut, or see a harpoon sticking out of your belt when you put it on?? Not enough thought went into things seeming plausible. During the wedding, Holmes goes on and on about murder and stabbing and no one objects--no one acts like a realistic human.

    Watching Northern Exposure recently, from the 90s, some shots go on for over a minute without cutting. Here, there is a scene where Sherlock is simply dancing/talking with a girl in a violet dress, and it cuts 19 times in a single minute. That kind of editing kills your ability to focus (kind of the opposite of reading, actually).

    To anyone who gives a fraction of thought to the original stories, this show has become an embarrassment. I like Ben. He was phenomenal in Star Trek Into Darkness, The Last Enemy, Parade's End. Martin Freeman was enjoyable in The Office and The Hobbit films. But they are too often wasted on slapped together, shoddy storylines here that chuck common sense and character continuity out the window.

    The whole Mary/Magnussen plot is absurd, shock value over comprehension. Are we supposed to be rooting for this unconvincing relationship, and glad that Sherlock became a murderer to protect it? She’s a hired killer, and lied to keep that from John. That’s a pretty solid reason to end a relationship if there ever was one. But this Watson is drawn to psychopaths, apparently. If you say so.

    Now the most offensive thing: Sherlock's murder of Magnussen.

    Doyle's short story was handled much more skillfully. Holmes and Watson break into Milverton's house (Watson actually remorseful even of burglary, let alone straight up murder) to destroy the files, but witness one of his victims kill the hell out of him, with the resolution that Holmes sided with her, keeping it covered up. Moffat comes off as stunningly dense and sexist (after changing the ending of Irene Adler's story too) that he can't believe a woman even capable of the act and spouts in an interview that Holmes and Watson made the woman up. Weak.

    Mycroft wasn't even in the Milverton story, and his vague reasons for protecting Magnussen come off as a first-draft plot device. They should have just had the swat team or Mary take out Magnussen instead of killing Sherlock's moral high ground along with the villain. Twice in one episode Magnussen outsmarted Sherlock, until Holmes just resorted to direct slaughter--it's just a big bowl of wrong.

    He can make no speeches about taking down murderers because he's now in their fine company. If he takes cases to catch anyone who killed their blackmailer, of which there are several in the canon, that's tremendously hypocritical. What an unholy mess, and supposedly two seasons to go. Sherlock does say in the short story that some criminals are beyond the law and deserve the revenge they suffer, so maybe it's not so far fetched he'd do it himself. But this season just left me feeling kind of weary and let down.

    They are trying so hard to be extreme and unpredictable, but Moffat and Gatiss are like children with a new toy, so carried away by excitement that they smash the thing to pieces.
    Expand
Metascore
88

Universal acclaim - based on 23 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 23 out of 23
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 23
  3. Negative: 0 out of 23
  1. Reviewed by: Brian Tallerico
    Feb 20, 2014
    90
    The writing is still incredibly crisp, so smart, and never boring, and the deeper focus on relatable emotion, particularly in the definition of the relationship between Holmes (Benedict Cumberbatch) and Watson (Martin Freeman), could even bring in new fans to this international phenomenon.
  2. Reviewed by: Emily Nussbaum
    Jan 22, 2014
    80
    The show is at its best in such moments, these sequences that capture the semi-virtual, semi-real ways that we think, and feel, and meet, and connect today. It’s a rare attempt to make visible something that we take for granted: a new kind of cognition, inflected by passion, that allows strangers to think out loud, solving mysteries together.
  3. Reviewed by: Alan Sepinwall
    Jan 21, 2014
    75
    When you're smart men writing about the smartest man of all, you may feel the need to demonstrate your smarts in every possible way, with every beat of the story. But Holmes and Watson are such enduring characters, and these versions written and played so well, that they don't always require such elaborate mental gymnastics.