Review this tv show
Jun 9, 2014Sherlock season 1 is great, but never has a show so instantly established itself as classic, and then imploded. Seasons 2 is OK. Season 3, what I saw of it, was terrible. I've given up watching. The show has become so frantic in its pacing and how it is shot, like a 50 minute music video, that I just can't take it anymore. I think some shots are so short they must occupy half a frame ofSherlock season 1 is great, but never has a show so instantly established itself as classic, and then imploded. Seasons 2 is OK. Season 3, what I saw of it, was terrible. I've given up watching. The show has become so frantic in its pacing and how it is shot, like a 50 minute music video, that I just can't take it anymore. I think some shots are so short they must occupy half a frame of film. Also, rather than understand Sherlock's reasoning, as we did in season 1, the explanations in season 3 are not explanations at all. They are just pretend explanations that come and go so quickly we are not even meant to understand them, which makes the show boring. I wish the show were still like season 1. In other words, just dramatize the story, and cut out all the post production jazz overdubs and visuals and all that hyperactive nonsense. If you have so little faith in your story that you have to dress it up with all this gibbering nonsense, don't even bother telling it. It's annoying. I'm going back to re-watch the 1980s-90s Sherlock Holmes, the definitive series with Jeremy Brett, which by the way this series copies very very much in terms of Sherlock's personality. I've bid goodbye to this ADHD Attention Deficit Disordered version. Enough is enough.… Expand
Dec 11, 2012This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Sherlock is perhaps one of the better conceived BBC shows that have come out in the last decade, unfortunately for the show, it doesn't live up to the idea.
I've got no problems with Steven Moffat, he's a great writer and producer, but I just can't get into the feel of the show, it's got nothing to do with the shorter series time-in fact, I prefer series that are shorter, IMO it makes the story better-but there's something about the show that I couldn't initially put my finger on.
With the 'Holmesian' explosion in the media of late, there's been a lot of takes on Holmes and while some would prefer the more traditional appeal of Sherlock from the books, the edgy feel of characters being 'darker' has been an easy one to lean on lately-and at first I thought that was the problem with Sherlock, but having a somewhat cold and unemotional Sherlock would fit if you transplanted the character to the 21st century.
For me, the feel of the show went really wrong when in the first episode of season 1- Phil Davis' character screamed the name of the 'Big Bad' in the series so far, Moriarty. I really dislike entering the most well known bad guy in the Holmes story so very early, for me it's sloppy and easy writing, I would prefer using characters and bad guys from the Holmes universe that are perhaps less well known than Moriarty, it could have given the show more scope. i.e.: The Red Headed League, Milverton or 'Holy' Peter would work just as well.
And on the topic of Professor James, I really disliked the character of James 'Jim' Moriarty, it's no slant against Andrew Scott-he's wonderful. It's just, I prefer the more subtle feel of Moriarty-the best performance of that in recent years in Jared Harris in the film A Game of Shadows, for me it's more interesting that a man of genius level intellect can sit facing someone else and merely smile, have a cup of tea and talk pleasantly while they both play a game of mental chess to figure a way of defeating the other. The Modern take on Moriarty seems to lean too much on a John Simm 'The Master' of Dr Who for a genius 'Napoleon of Crime'.
With Season 3 looming on the horizon, I'm hoping for a more powerful, possibly more interesting story than what's been shown so far.… Expand
Apr 27, 2016Being nasty is the new cool and we have progressed from the quirky to the downright abusive because being successful gives you a free pass at insulting people, especially when you are backed up by authority in the person of inspector Lestrade. Cumberbatch is the attraction but his Sherlock isn't the Sherlock from Rathbone: it has been rebooted to the here and now and updated socially fromBeing nasty is the new cool and we have progressed from the quirky to the downright abusive because being successful gives you a free pass at insulting people, especially when you are backed up by authority in the person of inspector Lestrade. Cumberbatch is the attraction but his Sherlock isn't the Sherlock from Rathbone: it has been rebooted to the here and now and updated socially from such restrictive times when men wore top hats to lift them as to greet ladies because the latter were. Instead the lady is a tramp calling Sherlock freak whenever she adresses him and Sherlock is sure to show his derision for her and the other 99.9 percent of world because they have a lower IQ than him.
Martin Freeman plays a somewhat unbelievable sidekick Watson who must be a war veteran with mental issues and is mostly memorable for looking out of his depth whenever Sherlock whirls off the screen. The biggest issue with the show is that turning Holmes into a social unfit is at odds with his ability to make peope cooperate with him. It wasn't just being brilliant deductive that made him a great dectective, but his ability to have his deductions supported by knowledge that people supplied him with. I recall this from real life. Once a man was described to me as a somone who might be right, but even rubbed people who agreed with him the wrong way with the result that a man who had it right got it wrong anyway.… Expand
Mar 6, 2012Sherlock, it's enough pertinent to the Doyle's novels, BUT the character is very boring because is something already seen.
This show is terribly old, because Sherlock Holmes was already in every "detective show".
Monk? Psych? Even Poirot or Doctor House, they were already a Sherlock Holmes before this "Sherlock" came. I'm sorry but - mediocre.
Jan 10, 2017Benedict Cumberbatch plays Sherlock Holmes, a detective that can just look at a person and no half of their life story. The show Sherlock, directed by Paul Mcguigan and Nick Hurran, has crimes like no other, with a lot of thinking and puzzles involved. When Sherlock gets a new partner he has to learn to work together not alone. To solving a crime, dealing with enemies, and life or deathBenedict Cumberbatch plays Sherlock Holmes, a detective that can just look at a person and no half of their life story. The show Sherlock, directed by Paul Mcguigan and Nick Hurran, has crimes like no other, with a lot of thinking and puzzles involved. When Sherlock gets a new partner he has to learn to work together not alone. To solving a crime, dealing with enemies, and life or death situations, Sherlock Holmes can still solve the crime.
In episode one, “A Study in Pink”, Sherlock meets his new partner and only friend Martin Freeman, who plays the character Dr. Watson who is a ex military soldier. The crime they face contains four suicides that are all connected. On the fourth body Sherlock realizes it's not what everyone thought, but this isn't the only trouble they're facing. Dr. Watson meets Sherlock's arch enemy who offers Dr. Watson a great deal of money an exchange for information about Sherlock. After, Sherlock cracks down the case and finds the killer, but when he and the killer are face to face he is faced with a life or death situation.
In “The Blue Carbuncle” Sherlock can describe the owner of the chefs hat by just looking at it, in the show it is the same way when he looks at the victims bodies. The conversations in the show were like watching paint dry, they all took forever to get to the point. The show was also like watching a turtle race, many small events were happening that had not much to do with the plot so solving the crime of the episode took longer than it needed to. The action in the show was like trying to find snow on a hot summer day, there was barely any and if there was it was nothing extraordinary. The only thing i found good about the show was Sherlocks and Dr. Watson's friendship, they were so loyal to each other and would always help each other out which i find is good to have a partner in a detective show like that.
Overall the show didn't catch my interest. The episode was to boring for me because it had little action for a crime show, the whole episode was mostly just people talking and the conversations became too long to listen to. Sherlocks talent ruined a lot of the mystery in the show by figuring out all the evidence just by looking at the crime scene, so it was boring to try and solve the crime. The whole show was just to dragged out.… Expand
Awards & Rankings
It is cinematic in the sense that nothing in it looks quite real. But it works: This is not the London known as jolly and old, but the new chilly city of glass, a place of missed connections, of aliens and alienation. And the smart dialogue and warm performances--even Holmes has a discernible beating heart, or perhaps two--keep ice from forming on the production.