User Score
9.1

Universal acclaim- based on 700 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Negative: 18 out of 700

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. Feb 22, 2012
    3
    I am very disappointed with this series, I expected much better, especially after reading the reviews on this web site, unfortunately the series is not credible at all, with unrealistic scenes, Watson limps and walk with a cane, the next scene he runs like an athlete at the Olympic games, I certainly understand that it is a fiction, but I don't agree with this new version, Conan Doyle must be turning in his grave if he saw his work transformed like that Collapse
  2. osh
    Feb 18, 2012
    3
    I really tried to like this show, but I struggled to even finish the first episode, and I can't bring myself to watch another. I've always loved quirky genius characters, and mysteries are just so much fun, but something about this show kept putting me off. For starters, the production budget was obviously somewhat low, and there was this constant feeling like they were trying so hard to appear otherwise. The weird visual effects with the text-messages hovering around the characters and the "Sherlock vision" were particular examples of this -- they just felt so gimmicky. The characters weren't especially believable either, especially the police and the first episode's villain, whose face I don'r remember showing a single expression until his unintentionally comical last word. I think the writing is largely to blame, too. The climax scene has basically the same premise as a scene from the Princess Bride, and if either of the characters in it had watched the movie, they would have known just how ridiculous it was. The ending of the scene had me doubting the morality of the supposed good guys, too, and it was played off lightheartedly, which didn't do a very good job of selling the series to me. Anyway, there is already a perfectly fine modern interpretation of Sherlock Holmes, and it's called House. Expand
  3. May 8, 2012
    0
    The wife and I saw the brilliant un-aired pilot to Moffat's Sherlock reboot. It was tightly directed and scripted I like Moffat's work on Doctor Who and was excited about the show. . . . Until I saw the official pilot plodding, dull and stupid -They show the damn murder in the first scene- It was like they sent it to be re-written by a committee of 11 year old american boys and told them to dumb it up. I say to the wife "we are prolly are just underwhelmed because of how good the un-aired pilot was." or maybe she said it to me because she is clever like that.
    We watched the second episode "The Blind Banker" another murder in the first scene another give-me pseudo-mystery. Don't get me wrong there is some delightful racism throughout, fortune cookie accents, and inscrutable Asians. So it was not a total loss. the show is fun it is just not smart and worse it assumes we are not smart.
    Then came the "The Great Game" and the worst Moriarty ever. He plays a hyper-controlled super-genius criminal like Jim Carey playing "gay". Speaking of which the already have in the cast the perfect Moriarty Mark Gatiss. When he appeared in the Pilot I thought what a great choice of Moriarty. Not only is Mark number 3 on the list of people I would go gay for. He is wasted on Mycroft. He is the right age a -generation older than Benedict Cumberbatch-, the right temperament, he is a member of the league of gentlemen and can actually act. More importantly he is believable as a math-professor that controls the criminal world like a chess game. The fool they have playing the part, screams and chews the scenery any time he gets a cellphone call. The "I am sOoOo changeable" line had me on the floor laughing and not in the good way.
    I guess I should be grateful Moffat has presented me with a real mystery - why does this show only have good reviews?
    Expand
  4. Jan 6, 2013
    0
    Complete rubbish. Can't believe so many think this is intelligent TV. How depressing. In short the Sherlock acting is completely OTT, the script is no more than some bizarre crossword or deduction puzzle that's complete nonsense. If you're an adult avoid.
  5. Jan 31, 2014
    3
    Loved seasons 1 & 2, but the current one... ghastly! 3 hours to date, and not a single case we can sink our teeth in. Lame little sub-plots with flashbacks (ad nauseam !!) that only a flaming ADD sufferer would appreciate. The recent (2nd) episode gave me a headache and left me bored, bored bored! Bang!
Metascore
85

Universal acclaim - based on 17 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 17 out of 17
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 17
  3. Negative: 0 out of 17
  1. Reviewed by: Brian Lowry
    Dec 8, 2010
    80
    Clearly, there are few more durable figures in fiction, but capturing the fundamental appeal of Holmes is quite another matter. And on that level, Sherlock cannily cracks the case.
  2. Reviewed by: Alan Sepinwall
    Oct 24, 2010
    80
    Thanks to committed performances from Cumberbatch and Freeman, and clever writing from Moffat and Gatiss, most of it works splendidly.
  3. Reviewed by: Robert Lloyd
    Oct 24, 2010
    80
    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.