User Reviews (538)

Add a Review

  • ..with delight. A brilliantly written, well acted programme. Well done to all concerned. The story had me hooked from the start.All the elements of Holmes are present and correct. So far most of the original characters have appeared, with hints of more yet to appear. It is suspenseful and sometimes genuinely funny. I have read all the original stories, and after the late, great Jeremy Brett, despaired of ever seeing another top notch Holmes film. This is it, Brought up to date into the 21st century, but done with affection and respect to the original. Nice to see the writers have continued the theme of an intelligent (slightly bemused) Watson. CAN WE HAVE A FULL SERIES PLEASE. If not this is one I will return to again and again.
  • It's after 2am and I have just registered on IMDb after watching the first ep of Sherlock as I was compelled to get it out there that this show presents some PURE BRILLIANCE in its delivery of my favourite fictional detective. Hard to believe they could create a setting in modern times where the illustrious Holmes and Watson set off on their adventures and absolutely GET IT RIGHT, in every aspect. Sir Arthur would, I believe, approve of this adaptation and be pleased that yet another generation is able to live the thrill of the chase, the connection of obscure yet obvious (to a genius) clues... the little things that have a far greater relevance than you would normally perceive. For a first episode... BUGGER ME, I am more than hooked and now await more installments and hope that each episode is as brilliant as the last... I have a feeling it will continue from strength to strength as we delve deeper into the darkness that is the mind of Sherlock Holmes. if they had an 11 out of 10 rating... that's my vote. The game is definitely on my dear Watson!
  • beresfordjd27 July 2010
    To my surprise they absolutely nailed it. Cumberbatch is a fantastic choice for Sherlock Holmes-he is physically right (he fits the traditional reading of the character) and he is a damn good actor. Martin Freeman, about whom I wasn't sure at first, is an excellent foil for Holmes without being the dumb sidekick that Dr Watson has often been. I thought that this series would not work, particularly after Robert Downey's interesting take on Conan Doyle's characterisation. I have been proved so wrong-it moved along at a good pace and held the attention brilliantly. My wife started by saying she didn't like it but by the end of the episode she was as enthralled as I. We are both looking forward to the rest of the series, if it is as entertaining as the first story. I was disappointed to read some reviews here that did not love it. Methinks they are too jaded to enjoy anything.
  • I have been an avid fan of Sherlock Holmes from a very young age, and my first reaction upon hearing of a modern TV remake was "oh bugger, they are so going to screw this up". However, i am glad to report that, unlike so many other TV adaptations and especially ones that modernise, i found it witty, clever and above all, entertaining. It was extremely reverential of its considerable pedigree and included a large number of coded references and callbacks for the more avid fan, e.g. the use of scratches around a persons mobile phone charger port to indicate a drunkard rather than a pocket watches winding keyhole. I imagine many were irked by this and as i can see from the ratings many did not care for it at all, but for me it was simply sublime, and well deserving of a 10 out of 10
  • I think it is always a bit uncertain and tricky when a 19th century series or film is modernised and most of the time it doesn't work, especially if it is well known and liked but I was very very impressed. Benedict does a brilliant job portraying the famous sleuth and made a 19th century character and modern day London merge beautifully. Martin Freeman was also great as Dr Watson. Rupert Graves made a brilliant Lestrade. It was sharp, quick and kept you on your toes and you just couldn't wait to see what happened next, this was of course completed by brilliant acting from the actors. I'm so pleased it got favourable reviews from the critics, roll on the next episode!!!!
  • When someone pointed me to Sherlock- a new series on BBC I was, to say the least, a bit skeptical. On top of that, I was told that this Sherlock lived in London in 2010 and was fond of texting on his Blackberry and hosted a website? Color me confused! But I gave it a looksie –after all how bad could it be- Holmes is Holmes. On screen appears a lanky young fellow in a trench coat, getting high on nicotine patches who I am supposed to believe is Sherlock Holmes? This was, as far from my favorite pipe smoking, deer hunting cap wearing image of Holmes, as it could be. I rolled my eyes-this is going to be cheesy. But then in one swift sequence " the lanky young Holmes" in his first meeting with John Watson describes him, his profession , his relationship with his brother and his brother's marital status-all by one look at his cell phone (that's right his cell phone). BANG! I was hooked. This is Sherlock Holmes through and through.

    And that in essence is why Sherlock is so, so good. Holmes is not about the Victorian costumes and the environment in which the mysteries unfold. It's about the characters and the events that make the stories the defining mystery novels of so many generations. And Steven Moffat & Mark Gatiss' take on Conan Doyle's master detective captures the essence of Sherlock Holmes magnificently. The stories are essentially the same (the first episode-A Study in Pink is a take on A Study in Scarlet-the first Holmes novel) but given a contemporary twist. This contemporary take (which I thought was going to be cheesy initially) is what shows the duo's exemplary creativity. The modern outlook does not take away anything from the essence of Sherlock Holmes- it adds to it. The three 90 minute episodes breeze past you at a breath taking speed- challenging your intelligence and making you yearn for more. The episodes have distinctly dark and brutal settings but are also filled with moments of wry humor that make the experience completely satisfying. The concept of using images and visual pointers in the scenes were Holmes makes his superb deductions is excellent and helps the viewer see and think with the ace detective.

    As for the cast, Benedict Cumberbatch is not the kind of guy who would strike you as Sherlock Holmes when you meet him in a street, but man, does he own the show! Oozing charisma, Cumberbatch plays the Holmes character to a tee-arrogant, self centered, brilliant genius. There is an air of superiority about Holmes that makes him pity the vacant minds that don't see and understand the things which seem so obvious to him and Cumberbatch brings that out beautifully. Martin Freeman as John Watson on the other hand plays a perfect foil to Cumberbatch's eccentric genius-the everyday man. Looking for meaning and purpose after returning from the War in Iraq, Watson gets swept into Holmes' mad cap world of brilliance and chaos. Freeman's earnest and subtle performance complements Cumberbatch's Holmes beautifully.

    Sherlock though, is not about acting performances. It's about bringing the experience of the world of Sherlock Holmes to the world we live in. Moffat and Gattis recreate the world of the Victorian detective in a completely new setting and do it superbly. Nothing about it is elementary-it is pure genius!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    What we have here is a very interestingly rendered modern version of Holmes' first appearance, A Study in Scarlet, in which he meets Watson, they take the rooms in Baker Street and successfully investigate a series of murders.

    The story is rarely adapted for two reasons.

    The first is that the murders don't make sense without the dull, rambling back story which no one wants to dramatise. The Valley of Fear has hardly ever been dramatised for the same reason.

    The second is that this is Conan Doyle's first attempt and he introduced significant character changes to both Holmes and Watson in the short stories. Holmes, in A Study in Scarlet, is rather more deranged, more like Cumberbatch's Holmes than Brett's, much more an aggressive, painful thorn in the side of the police rather than the unseen assistant of later stories.

    So people who haven't read the book or have only seen Holmes on screen need to give this a bit of time. 21C technology aside, it's actually quite a faithful adaptation, even though they ditched the back story and gave the murderer another, more credible motive.

    Knowledge of the original isn't at all necessary, but it does change the viewpoint. While some were congratulating themselves on beating Holmes to the punch in spotting the profession of the murderer, readers of the original were being conned into believing that his next victim was going to be the American he was driving (the victims in the original are all American). In the original, the word 'Rache' appears at the crime scene, also in an empty house in Lauriston Gardens, written in blood. The police jump to the conclusion that the victim was trying to write the word 'Rachel'. Holmes knows that 'Rache' is German for revenge. Moffat turns it neatly and humorously around. In the original it's a red herring, in the new version, it's a vital clue. These riffs on the original abound and are almost always imaginative and amusing and often more than that. Mycroft as Sherlock's Big Brother, for example.

    Moffat and Gatiss treat the characters with all the loving respect that an author could wish for and serve up an adaptation which re-imagines everything that Conan Doyle put into his plots and yet delivers something very close to to their original purpose and effect. Holmes and Watson are products of their time, as they should be, but they are recognisably the descendants and inheritors of the originals. The baby is still gurgling happily in the bathwater.

    There's a lot more here than initially meets the eye and I have a sneaky feeling it'll get better.

    If it does, it's going to be very, very good indeed.
  • I've been a Sherlock Holmes' fan for what feels like forever, and, like others, was concerned that this modern version would be a disaster.

    I needn't have worried. It was a terrific, fast-paced, edge-of-the-seat adventure. Benedict Cumberbatch (what a name!) brings a dark edginess to Holmes that gives the whole piece a delightful 'gothic' feel, while Martin Freeman - if the first episode is anything to go by - will make a perfect foil as Watson. Casting is so important and this combination feels just right.

    I'll always have a soft spot for Basil Rathbone's Holmes, and, on the small screen at least, I can't see anyone displacing Jeremy Brett as the definitive 'Victorian' sleuth. But maybe, just maybe, the writers have created a Sherlock for the modern age who will stand the test of time and join a handful of other portrayals in the Pantheon of the greats.

    Moffat's pedigree as a comedy writer has added a new layer to the Holmes' scenario, and though there were several in-jokes in the first episode that only Holmes' aficionados would appreciate, there was enough general humour to lighten what might otherwise have been a dark canvas.

    Of course, I shouldn't have had any doubts. Steven Moffat is, after all, the man who rescued Dr Who from the self-indulgent, soap-opera obsessed, poorly scripted, moribund years of Russell T Davies and turned it back into a fun-packed joy to watch. He's done the same with 'Sherlock'.

    The man is a genius. I can't wait for the next instalment.
  • akilamike30 July 2010
    One word to describe this show..'excellent'. A true master piece. I am a huge fan of the original Sherlock Holmes books and TV shows. When I sat down to watch this, at the first glimpse I was a bit disappointed. The show started in a somewhat different way than I imagined. Few minutes later, I found out that the 'difference' I experienced is what makes this series unique and brilliant. The cast is spot on. Couldn't have picked a better guy for Holmes or Lestrade. Yet, Dr. Watson doesn't match the original picture.Who cares hey? The story is full of twists and turns and fascinating to see the techniques of deduction. The merging of old reasoning and new technology has been done magnificently. So, its a Holmes with a laptop and a smart phone.that who we see.and that can be easily related than those 1800's detective.

    Hope this show will continue for many full seasons.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    As a die-hard fan of the source material, I have tracked down and went through nearly every radio, television, film, and comic book interpretation of Sherlock Holmes - which run a mean gamut regarding quality, as you probably already know - and so I approached this incarnation skeptical but sanguine. Doubtful it would match the eminent Jeremy Brett series in quality, but hopeful it might preserve Conan's tone - something I think that series did well and the Downey Jr. movie did not.

    To my surprise, and delight, this show just so happens to be the bomb-diggity. Let me explain.

    Ever notice how lots of Agatha Christie fans complain when screenwriters change Poirot and Marple stories? I'm not one of them. I like new and different interpretations of those stories because otherwise, in the case of literary characters brought on screen, what's the point? What's the point if we film and re-film the same story, the same story which we've already read once, twice, maybe three times? Especially in many cases, what's the point when it's been done so perfectly before? In the case of Sherlock Holmes, The Hound of the Baskervilles has been filmed at least 24 times according to Wikipedia. So another iteration won't thrill me. However, one that takes liberties with the source material, i.e. bringing the characters into the 21st century, I'm all for it. Surprise me. That's what I say.

    And there are two things I really love about this series. 1) For longtime fans there are many, many "Easter eggs" to discover in each episode. And, best of all, 2) My boyfriend loves this series. And I can't pay him to watch a Jeremy Brett episode. He did enjoy the Downey Jr. movie (as did I, I just prefer a less swashbuckling Holmes - one reason among many that I didn't love the film), but he's never excited to watch Sherlock anything. This series is different. He loves it. For any Sherlock fan that would like to get their significant others on the band wagon, this is a great gateway. (And my boyfriend's actually a very good barometer for high-quality mainstream television shows. Usually, if something's firing on all cylinders, he knows it. More risky fare - he's off-put.)

    And, you may rightly ask, why should I give a crap what my boyfriend likes? Good question. I happen to be of the mind that TV and film can accomplish what my favorite art form - literature - cannot. The TV and film experience can be enjoyed by a group. Sure, book clubs discuss books, but with TV and film you and whomever you want to hang out with, experience story at the exact same time, in real time, and you can easily observe each other's initial, unguarded reactions. Plain and simple, it's fun to enjoy the mediums with others - to laugh together, to be scared, sad, thrilled, etc. It enhances the experience. I think literature's strength is the opposite. For me, the best thing about settling into a good book is that I'm alone. Just me and the test, together making up a story.

    Well, if anybody has read this far, I apologize for the rant. But if you're on the fence about buying the DVD or renting it or whatever, take a chance. Take a tip from me. You'll be pleasantly surprised. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
  • Once again this proves that the BBC Licence Fee is one of the finest ideas this country as ever had.

    Moffat's sharp dialogue and subtle character development sit excellently alongside Gattis natural flair for the uncanny and his talent for mystery stories; so evident in his novels as well as his League of Gentlemen work.

    The modernisation works artfully, showing that the challenges Holmes faced were not merely a question of his better scientific method keeping him ahead of the police. Watson benefit even more from the modern setting, the circular nature of history making his recent experiences in Afghanistan even more relevant than they can seem in the novels.

    The cinematography and editing was excellent (a feature that was much improved in the recent series of Doctor Who), the display of text messages stylish and deceptively simple.

    All in all this was a triumph for the BBC, and showed the benefit of their nurturing of talents such as Moffat and Gattis over the past decade.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    My feeling after watching the three new episodes was – "they left us dangling for years and THIS was the best they could come up with??" From sleuthing, wisecracking and kicking ass, Sherlock & friends seem to have descended into soap opera realm:

    Episode 01 – Mary has disturbed past which ultimately causes her death. Episode 02 – Sherlock risks getting himself killed (various styles) in order to fall back into John's good graces. Archvillain is only a plot device. Episode 03 – There is a Holmes sister!! A madwoman in the attic!!! (And an incendiary to boost, Jane Eyre rolls eyeballs)

    And granted, tongue-in-cheek is hard to keep up when there's so much personal drama all around you. The game is not on, life's become much too bitter for that. Perhaps that's why Sherlock's stoned most of the time.

    The characters are there, the camaraderie is there, but the clever deductions and the suspense are not. No mystery. The greatest enigma about Culverton, for me, was – how come a British billionaire must have these rotten teeth? From the onset, Sherlock knew he was a bad guy (who would not know, I mean, with those TEETH??) No deductive process necessary. Everything is a bit too heavy in self-referencing. To me, Mary's death was completely pointless and needless, even though she did die in Doyle's original material. But there she wasn't really a key character, was she? A mother of a toddler jumps in front of a bullet to save her husband's best friend?? Even if said mother is a highly trained agent whose superpower instincts just kicked in that second, credibility is heavily strained here.

    Most of all, Moriarty is video recording telepathically controlled by a prisoner?? (That's the closes I came to understanding it.) After all that cliffhanger stuff at the end of season three, (brilliant footage and after-credits!) - Sherlock was brought back because Moriarty is back but then he isn't? Continuity gods, where are you??

    Like most fans, I'd been waiting for a LONG time. I think we deserved more. There must be better sources of inspiration in the Doyle canon. Conclusion: c'mon BBC, you owe us the fifth season to make up for this weak stuff. And take a look at Star Trek, the original series: personal relationships, including Kirk & Spock bromance, was always there, but it was never an excuse for lack of plot. Not in more than one episode per season anyhow.

    And please don't tell me that Mary's death was Mycroft-staged. She in hiding while her family and friends suffer relentlessly would make me stop liking her.
  • If I was to rate the Sherlock Holmes series on season 4 alone, I would give this 0/10 if possible. Benedict Cumberbatch (Holmes) was barely tolerable and the new surprise character was appalling. Without giving away too much, they draw a parallel to who this character is "meant to be like". Sad to say that the performance wasn't even in the ballpark. I found myself biting my fist to dull the pain.

    Season 1 and 2 were knock outs and deserve high praise. They were overall, superbly written and acted, well paced and suspenseful. Season 3 experimented and was somewhat of a hit and miss as it shifted to a character drama with broader appeal.

    The writers really should have stopped at season 3. Moriarty was butchered in season 4 with a huge fall from acting grace. It's left a stain on most of the cast members. If you love the series, please, PLEASE skip season 4. It doesn't even feel like the same show anymore. It reminds me of one of those D grade TV shows that airs during the day when TV ratings are rock bottom.

    Season 1: 9/10 Season 2: 9/10 Season 3: 7/10 Season 4: 0/10 Overall: 6/10
  • Sherlock This series is difficult to write about, because it flew so high at the beginning, re imagining Holmes as a troubled but brilliant modern detective and Watson as a haunted but loyal man of action, in episodes promising to be re-interpretations of classic stories in an era of high technology. But it has fallen so low, riddled with the writers' own personal manias, and Steven Moffat's decision to twist his narratives (no longer 'stories' in the conventional sense), to redesign Holmes as a troubled and alienated super-hero wandering aimlessly through visual gimmickry and spectacular effects. The third episode of Season 3 is especially appalling. The moment towards the end when Sherlock shouts "I am not a hero, I am a functioning sociopath!" was so painful, I still can't get it out of my head. That moment surely has nothing to do with the character of Sherlock Holmes, the all-too-human hero (which he most certainly was) created by Conan Doyle, but it defines how Moffat and his team understand *their* character, 'Sherlock,' and perhaps how they understand their audience as well. Given the popularity of this show, apparently many young people do not want exceptional humans capable of resolving difficult problems, they want sick people with friends in high places who can thrash the arrogant and get away with it.

    There will certainly be a Season 4, and we can easily predict that it will be on a grand scale visually, and utterly impoverished of any good ideas or decent story telling. Moffat is no longer interested in storytelling, he wants to build a post-modern mythology much we are seeing in the Marvel Comics films.

    But Conan Doyle didn't write for comic books (or myth), he assumed an audience of literate, reasoning adults; and the best of the films based on his stories have always assumed the same audience, and delivered proper variants of some of the best stories written in the English language. It's too bad Moffat has chosen a different course.

    Note: There are currently four series of films attempting to revise the canon of Conan Doyle's brilliant Victorian detective for the 21st Century. One from the UK (Sherlock, for TV), one from the US (Elementary, for TV), one from Russia (Sherlock Homes, for TV), and the internationally produced films of Guy Ritchie, starring Robert Downey. Notably, each involves a radical re-envisioning of the character and his place in the world. We may have reached a point in history when filmmakers simply cannot give us the Great Detective as he was imagined by Doyle and played (with variations) throughout the 20th Century. Rating the 4 series: Sherlock Holmes (Russia): 9 of 10, with strong stories and a believably proletarian nerd Holmes. Sherlock (UK): 6 of 10; excellent first season has been betrayed by Steven Moffat's flashy showmanship until the stories are incoherent now (Season 3), the characters no longer likable, the focus almost completely lost. Elementary (US): 4 of 10; the redefined Holmes, a nervous, unsympathetic recovering drug addict, is not without interest, and any show with Lucy Liu in it gets the benefit of her quiet but charismatic presence and talent. But basically, this is just a routine American police procedural with a gimmick. I doubt that Hollywood can do anything else. Sherlock Holmes (Ritchie/Downey): 1 of 10. This series lacks any coherence in its stories or continuity. It's just a series of set-pieces with running around, fist fights, explosions, and campy jokes.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    First of all the acting was superb as usual, but the storyline for last night's finale was terrible.

    Mycroft up until now has always been Sherlock's smarter older tougher brother, last night he turned into a myopic, quivering stupid neutered man and lost all credibility.

    Here is a man who could not see that 5 minutes of his crazy sister and Moriarty alone together could not have disastrous consequences. Awful part of the finale, the scriptwriters should have been sacked for this piece of blatant nonsense.

    Mycroft was afraid of Euros too, which just does not fit in with the character that Conan Doyle wrote about.

    The premise that Euros was locked up since childhood because she was brilliant, had a very high IQ and set their family home alight stretches credibility beyond what is acceptable, I can imagine any family lawyer having a field day with this as evidence that she should be treated as the most vile criminal and have her future taken away from her.

    We are left with lot's of questions, how did Euros brainwash all of the guards in the prison so that they all came under her command?

    How did 5 minutes alone with Moriarty sniffing each other through glass like dogs turn into recordings of him making inane comments?

    How did Euros take over the mind of the Prison Governor, we heard some of what she said 'I can help...'? It sounded like something a teenager would say to someone to gain influence, puerile and infantile and would never work.

    Then we have 3 men tied up descending outside the window of the room Sherlock et al were in, apparently the ropes were tied to heaven because we were not shown how they were affixed.

    Euros pushes a button and 2 fall. How? The answer given by Sherlock was multiple choice (choice of 1 of the 3 men being the killer), so how could a single red button cut the ropes of the other 2 men?

    It was at this point I decided that somehow and unbeknownst to me that some dastardly person had put LSD in my cup of tea and I was now in the middle of an acid trip.

    Then Sherlock places the lid on a coffin and proceeds to smash it up, why did he place the lid on the coffin before smashing it up? And could you, the directors and scenemakers not have made the coffin break up so obviously like balsa wood?

    How did Euros transport herself, Sherlock, Mycroft and John to the Holmes family home? The prison was on a deserted rock in the middle of the sea, with no transport it appears.

    Are we to see Sherlock himself neutered in an upcoming series? whereby he cannot function without the input of his crazed sister?

    And finally the ending, I was sure it was a joke, but no, the ending was one of the worst in television history, whereby it turns out Euros was just lonely and just having a hissy fit and that's why she killed so many people.

    I cringe for what awaits in the future for Sherlock after watching the nonsense that was last nights finale.
  • I have long been a fan of Sherlock Holmes. The eighties version starring the late, great Jeremy Brett is definitive in my view. Whilst I fully understand that this is an ambitious 'different take', and that usually anything written and 'put on' by Mark Gatiss is well worth a view, I'll not be watching future episodes. Am I the only viewer out here who considers this a pile of incomprehensible, pretentious garbage? A case of the emperor's new clothes I fear.

    On a positive note, it's great to see Wanda Ventham again. Us blokes of a certain age will remember a series like UFO, with great fondness. It's just a shame about 'Sherlock'. Conan-Doyle fell out of love with his creation, but even he would spin in his grave over this travesty.
  • I used to worship this show. Season one? As someone who loves 19th century literature, Sherlock Holmes in particular, I'm finding it hard to comprehend the season four finale. Don't get me wrong; season one and two were good. I loved the cases, the way they humanised John and Sherlock in a way lots of adaptations seem to forget to do. Season three went a little off the rails but it was alright because there was character development and something that seemed to be leading into a decisive, interesting plot. But no. Season four was one of the worst things I've ever seen. There were continuity errors, plot holes and even instances where cameras were visible in shots. The final episode was almost too bad for me to watch, I couldn't believe what I was seeing. A grenade on a drone? It all seemed like a joke. In retrospect, the show was nothing more than a clever crime drama with some fancy camera-work. It's constant use of gay people as punchlines (ie; queerbaiting) only got worse as the series progressed, not to mention the fact that almost all of the villains were queercoded, something I thought we'd left in the 90s.

    TL;DR: Don't waste your time. There are plenty of better adaptations out there.
  • Season 1 and Season 2 are a wonderful, engaging and entertaining. Both actors did great in bringing a long loved character into the 21st century. It was fast, entertaining and captivating. Season1 and 2 deserve are highly recommended.

    However, Seasons 3&4 are a descent into pseudo-intellectual tripe, without a straight story line, or who's done it plot. Somehow the writers have lost the path and continuously made fun of the Holmes character by dropping him into East Enders Hell and see how he handled that bunch of human baggage. I do hope, if there will be a season 5, the writers pull their heads out of their perspective "bottoms" and write something in honor of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, not something in honor of their own pseudo-intellectual prowess...

    Very sad that the BBC has allowed it to go this far...
  • edbonl15 January 2014
    Sherlock is a brilliant take on the Sherlock Holmes stories. In season 1 and 2 that is. With season 3 something went horribly wrong. The episodes seemed to last forever and they were busy, confusing and pointless. What a disappointment. The many flashbacks, twist and turns were more of a hindrance that a help. Episode 3 was totally off the rails and even after watching the episode twice i still didn't understand the clue. Because Sherlock is written by the same person who writes Doctor Who, i believe he was mixing the two shows. Often i had the feeling i was watching a episode of Doctor Who.

    Hopefully a fourth series of Sherlock can be more like seasons 1 and 2.
  • Mascha8817 January 2014
    Warning: Spoilers
    I loved Sherlock seasons 1 and 2, and was eagerly looking forward to season 3. Alas... something seems to have gone horribly wrong. In seasons 1 and 2 the focus was on the crimes, the 'cases' and the brilliant and very original way in which Sherlock solved them. All the modern media (emails, iPhone texts, etc.) were used to great effect. And the 'tone' of the series was intelligent, rational and occasionally very witty. In series 3 the focus is no longer on the crimes and on how to solve them. Instead, endless time is devoted to the relationship between Sherlock and John, how they are really, really not gay (okay, we get it, enough already!), on John's new wife (what happened to the girl he was dating in series 2, she was much prettier and younger), and on the relationship between John and his wife, between Sherlock and John's wife, etc. etc. Also, there is constant reference to Sherlock being a 'high-functioning sociopath', followed by proof that he is really a warm, feeling human being. I can only deduce that some American producer stepped in... Worst of all, the plot, particularly in episodes 1 and 2, is dealt with haphazardly: okay, the bomb just had an off switch, and in episode 2: okay, if you keep your belt tightly fastened you won't bleed to death. I have to say that I found episode 3 slightly better, thanks mainly to the appearance of Lars Mikkelsen, whom I've seen in The Killing and who is a brilliant actor, in my opinion. And (possibly) bringing back Moriarty might be a good idea, I thought he was great in season 2. Although I hope they won't go for the twins angle.... Anyway, season 4 would have to be a big improvement in this for me to keep watching!
  • This is what we awaited for so eagerly?? This is what the writers are now putting out?? Not what I expected at all. Seasons 1 and 2 were brilliant, well crafted, and so special. I expected the writers to continue their skill in future seasons, but I'm bitterly disappointed, almost to the point that I don't want to watch it anymore. I so wanted to see the kinds of episodes that we watched in the first seasons, vibrant stories and such an interesting relationship that Sherlock and John had. These stories we just saw in season 3 are just pointless and totally confusing. Further, the characters speak way too fast for anyone in the world, who may not have English as a first language, to be able to decipher. And do they think that people are going to like that? I still don't see what the main story of each episode was. What crime were they solving exactly?... Sherlock writers, please give us what we want!! And if you have a new writer, fire him!
  • Warning: Spoilers is worse than the previous three seasons. Actually, as soon as Mary appeared as a super duper spy, things went downhill. Characters are been treated as superficial with no depth. The bad guys are uninteresting and secondary. There is weird need for a female character to be present and dominant, while Irene was by far the best but for some reason got neglected.

    Why on earth do we need a female Holmes? So many mysteries to solve so many ideas. Moriarty was back but has not been seen 0. What gives? I really find that the writers have no clue on how to write a proper story. On the other hand, on the other side of the Atlantic, Holmes is more authentic.
  • Electron-Libre12 January 2017
    Well, I liked the 2 first seasons apart from the Baskervilles episode. But since the 3rd season, I really find this show really annoying and utterly messy. The last episode of season 4 will be the last I will see from this series. The episode I just saw called "The Lying Detective" was particularly painful to watch! This has nothing to do with Benedict Cumberbatch who is a wonderful talented young actor and Martin Freeman does a good job too. Some other actors are not so good though. The show has became totally messy without any good linear story telling. You get quickly bored of all the mess, all the what Sherlock manage to guess without any explanations like if he was a supernatural being, the infernal rhythm, how fast he talks. It is only effects, effects, effects. I explain the high ratings with blind fanaticism. People are so "fan" of someone or something nowadays. It has the same roots as fanaticism in fact... No, I will stick to the good old series with Jeremy Brett or 2/3 movies with Basil Rathbone. The striking Billy Wilder's movie from 1970 or some great Russian adaptations from the director Igor Maslennikov in the 80's. Even the Guy Ritchie's movies are at least fun to watch. But as far as this "Sherlock" is concerned, I am through with it.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    5 Stars is indicative of Season 3 only. At this point I truly hope they are finished, as it just doesn't seem possible they can reclaim the great intrigue and character development of Seasons 1 and 2. Martin and Benedict are clearly Film stars now and perhaps don't have the time to commit to a BBC program, but at the very least the writers should have done their jobs! You had 2 friggin years!

    As others have said it's morphed into an American Network's take on Sherlock Holmes (which already exists btw). The Series 3 Finale was just so spineless, Sherlock blows the evil Blackmailers head off, taking a tired page from the Dirty Harry Series. Later he gets on a plane to his certain death (the lack of real emotion in his farewell was downright criminal), only to be called back minutes later because Jim Moriarty is supposedly back from the Dead.

    I am literally depressed that what "was" the best character and story development in modern entertainment is virtually dead at this point.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    I write this review after watching a Youtube video by the user "hbomberguy" with the title "Sherlock Is Garbage, And Here's Why".

    I admit, I liked the series up to the end of the third season, but I was incredibly irritated mid fourth. I did not see all the clues the above mentioned Youtuber presented, but into the fourth season, they became somewhat apparent.

    Two things to know when deciding to get into this series.

    1. It is usually not about solving cases, when it is about cases, it is about anticipating a decent one. The series is an endless teaser, about bigger and bigger cases caused by psychopaths which do things simply because, well... psychopath. There is no motivation for such an individual, but to serve the story as the evil, evil villain. A villain without a cause, be it wealth, power, even pure blood-lust like a Hannibal, anything really, is a villain too abstract to form a link with, to be afraid of, to be surprised by. The only thing the villains seem to have, is an obsession with our detective.

    2. It is mostly about Sherlock and how to quantify his genius. At no point will you ever get to see clues sufficient to connect the dots to come to a conclusion on your own. Rather, it will be Sherlock to observe some facts, to then come to a conclusion which could be one amongst hundreds. This way, the writing makes it hard to get involved into the puzzles. Cases are there, but they are there only for Sherlock to be presented as the ultimate genius. Watson doesn't contribute anything either, even at places where he could give an input as a doctor for example, Sherlock shoves him into the shadow with his staggering, unbelievable, unprecedented brilliance *yawn*. Even Watson's wife has a bigger role than to walk by Sherlocks side and to be annoyed by him every once in a while.

    Lastly something which won't matter to most, but it may still be irritating: the series makes every so often fun of the original series, as well as the books. The mysteries and riddles by Doyle take a back seat (where you are, since you are not smart enough to figure out the brilliant Sherlock), and in front we see some talkative characters with zero depth. If you read the books, maybe consider giving a pass for this series.
An error has occured. Please try again.