The Abominable Bride

Very different from the episodes that precede it but still very enjoyable and well worth watching. I was looking forward to this episode for a full year and I was not disappointed. Now only another year plus until the 4th season...if I overdose now I should be able to sleep until then. Don't go into this expecting to be blown away. The cinematic intensity of the 9 episodes its elder is not present. The depth and complexity of the plot are less structured. However, even though it's not quite up to par with Sherlock episodes of days past, it is still superior to the majority of television programs and I would say enjoyable enough to watch more than once.

What can I say about the "Sherlock" Christmas special, "The Abominable Bride?" Extremely little, for fear of spoilers.

I will say that I loved it — I'd rate it a perfect 10, as I would just about any episode of this amazing TV show. Also, as good as the trailer was … I can say that it offers much more in its story than you'd expect.

I'd also say that it strongly, strongly parallels a movie that I happen to love — right down to its surprise plot device, key character interactions, and a symbolic act by the main protagonist in the climactic scene. The similarities are just too much for this to be a coincidence — it's just got to be a well done (and a damn fun) homage. It's unexpected, too, as the film I'm thinking off probably appeals to a different fan base. "The Abominable Bride" also cheerfully skewers another excellent recent film and the twist employed there.

There's some terrific acting, especially between Sherlock (Benedict Cumberbatch) and our main villain. And the dialogue is as sly and superbly delivered as always. I don't think I've ever watched a new episode of "Sherlock" and not laughed out loud at least once. The stronger, more assertive John Watson (Martin Freeman) that we see is damn terrific. (There's a compelling and sensible reason why this iteration of Watson seems a little different than our usual mild anti-hero, but I just can't say why.)

My quibbles were wholly forgivable. I thought that the Victorian versions of Molly Hooper (Louise Brealey) and Mycroft Holmes (Mark Gatiss) were just so cartoonish that they seemed right out of a "Saturday Night Live" sketch. It "took me out of the movie," and hampered my willing suspension of disbelief. It felt more like farce and silly sight-gags, instead of the dry, dialogue- and character-driven humor that the show is known for.

I also though that the climactic scene occurring among three primary characters, felt a little … off. Was it just not staged right? Was the pacing off? Maybe I got the sense that I was looking at a soundstage? I'm not sure.

Finally, I am an inveterate horror movie fan, and I might have liked to have seen the director and screenwriters play up the horror story elements just a little bit more here. The mystery for this episode was a jewel of an opportunity — a garish, fearsome "ghost bride" that assassinates men. It could have been just a little scarier, given that story. I know that "Sherlock" is not a horror show, but its creators did just fine in making their adaptation of "The Hound of the Baskervilles" both a bit frightening and a proper mystery.

But, again, those are just forgivable quibbles. This show remains the best thing on television!

Almost the perfect episode until the last 20 minutes. They didn't have to make it so complicated. The story was great , the setting was perfect and the acting as always was impeccable. Not going to go on about the story but just lightly summarize the drawbacks and the SHERLOCK moments. The episode as it stands I feel didn't need to be connected to where we left in season 3. The story and the setting was good enough for it to be stand alone episode. Though I did enjoy the subtle scene references from the main Sherlock. More importantly the episode for god sake just needed have a good solid ending. I am sure most of the viewers would complain about how the makers tried too hard to pull off a "SHERLOCK" ending. It just needed to be enough to quench the beaming desire of the fans for another year as they wait to see their favorite detective on his adventures.

What I did enjoy about the episode is as is the case with every sherlock episode is the dialogs. They take a moment to seep in and when they do: wow. The references to the main series are also enjoyable. For the first 1hr the episode hits the high standards it has set since its inception, but where it does falter is in the last 30 minutes where just needs to wrap it up in good solid way.

No matter for that, Sherlock fans will definitely enjoy it. To sum up, the episode as Moriarty would say if he was to represent the whole series: MISS ME

Sherlock and Watson land in the late Nineteenth Century to solve the case of Emelia Ricoletti, a bride that killed herself, and then later manages to shoot her husband and bring about the death of Lord Carmichael. The duo must uncover how this devious crime was carried out.

I must admit I have been hugely looking forward to this, possibly because I was keen to see how the altered setting would work. Series 3 had been somewhat of a disappointment, a little too self satisfied I suppose, so I'm glad they did something different to refresh it, it was certainly different.

A few minor quibbles, a little contrived at times, and as is the nature of the show it did seem a little wrapped up in its own smuggness at times, but I was utterly enveloped in the story, it had me wrapped from start to finish. Beautiful cinematography, great direction, awesome production values. It managed to feel fresh and exhilarating once again.

Cumberbatch was definitely on fine form, I loved the altered appearance, suited him, I noticed a few Jeremy Brettisms, not sure if anyone else did, maybe the hair and some of the body language. The scenes between Holmes and Moriarty once again were simply amazing, Andrew Scott is just unbelievable, he is such a charismatic performer.

Crazy, fun, Gothic, energetic, waited a long time, and it was worth the wait. 9/10

The long-awaited Sherlock special, "The Abominable Bride," is supposed to satiate our hunger for Sherlock, since we see him so rarely.

It did and it didn't.

I want to disclose up front that I flew to London to see Benedict Cumberbatch in Hamlet.

This episode was as divisive as Cumberbatch's looks. Some people thought this was the worst thing they've ever seen, and others thought it was wonderful.

I'm somewhere in between. Without giving anything away, I'll say, given the idea behind this episode, the story as it unfolded made sense. It was chaotic, confusing, and filled with strange things -- it was supposed to be.

Instead of taking the idea so literally, I would have preferred something more straightforward with Sherlock returning to Victorian times. There were too many interwoven ideas and people popping up.

One thing I was very impressed by was how much, in Victorian times, Cumberbatch resembled the standard idea of Sherlock Holmes' appearance. He looked amazing.

The production values and acting were both excellent; besides the leads, Andrew Scott was incredible. A good deal of the dialogue was fun. "He said the crime solution was so easy that even I could have solved it," Lestrade tells Mrs. Hudson. "Oh, I'm sure he was exaggerating," she assures him.

I wish they would release more episodes before 2017. For a man the producers objected to when he was cast, Cumberbatch is now too busy to be available for episodes. The price of fame.