Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 11, 2017 18:22:39 GMT
Share your thoughts on Sherlock (2010).
I rated it a 10, simply on the fact that Moffat took a chance and made a new, more modern Sherlock and Cumberbatch is a perfect fit for the role. Amazing series
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 12, 2017 17:22:34 GMT
9
I love that they updated it, and it's fun for book fans to spot all the various influences and the way they've twisted it here and there.
Cumberbatch as Sherlock was one of the all time great pieces of casting, and Martin Freeman was almost as good a choice as Watson.
I only give it 9 instead of 10 because there are a few duff episodes here and there.
|
|
maxwellperfect
Junior Member
@maxwellperfect
Posts: 3,966
Likes: 1,683
|
Post by maxwellperfect on Feb 5, 2018 19:05:04 GMT
I think I've seen all of the episodes in seasons 1 and 2 by now, and a handful of others.
8/10
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Feb 6, 2018 4:21:31 GMT
I gave it a 6 on the whole, which means—something, I suppose. “A Study in Pink” and “The Hounds of Baskerville” are excellent; “The Blind Banker,” “The Great Game,” and “The Reichenbach Fall” are good; “The Abominable Bride” has an excellent first half and an atrocious second half. Sadly, I didn’t like any of the other episodes: too arc-based, too many confusing story elements, too annoying, smug, and self-congratulatory. I’m a huge Holmes fan, but “spot the reference” was more facile than clever. Of course, it doesn’t help that it’s similar to Moffat and Gatiss’s modern reinterpretation of Doctor Who, another show I dislike. Freeman is consistently good and Cumberbatch decent with a good script, but I’ve just never felt it lived up to the promise of the pilot. Kudos to Messrs. Moffat and Gatiss, however, for making the “modern Holmes,” a concept I thought would never work, work quite well in Season 1. By the way, did they ever really explain how Sherlock fakes his death in “The Reichenbach Fall”? We get two alternate explanations, the first ludicrous and the second slightly more logical, but Moffat and Gatiss play cutesy with ‘em, refusing to say if either is the actual answer. One of a few elements that annoyed me about this show. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2018 18:42:27 GMT
I gave it a 6 on the whole, which means—something, I suppose. “A Study in Pink” and “The Hounds of Baskerville” are excellent; “The Blind Banker,” “The Great Game,” and “The Reichenbach Fall” are good; “The Abominable Bride” has an excellent first half and an atrocious second half. Sadly, I didn’t like any of the other episodes: too arc-based, too many confusing story elements, too annoying, smug, and self-congratulatory. I’m a huge Holmes fan, but “spot the reference” was more facile than really imaginative. Of course, it doesn’t help that it’s similar to Moffat and Gatiss’s modern reinterpretation of Doctor Who, another show I dislike. Freeman is consistently good and Cumberbatch decent with a good script, but I’ve just never felt it lived up to the promise of the pilot. Kudos to Messrs. Moffat and Gatiss, however, for making the “modern Holmes,” a concept I thought would never work, work quite well in Season 1. By the way, did they ever really explain how Sherlock fakes his death in “The Great Game”? We get two alternate explanations, the first ludicrous and the second slightly more logical, but Moffat and Gatiss play cutesy with ‘em, refusing to say if either is the actual answer. One of a few elements that annoyed me about this show. The explanation Sherlock gives to the detective/leader of his fan club at the end is likely the true explanation. But they leave it slightly ambiguous as to whether or not Sherlock was lying. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 1, 2018 18:43:06 GMT
9/10
But Season 4 was a massive drop in quality
|
|
schicklgruber
Junior Member
@schicklgruber
Posts: 2,003
Likes: 674
|
Post by schicklgruber on Jul 7, 2018 15:10:27 GMT
10 for sure.
A few of those are the best-written episodes I've ever seen on television.
If there is better writing than "A Scandal in Belgravia" in the history of television, I haven't seen it.
It's a masterpiece.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Mar 15, 2019 22:10:30 GMT
So, I’m watching again for the first time in a long time. Rewatching “The Reichenbach Fall.” Question: is there a Sherlock Holmes character who previously existed in this world? Because why else would Lestrade have chosen to give him a Deerstalker? “Sherrinford Haynes” or someone?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Mar 15, 2019 22:33:47 GMT
One of the best things about Sherlock has long been its mystery-plotting (surprisingly, as most mystery shows are good in everything except their plotting); in “The Reichenbach Fall,” I never got the chance to praise the inspiration from The Seven-Per-Cent Solution.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zos on Mar 19, 2019 17:53:20 GMT
Good, but then it's Doyle's ability to create such a timeless pair of characters that leaves modern adaptors to just shade in current trends and archness to attempt to give the well known a new sheen. It's a balancing act and I thought that often it strayed over the line of "showing off" and both main actors were guilty of not understanding that less can be more.
Rathbone/Bruce will never be surpassed for me although long may many more weird and wonderful versions supply future generations with new delight.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2019 20:48:06 GMT
So, I’m watching again for the first time in a long time. Rewatching “The Reichenbach Fall.” Question: is there a Sherlock Holmes character who previously existed in this world? Because why else would Lestrade have chosen to give him a Deerstalker? “Sherrinford Haynes” or someone? There is a meta joke in an earlier episode where Holmes is starting to become famous, the press is outside and he just happens to be in a theater, so he grabs a random hat (the deerstalker) from the wardrobe and puts it on to disguise himself... It then inadvertently becomes his iconic look after its published in the papers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nalkarj on Mar 19, 2019 21:23:48 GMT
So, I’m watching again for the first time in a long time. Rewatching “The Reichenbach Fall.” Question: is there a Sherlock Holmes character who previously existed in this world? Because why else would Lestrade have chosen to give him a Deerstalker? “Sherrinford Haynes” or someone? There is a meta joke in an earlier episode where Holmes is starting to become famous, the press is outside and he just happens to be in a theater, so he grabs a random hat (the deerstalker) from the wardrobe and puts it on to disguise himself... It then inadvertently becomes his iconic look after its published in the papers. You’re right! I’d forgotten that one! Thanks, m’friend. Disregard above musing.
|
|
|
|
Post by ant-mac on Mar 31, 2019 0:59:33 GMT
2.
A poor substitute for far superior versions, such as the TV series which featured Jeremy Brett.
|
|
|
|
Post by amyghost on Apr 13, 2019 14:00:46 GMT
2. A poor substitute for far superior versions, such as the TV series which featured Jeremy Brett. Agreed, I really dislike this particular re-imaging of Holmes and Watson. The Brett series has its weaknesses, but is leaps and bounds better than this smug hot mess of a show. My personal favorite remains the 1980's Russian tv series, which I think gets the look and feel of the stories, as well as the relationship between H. and W., down better than any other screen adaptation I've seen.
|
|
Bargle
Sophomore
My incredibly life-like self-portrait
@bargle
Posts: 432
Likes: 228
 
|
Post by Bargle on Apr 18, 2019 20:32:04 GMT
9/10 Not perfect, but damn good.
|
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Apr 28, 2019 18:23:32 GMT
9
|
|
