..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.
1,073 Reviews
Brilliant!
Rob133110 February 2023
Sherlock is just an incredible series. It has a 9.1 rating for a reason. There have been so many shows and movies based off Sherlock Holmes but I can say with confidence that this is the best of them. The writing and acting is would makes this show so special. Every single season is just as good as the others. Benedict Cumberbatch was born to play this role...he is Sherlock Holmes. Martin Freeman also stars as Dr. John Watson and those two lead just an overall great cast. This show won so many awards including 9 Emmys over the course of its run. If you haven't seen this incredible series yet then do yourself a favor and go watch it as soon as possible!
Nailed it!!
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.
Was going to vote, but that's not enough... A MUST FOR ALL!
Benja07528 July 2010
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!
Unique and well done
ninjacow22528525 July 2010
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
Benedict Cumberbatch is terrific as Sherlock!
Supermanfan-1317 April 2021
Sherlock is such an absolutely brilliant show! All you have to do is read through some of the reviews to see how loved this show really is. It's one of the best rated tv shows on just about every website for a reason...because it's incredible! There have been a lot of different versions of Sherlock Holmes with a bunch of really good ones (Robert Downey Jr., Jonny Lee Miller) and with some really bad ones but Benedict Cumberbatch is the best of them!
Brilliant!
carla-godfrey250626 July 2010
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!!!!
Sunday nights have suddenly become interesting again
colincrimp26 July 2010
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.
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.
A Study in Picture Gallery Red
alfa-1626 July 2010
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.
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.
Not quite so elementary! Brilliant indeed!
devil_knight27 January 2011
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!
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!
A masterpiece
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.
Hope this show will continue for many full seasons.
Sounds like a bad idea, right? Think again. The more things change...
bradydm200127 August 2010
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.
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.
Went downhill quite a lot.
imlindaheart8 August 2019
Warning: Spoilers
The first 2 seasons was this shows Pinnacle for me and has not yet topped it with the newer episodes. Introducing Watson's love interest was a big mistake on my mind and her sub-plot did not entice me and did not really work for the series.
I still love the series but I feel like it is jumping the shark quite a lot in the new episodes.
Dumb Man's Idea of a Genius
swopm6 January 2020
Perfect fit of writers to material
the_don_vito26 July 2010
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.
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.
Very interesting
saveliydalmatov31 December 2023
Another film adaptation of the stories about the most famous detective in the world. This time, the creators decided to experiment and transfer Sherlock's actions to our time - and they succeeded.
Benedict played Sherlock brilliantly, his version is really memorable because of his incredible charisma. Besides him, of course, it should be noted the other characters, from John Watson, played by Martin Freeman, to the gorgeous Moriarty played by Andrew Scott.
In addition to experimenting with time, the creators were not afraid to take risks and deviate from the canon, which made the series a newer and very interesting story, you can only praise them.
Many people do not have the most unambiguous opinion about season 3 and even season 4, they believe that after the first 2 seasons the bar of the series fell, while I think not at all. There are especially no complaints about season 4, many were confused by the main antagonist, but this is canon, so I'm sorry. And of course I liked the creators' departure from the comedy with a detective story to a more serious story, it added color to "Sherlock".
As a result, this is just a wonderful work that has been kept at the same level for all 4 seasons, which is a separate respect for the directors and screenwriters.
My rating - 8/10 (Worthy of viewing)
Benedict played Sherlock brilliantly, his version is really memorable because of his incredible charisma. Besides him, of course, it should be noted the other characters, from John Watson, played by Martin Freeman, to the gorgeous Moriarty played by Andrew Scott.
In addition to experimenting with time, the creators were not afraid to take risks and deviate from the canon, which made the series a newer and very interesting story, you can only praise them.
Many people do not have the most unambiguous opinion about season 3 and even season 4, they believe that after the first 2 seasons the bar of the series fell, while I think not at all. There are especially no complaints about season 4, many were confused by the main antagonist, but this is canon, so I'm sorry. And of course I liked the creators' departure from the comedy with a detective story to a more serious story, it added color to "Sherlock".
As a result, this is just a wonderful work that has been kept at the same level for all 4 seasons, which is a separate respect for the directors and screenwriters.
My rating - 8/10 (Worthy of viewing)
Initially this was astounding, sadly that form failed in the last two seasons.
Sleepin_Dragon10 January 2018
I am not surprised that the earliest reviews are all ten stars, I would have also judged Series one and two with that score, sadly they took something away in the latter years, the show became too clever for its own good, they sacrificed style for substance. Back to the positives, the first two series, and in fairness The Abominable Bride I think are outstanding, they are clever, witty, absorbing, genuinely thrilling viewing. The performances throughout are sensational, I cannot compliment Cumberbatch and Freeman enough, they make a great double act, and inject a massive energy. I can appreciate the show as independent from the works of Conan Doyle, but when I want Sherlock Holmes, it's Jeremy Brett I look to. Personally, the highlight of the show was Andrew Scott, who's Moriarty was nothing short of astounding, he stole every scene he appeared in, a shame they killed him off when they did. I think Moffat took on too much with this and Doctor Who, and it seemed both shows dipped at the same time, he should have made a choice and focused on one show, it was surely too much work doing both. I hope very much that the show returns, and the genius that was evident in Series one and Two returns also. Highlight for me has to be The Reichenbach Fall, which is simply incredible.
love the style
SnoopyStyle23 May 2021
Steven Moffat modernizes the classic Sherlock Holmes (Benedict Cumberbatch) and brings him into the modern world. Dr. John Watson (Martin Freeman) is his best friend and co-investigator. I like the style. I really love the style. The chemistry between Cumberbatch and Freeman is terrific. The stories get be a bit messy but I put it down more due to the chaotic style and I do like the style. This show has a real visual energy to the old material.
The best!
liepabaltulyte30 April 2021
AMAZING
luluualfawaz4 April 2021
SHERLOCK: Brilliant & Clever
Jinxxa_Wolf12 December 2023
SHERLOCK (2010-2017) one of the most brilliant and engaging British / UK series around, and one of the best internationally as well. A BBC modern adaptation of the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's classic Sherlock Holmes mystery stories, this series is riveting, mysterious, compelling and all around good fun. While it certainly takes some liberties to keep the mysteries fresh, it still feels so very Sherlocky that is surely appeals to both lifelong Sherlock fans (the famous literary sleuth) and newcomers alike.
Benedict Cumberbatch is such a clever and quirky person and plays the most excellent version of Sherlock Holmes there is to see and he is paired by the equally enjoyable Martin Freeman playing the sidekick Doctor John Watson. The two share one of the most epic and humorous love-hate bromances around and there is great chemistry there. This dynamic aspect offers endless laughs, intrigue, and heartstring tugging.
The entire cast was exceptional making this series so fun to watch and it always keeps you on the edge of your seat. There will be shocks for even the most loyal literary Sherlock Holmes fans. Absolutely recommended for viewers seeking witty, clever and engaging mysteries series with thrilling twists and turns. This one is top notch!
Benedict Cumberbatch is such a clever and quirky person and plays the most excellent version of Sherlock Holmes there is to see and he is paired by the equally enjoyable Martin Freeman playing the sidekick Doctor John Watson. The two share one of the most epic and humorous love-hate bromances around and there is great chemistry there. This dynamic aspect offers endless laughs, intrigue, and heartstring tugging.
The entire cast was exceptional making this series so fun to watch and it always keeps you on the edge of your seat. There will be shocks for even the most loyal literary Sherlock Holmes fans. Absolutely recommended for viewers seeking witty, clever and engaging mysteries series with thrilling twists and turns. This one is top notch!
All good things are three
alexglimbergwindh13 December 2018
If you stop at third season and never start the next, if you can stop the urge to continue, you're going to love this show.
Me, personally can't accept what they did. It's like well made fan-fiction. Brilliant modern take with interesting characters and great performances all the way from season 1 - 3. The show ended at "his last vow"
Me, personally can't accept what they did. It's like well made fan-fiction. Brilliant modern take with interesting characters and great performances all the way from season 1 - 3. The show ended at "his last vow"
SHERLOCK FOURTH SEASON - Too much family drama, too little sleuthing - SPOILERS AHEAD!!!
leschonski13 April 2017
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.
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.
Written by children
User14511113 July 2022
I have never understood the love for this show. I am well aware that I am in the minority of hating everything about the BBC adaptation.
The deductions are so specific that it come across as fantasy. Cumberbatch gives a great performance but the character is so inherently unlikeable and cruel that it puts me off the whole show.
The writing is not as good as people think it is. A boomerang killing someone? Ask any Australian and they'll tell you that boomerangs never come back. There is also a secret Holmes sister who can deduce so well she can take over a prison. Not that it's ever explained how.
There wasn't even resolution to the series 2 cliff-hanger. Just a few theories that might have happened because god forbid the writers think about anything for more than 2 seconds.
The deductions are so specific that it come across as fantasy. Cumberbatch gives a great performance but the character is so inherently unlikeable and cruel that it puts me off the whole show.
The writing is not as good as people think it is. A boomerang killing someone? Ask any Australian and they'll tell you that boomerangs never come back. There is also a secret Holmes sister who can deduce so well she can take over a prison. Not that it's ever explained how.
There wasn't even resolution to the series 2 cliff-hanger. Just a few theories that might have happened because god forbid the writers think about anything for more than 2 seconds.
So very captivating.
Imme-van-Gorp11 May 2021
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
