Sherlock Review: No Sh*t, Sherlock
July 23, 2010 by Ewan Roberts
Filed under - Home, Reviews
SHERLOCK: Sunday 25th July, BBC1, 9pm ALERT ME
I was apprehensive about Sherlock. There were certainly reasons to be optimistic (not least the involvement of Steven Moffat), but I had plenty of reservations. This is a contemporary take on character so ingrained into the public psyche that it would be easy for Sherlock to turn into a gimmicky caricature. How far can you alter a character before he becomes unrecognisable?
Thankfully, that never becomes an issue. Benedict Cumberbatch captures the master detective brilliantly. He’s slightly eccentric, untidy, egocentric and has a confidence that regularly manifests itself as arrogance (rightly so). By his own admission he is a “high-functioning sociopath” and Cumberbatch – who has carved out a career playing geniuses (genii?), for example in Hawking and Starter for 10 – is a natural Sherlock Holmes.
Martin Freeman returns from a post The Office/The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy wilderness to play Cumberbatch’s trustworthy companion, Doctor John Watson. Watson is not the bumbling fool of old, but a broken yet impassioned man recently returned from combat in Afghanistan. He provides many of the shows lighter moments, and is a more emotive soul relative to Cumberbatch’s often cold and detached Holmes.
Sherlock charts the first meeting between Holmes and Watson, and chronicles the development and blossoming of the famous partnership. The Daily Mail suggests that this friendship is closer to a civil partnership, but that would be inaccurate. Holmes is sexually ambiguous at best, a man more committed to solving mysteries than finding love.
Sherlock opens with a string of linked suicides that Inspector Lestrade (Rupert Graves) is unable to explain, and born out of desperation he requests the assistance of Holmes. “When the police are out of their depth,” says Holmes, “they consult me.” The beauty of Moffat and co-creator Mark Gatiss’ reinvention is the detail and speed of Holmes’ powers of deduction. From the tiniest details – small scratches surrounding a phone charger socket, or an engraved phone – Holmes can deduce much – a drink problem, or an unhappy marriage.
The show switches its gaze from gas-lit Victorian streets to London’s modern urban jungle. A key aim for Moffat and Gatiss was to focus the spotlight primarily on Holmes and Watson, rather than the “trappings” that have wrestled with (even outshone) the characters in previous adaptations.
The updates are seamless. Sherlock never feels out of place in its new environment. The trademark deerstalker hat does not make an appearance, and his meerschaum pipe is replaced by nicotine patches. Watson blogs, while the internet, smart phones and GPS all feature prominently. But Watson and Holmes still live at 221B Baker Street and Holmes still has an (arch-)enemy to contend with.
The essence of Sherlock Holmes remains intact, perhaps even enhanced. Moffat and Gatiss have taken a concept and character and made it fresh again. Sherlock Holmes is the most portrayed character on film or television, so it might seem unlikely to suggest that Sherlock is one of the most original shows of the year – but it is.
Frankly, whoever commissioned Sherlock should be forced to sit down and watch it to see just what a lemon it is. Probably the worst interpretation of Conan Doyle’s master works ever made. It would be genuinely hard to imagine a worse one.
Jeremy Brett (the man who got into the soul of Holmes) will be rotating in his grave.
@Tony Fisher
Probably best to ignore comments posted four hours before the episode actually aired, especially if they’re utterly wrong with a hilariously misplaced elitism.
Excellent programme, looking forward to next week. I just hope I don’t upset anyone who ‘penetrated the inguinal canal of the effervescent Doyle’.
This was amazing. I started watching with mild interest as the trailers had looked intriguing, but I was determined to remain pessimistic – I love Moffat and Gatiss, but this just looked too Dr Who. And it was, but only in a good way. It takes everything great about Conan Doyle’s works and respins them in a modern setting – really taking Holmes et al, and planting them in 21st century London. And it works brilliantly – the plot, the characters (slightly modernised, but faithful), and the detection, which by necessity is upgraded to 21st century tech. Oh, and I work in IT, and at last there here a film/series (well, an episode at least) that doesn’t talk complate b*ll*cks about information technology – it was all realistic and plausible. I also loved the text overlays – very smart – very Sherlock
. And the humour – so many great lines, and such brilliant interacion between the leading characters. I’m just disappointed by discovering that there are only 3 episodes at the moment – comission more BBC – easily the best TV this year so far!
Sorry, just realised that I forgot to mention the direction, acting and cinematography which are all sublime. Oh, and Jeremy Brett would have loved it – PMSL
I very much enjoyed it, myself. Looking forward to the next episode.
The best 90 minutes of TV that I’ve seen produced by the BBC in a LONG time. They nailed the character’s personalities which makes the film.
SACD would have been pleased with this as he created Holmes to be at the cutting edge of technology of his time.
Loved Brett’s Holmes too but he was always hampered by a poor Watson. Doyle always had them as equals in the book (not equal intellect but equal as partners rather than a bumbling sidekick whom Holmes explained everything to)
Looking forward to next weeks, A lemon I’d easily consume again.
I agree with Tony Fisher.
What the reviewer found to be witty, I found to be crass & or purlieu.I can only assume that it was authored by the ill conceived partnership of the illegitimate offspring of Terry Nation & Sir Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle.
Don’t get me wrong, I like most of Terry Nation’s work, but the clash of styles between the classic Holmes & the latter-day TV Si-Fi, were too much to bare.
Where it wasn’t upsetting me in that way, I was board by the utter predictability of what came next.
For me this was a pastiche of Sherlock Holmes and Dr Who, and a poor one at that. So much so, that I was surfing the Net within 20 minutes of the start & just glancing at it occasionally. I thought the Parkour (Free Running) scene was a somewhat childish episode & the shots of Holmes tracing electronic maps in his head utterly crass. I finally turned it off after 40 minutes or so. I had completely lost interest. I felt the program was talking down to me, treating its viewers as intellectual imbeciles.
2 out of 10 don’t bother with this one.
Started off with so much potential, very dark, moody and yet modern. However it went down hill fast and was unfortunately so predictable for me it wasn’t enjoyable. I found it very easy to deduce the killers occupation early on and then had to sit through an agonising 10-15 minutes of them bumbling to the same deduction. The later half of the program was very formulaic and predictable that I switched over to watch the MotoGP instead.
I’ll watch next weeks episode just in case it was a coincidence that I was able to deduce the plot line so early.
Something is definitely wrong with the timing of these posts.
I am typing this comment at about 11:10am on Monday 26th July. If the time problem is consistent it should show as being posted at around 6:10am.
Let’s see, shall we?
I have to confess I found it very poor and it did seem like the actor playing Holmes had strayed in from an episode of Doctor Who. I did not see any of the wit and cleverness that others have praised, and I just could not engage with the main characters at all. Like others, I tried to stick it out but eventually switched off half an hour before the end. I may give the episode another go via the iPlayer, though I don’t like dramas I have to watch twice or more in order to get; and I’ll probably watch it next week in case I was just having an off day.
Incidentally I am typing this comment at 12 noon on Monday 26th July, maybe the clock on these posts is set to US (Eastern) time?
The great thing about Connan Doyles stories is that they are held together with cast iron logic, supporting well though out plots. The deduction of Holmes is well explained and logical.
I have nothing against a modern version, but Sherlock having to ask what 2 glass vials containing angry looking pills is likely to represent, is ridiculous. It made me feel quite angry and patronised. The Sherlock Character has been dumbed to enable what the writers think is the dumb viewers. This is double disrespectful to me. However I did laugh with regard to the line about invading Afghanistan.
I thought it was excellent.
Cumberbatch is a top actor. I was not particularly looking forward to freeman’s portrayal of Watson, as I can’t see him as anything other than Tim from the office, but he surprised me. The plot wasn’t particularly original, but the best part of any new series like this is the introduction of the characters.
Ewan Roberts is my Cumberbatch!
I watched and I must say really enjoyed Sherlock for the most part. I would agree that I too guessed the villain’s profession, but this early nod to the viewers gave the opportunity for an element of almost panto “he’s behind you!” comic element in the scenes leading up to the “revelation”. I’m surprised that the more critical reviewers did not spot this, perhaps they are taking both themselves and the ACD originals a little too seriously.
All in all a pretty good attempt, with the spirit of the main characters very well maintained. As long as the plots live up to the rest of it, I will be looking forward to more. This was after all the very first episode, I think some reviewers make little allowance for all involved in a new project to evolve their ideas over time. Let’s hope this continues well and gets even better.
The deerstalker hat was a post-Doyle invention, so therefore has no place in Sherlock canon whatsoever.
Brilliant show. If you thought it was boring then you may want to check out the all-action, kick-ass Sherlock Holmes movie starring Robert Downey Jr – dire tripe that it was. This adaptation was witty and modern without losing ANY of the charm and appeal of the original texts. Remember, this is an adaptation of the books, not the Jeremy Brett films.
As for unoriginal; this is a story that has been done many, many times. If you’ve read the books or seen any other adaptations of A Study In Scarlet then you KNOW before the show begins Whodunnit! But, to quote another literary genius, “The thrill is in the chase, never in the capture”.
This was easily the best 90 minutes of television the BBC has given us in a long while. Stylistically and technically this show was cutting edge. It took a modern audience back to the bones of what Sherlock Holmes was always meant to be about – the friendship between Holmes and Watson (perfectly portrayed by Cumberbatch and Freeman).
I don’t see how this show can be disliked. It’s fast and fun. It’s also clever and interesting. It’s ALSO very loyal to the original Doyle works… At least ONE of those things must grab you?
Can’t I love the 2010 Sherlock series AND the recent Robert Downey Jr. film, AND the Jeremy Brett portrayal, AND the original Doyle? Because I do. I love them all. Why fight?
I thoroughly enjoyed this modern adaptation of Sherlock Holmes and agree completely with all of the “Sherlock Review”. Having been a faithfull devotee of Jeremy Brett’s portrayal and series. I was curious and somewhat concerned about this new production especially when I learned it was being brought right upto date and set in modern day. However, I needn’t have been, the introduction of modern technology is seamless and does not seem out of place. I really like the way the two characters Sherlock and Watson play off each other, there is a lot of humour between them which really works. Well done, to Cumberbatch and Freeman for their excellent potrayals of Holmes and Watson. Congrats to the BBC., once again they prove that they have not lost their magic touch, when it comes to producing first class entertainment. This is what I pay my license fee for and I don’t grudge a penny of it. However I save my loudest applause for the writers Moffat and Gatiss “brilliant”.
half the people on here seem to think that the essence of Holmes is victorian, characters from fiction have always been regurgitated, sometimes well sometimes not. either way some of the cretinous reviews on here from supposedly intelligent people (who only watched the first twenty minutes might i add!) seem determined to denounce it without truly giving it a go for its full runtime. perhaps there werent enough deerstalkers, cocaine syringes or hansom cabs. some people!!!
Thoroughly enjoyed the two Sherlock episodes I have watched,yes you could guess the profession of the killer in the first but it did not spoil it.I am delighted to be an intellectual imbecile according to Chris Waddell mind you bare and bear are different in the scholastic wasteland I inhabit [must be all the purlieu] At least I was not bored [ or in Chris world board ]
Just watched the first episode on iPlayer and am astonished by the pace, and the wit of the updating. Some moments of pure genius. Extraordinarily well executed. I especially like the substance to the Watson character and the startlingly plausible bond of friendship between the two by the end of the episode. (And kicking myself for not identifying Mycroft much earlier).
I’m in the US this year, so I had not had a chance to see the first episode of Sherlock until this week (it’s now showing on the American network PBS, which co-funded the production with the BBC).
Unfortunately, the first snippet I saw of the first episode was about 10 minutes from the middle of the episode, and I didn’t like what I saw at all. I almost didn’t watch it from the beginning after that, but I decided to because it had caused such a splash in the UK.
I am a fan of Jeremy Brett’s Sherlock, and early last year I read all the Doyle stories and watched all of the Brett episodes in order.
I don’t think it’s particularly clever to take iconic tales and set them in the modern day (e.g., Romeo and Juliet, Oedipus), but I’ll give them a chance.
As a whole, I enjoyed the first episode of Sherlock, after watching it in its entirety, but I don’t have an urgent need to see 20 more of them. I thought most of the actors were good. I don’t know why it’s been so often written that this show features London in an unusual way — the way the city was portrayed in the show jibes with my view and memory of London, having lived there the past 10 years as an expat.
The running around on rooftops and text bubbles’ showing the contents of thoughts and mobile messages were gimmicky and unnecessary, in my opinion, and did feel like they were aimed at young viewers with a video-game mindset (but then, most viewers under the age of 35 or 40, especially male, probably did grow up with their brains’ being profoundly affected by playing video games).
The new BBC adaptation is fine; when I’d finished watching the first episode, I thought, “Okay, now I know why it was so popular this summer in the UK.” It’s a darn sight better than many other BBC productions of the last decade, and I think it’s nice to celebrate an iconic character from Britain’s literary or historical past who is not a royal, a communist spy, an East End crook, or from an Austen or Bronte novel (lovely though they are).
I prefer my Sherlock to be a Victorian Sherlock, with carriages, capes, and cocaine, but if this modern show encourages a renaissance of classic, tweedy men’s clothing (which I’ve read it has), gives kids (and grown-ups) a reason to think that being smart, awkward, and eccentric can be cool and useful to society, and shows off London’s dark gorgeousness as the world treasure that it is, then fantastic.