This was pretty good. Could have used more Molly Hooper (without that stupid male costume). Overall solid writing, very good acting that got the timing exactly right with the comedy bits and the directing was also on par with The Hounds of Baskerville.
Why? All the jokes landed well and the twist at the end was pretty good. I was skeptical about it at first. I mean, how are they going to do it? They can't stick with the supernatural stuff for real, can they? They did an excellent job of making me believe that she really rose from the dead.
It was alright.
Everything was acceptable as a way to give a period piece. I even rode that line all the way to overdose and mind palace.
It was the Reichenbach scene where it got flimsy. They had to explain it, and they had to have Sherlock Prime realize he was in a show for Sherlock 2016. When Watson asks how the "other chap" is, it was just awkward as hell.
The women's suffrage angle, the team's apathy towards murder towards that regard, and present day Moriarty being inspected and then unsolved all kind of sucked.
This show is pretty good for a few things that are unique to it. It is different in that it shows Sherlock in modern times. It also refences and adapts passages and concepts from the stories in a way that confuses me while watching because I know the books very well and when they do it they never do it in the context of the books. So it's entertaining for me as I'm never spoiled on the show and am always doubly surprised when a twist happens, because adaptations usually go in the same direction as the source, but this show goes somewhere completely else.
Even before he took over showrunner of Doctor Who I detected Stephen Moffat's tendency to glorify women. It suffuses everything he writes. It's his personal obsession, and like Tarantino's use of feet in film, the inclusion of this pervert's particular perversion into the show is repulsive. How can you enjoy one man's sick fantasy? You are enjoying another man's masturbation.
Saw it in theaters last night. Such great detail for Doyle's stories. I was surprised with the quality because of how much I disliked series three, but I'd say it was equal to the first series.
The little anachronistic moments and sayings should have alerted me though, and I didn't expect it to set up the fourth series.
Acting was good, dialogue was sharp and hit or miss in others, but Martin Freeman stands out the most like always.
Right, but it's about his ideas surviving not himself. And I kind of like the idea that Andrew Scott only appears to Sherlock in his mind now.
I liked it, but you're right. It didn't solve much as set-up for it. Not what I was expecting going in. I did enjoy the Reichenbach scene and the other Watson bit though.
You're not wrong, just over exaggerating, namefag
It was a good 'Sherlock' episode, but sub par as far as a mystery show goes. Definitely above average but not as good as other mystery shows of the past.
The plot was clever as expected of Moffat. A little 'too clever' to the point of being obnoxious, it could've done with a bit more subtlety. Also while Moffat can write clever plots he can't write a good mystery to save his life. In this case he was saved by the plot device that 'everything was in his mind palace', but if you actually think about the abominable plot, it's incredibly hackneyed the way they try to relate Lord Carmichael to Emilia Ricoletti (as the man that bed her and left her), or else it would appear that the abominable bride was some urban legend that all husbands magically knew of but no one did anything about.
People say it was creepy and I disagree. I felt like they hardly focused on the ghost bride, and more could have definitely been done to set the right atmosphere. Baskervilles had the same problem too. Not enough 'foreplay' by setting a spooky atmosphere.
I really enjoyed the episode, read the general opinions of it here and everyone was saying it was very SJW-pandering which put me right off it if it's just going to be the writer hamfisting in feminist points irrelevant to the plot to show how "progressive" they are, but I watched it and it was literally nothing of the sort.
Mystery itself was decent, I liked how they had the characters all there in the period pieces, especially with Molly Hooper's disguise which I thought was a pretty nice, reasonably subtle touch.
I like how they're showing Sherlock's drug usage a lot more now, or at the very least inferring it heavily. Or maybe they always did and I just didn't pick up on it until that episode
The "mind palace" idea with him being dragged back into the past was well writen, and I like how it didn't hand-hold too heavily, and left the viewer to have to realise on their own that certain characters and events weren't, in reality, present or unfolding and were merely Sherlock's hallucination
Pretty decent 8/10, would be better with a slightly more realistic Moriarty (he's very Heath Ledger atm, which is great but a little OTT at times) and less "lol I can hack MI5 databases with my smartphone" bullshit from Watson's wife
I didn't like it, it somehow managed to seem needlessly convoluted in a genre whose stock and trade is convolution, and it went nowhere
plus it took one of my favourite sherlock murders (python on the bell-rope) and turned it into a boring run-of-the-mill stabbing