Well I thought it was amazing! In fact, imo it was slightly better than last weeks. I'm not usually a fan of Gatiss' writing but this week was excellent, just the right amount of scare and cleverness.
It even made me jump at one point, which doesn't often happen.
I thought it was great fun again.
As someone who has worked in a (perfectly normal) lab, I wasn't very impressed with the emphasis on mad scientists out to take over the world.
Ah well, you would say that, just so we don't suspect you in your Evil Plans for World Domination.
It drove me mad trying to work out who Dr Stapleton was. It was only about halfway through I realised she was the woman in the Direct Line ad who drops her lucky crystal on the bloke's foot.
Thats Amelia Bullmore and she's done a lot more than Directline adverts! I remember her from Corrie years back. She's also done a lot of comedy - particularly wonderful as Alan Partridge's Ukranian fiancee Sonia.
Thats Amelia Bullmore and she's done a lot more than Directline adverts! I remember her from Corrie years back. She's also done a lot of comedy - particularly wonderful as Alan Partridge's Ukranian fiancee Sonia.
She was also in the wonderful 2012 series on BBC.
As far as Sherlock was concerned, I thought it to be as good as the first in this series. I found it scary in parts (OK, I know I scare easily, but still..), particularly the scenes in the house and although I know the original story backwards, it really does not matter to me if they change the story and bring it into line for the modern era.
In fact, I thought that was the whole point of the exercise!
I think Cumberbatch and Freeman make a fantastic team.
I only knew him as Alonso on that cruise ship. I don't know why so many don't like him or think he can't act though.
Never seen him before, thought he was fine as a nervous wreck. Seems to be one of the cases where people hate him from something else (perhaps mistaking the actor for a role) and then hate him in everything else?
There is 1 scene that i do want to ask about & i've rewatched this particular scene.During the scene in the inn between Watson & the 2 guys behind the bar.The smaller guy says "We are out of WKD".He then goes on to say "What with the monster" & what sounds like "And that ruddy prisoner".
Watched the Sherlock and found some of the storyline very interesting,especially when Sherlock was in his mind palace and
all that info popped up.
I have a question, what was that sound thing all about as Watson was crossing the moors? it went all funny, with the little lights flashing, etc. ( near the part where the guy thought he saw the hound in the garden) not sure if anyone else noticed.
Personally, I think Peter Cushion should have been higher up, and frankly I think Brett or Rathbone deserve the number 1 slot at this relatvely early stage of Cumberbath's interpretation tbh, but there you go, predictable result I guess.
Personally, I think Peter Cushion should have been higher up, and frankly I think Brett or Rathbone deserve the number 1 slot at this relatvely early stage of Cumberbath's interpretation tbh, but there you go, predictable result I guess.
I though last weeks was convuluted and I didn't like it much (I think my expectations were too high after ep 1 and 3 from last series) but this was better.
I loved the expressions on the faces of Waton and Holmes during the tea-making/sugar-spiking scene.
Oh I wasn't claiming any superior sleuthing prowess, merely pointing out that the "ludicrous" plot device is actually quite common in detective fiction
I'd say the ludicrous plot device and amazing coincidence is essential in detective fiction as the manner in which they find out who the culprit was is always out of left field and the better for it.
No mention was made of Moriarty's capture. So why am I to assume he was if I am not told by the source material that fairly important part of information in order for the conclusion of the episode to make sense?
You are not to assume anything, until the book has finished - this was just a chapter.
Thought this one moved along at quite a zippy pace --didn't sag in the middle for me like last weeks.
Cumberbatch and Freeman were both really good and I personally wasn't put off by Tovey's performance at all-- must be a Marmite thing.
Now I get that this a modern re-interpretaion of the old Holmes stories but my big gripe is that most of the other stories have been a lot closer to the source material and this may have raised my expectations for last night , when in effect, except for the name of Baskerville and a demonic hound they ditched most of what made the original so good.
The original was a great little ghost story, so it surprises me with Gatiss love of horror that he wasn't able to quite capture that eeriness --- think Basil Rathbone striding around in the fog-- this just didn't have the same ambience.
The original was also one the fairest of Conan Doyles works in that it was a mystery with appropriate clues and a sensible answer that didn't leave you feeling cheated -- one of the few Sherlock Holmes stories to play fair with the reader. Unfortunately again they ditched this and came up with Hound being an acronym that Holmes remembered near the end. You know thats not out of keeping with a lot of Holmes original stories but it feels a bit of a cheat to do it with the one original that was fair.
In fact my feel on this is that its a bit like Kubricks The Shining for me, it veers away from the original so much and in some places takes the mick, that they shouldn't have called it the Hounds of Baskerville at all -- they could have just told a different story -- maybe it could have been a giant C.A.T ( Chemical Assisted Terror) which may have been less convoluted than H.O.U.N.D. ( On a side note, why the heck Franklin should kill Knights father to prevent him exposing his work when Franklin was walking around with a T-Shirt advertising his work just boggles the mind !!)
Unfortunately also the mystery that was presented in this show suffered from something no other Sherlock Holmes story that I can think of does, the audience is miles ahead of Holmes in terms of what is going on --- It isn't Sherlock Holmes when you are shouting at him to catch up!!
Still a lot to enjoy but this joins the massive list of film and TV shows that have failed to do The Hound justice.
Loved it. Absolutely fantastic. Well written, fantastically acted (possibly barring Russell Tovey...) and suitably spooky. Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman were both excellent, MF particularly on top form. Getting the show away from London was a breath of fresh air (literally :P), showing that the show is well written enough not to rely solely on moody shots of London to create effect.
Re: Russell Tovey, I liken him to Daniel Radcliffe as both being adequate actors when in the right role...i.e. the outsider in peril and not knowing whats going on...other than that I've not really seen them do much else.
Not seen Radcliffe in the theatre production of Equus so can not judge his live acting.
They'll be OK in parts that suit them but not great. I thought Tovey was doing a bit better than usual last night...still in the 'I don;t know what's going on' part though.
Re: Russell Tovey, I liken him to Daniel Radcliffe as both being adequate actors when in the right role...i.e. the outsider in peril and not knowing whats going on...other than that I've not really seen them do much else.
Not seen Radcliffe in the theatre production of Equus so can not judge his live acting.
They'll be OK in parts that suit them but not great. I thought Tovey was doing a bit better than usual last night...still in the 'I don;t know what's going on' part though.
I loved Being Human but I have to admit, out of all the characters in that show - Nina, MItchell, Annie and George - my least favourite in it is George (played by Russell Tovey).
It didnt start that way and I used to really like the character but in the last series, Tovey just seemed to be wooden and false. He seems to come from the "Acting, acting, ACTING..!!!" School of Drama.
Either he overacts or phones it in...theres no middleground and in Sherlock HOTB he just turned it up to 11 and was spectacularly irritating.
Thank God for limited screentime and for the rest of the cast for putting in great performances!
I loved last nights re-imagining of HOTB but then I am a huge fan of this series altogether. I have to say I'm a little surprised about all the hoo-ha regarding the final scene with Moriarty. I love a bit of mystery thrown in. That's why I like Sherlock, you are sometimes left with questions that I can think about and chat about, wondering what's coming next. Isn't that the point of good television?
As for Tovey, I found him fabulous as I always do. He's a wonderful actor.
I haven't seen Tovey in anything much, I thought his acting was fine. The accent though...not even sure what that was. This show does like its thespians, sometimes that doesn't translate all too well to tv work.
And poor Sherlock, desperate for a ciggie (Mycroft shouldn't have started him off at Christmas!) when Harvard researches have now found nicotine patches are not effective in helping smokers quit long term.
Unfortunately again they ditched this and came up with Hound being an acronym that Holmes remembered near the end. You know thats not out of keeping with a lot of Holmes original stories but it feels a bit of a cheat to do it with the one original that was fair.
It was called The Hounds of Baskerville for a reason...there were two hounds. Not just the acronym, but an actual dog too (indeed possibly three if you include the dogging business )
Was that Elvis moment actually Elvis or was it Benedict Cumberbatch ? Sounded like the latter, to me. He does lots of impressions.
I wished that there had been more fog. They couldn't, maybe because the fog had to be in one place.
Liked the scene in which Sherlock loses it. Does Watson assume that Sherlock is just suffering from nicotine withdrawal ? He'd surely recognise the symptoms of shock.
Comments
I thought it was great fun again. Ah well, you would say that, just so we don't suspect you in your Evil Plans for World Domination.
Thats Amelia Bullmore and she's done a lot more than Directline adverts! I remember her from Corrie years back. She's also done a lot of comedy - particularly wonderful as Alan Partridge's Ukranian fiancee Sonia.
She was also in the wonderful 2012 series on BBC.
As far as Sherlock was concerned, I thought it to be as good as the first in this series. I found it scary in parts (OK, I know I scare easily, but still..), particularly the scenes in the house and although I know the original story backwards, it really does not matter to me if they change the story and bring it into line for the modern era.
In fact, I thought that was the whole point of the exercise!
I think Cumberbatch and Freeman make a fantastic team.
Never seen him before, thought he was fine as a nervous wreck. Seems to be one of the cases where people hate him from something else (perhaps mistaking the actor for a role) and then hate him in everything else?
[URL="The Telegraph has a feature on the best Sherlock Holmes. Hmm. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8998228/Sherlock-the-20-greatest-Sherlock-Holmes.html?image=19"]Sherlock: the 20 greatest Sherlock Holmes[/URL]
Though he said "prison"
No idea what you're talking about :cool:
all that info popped up.
I have a question, what was that sound thing all about as Watson was crossing the moors? it went all funny, with the little lights flashing, etc. ( near the part where the guy thought he saw the hound in the garden) not sure if anyone else noticed.
Your link doesn't work, so reposting:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/8998228/Sherlock-the-20-greatest-Sherlock-Holmes.html
An eclectic mix.
Personally, I think Peter Cushion should have been higher up, and frankly I think Brett or Rathbone deserve the number 1 slot at this relatvely early stage of Cumberbath's interpretation tbh, but there you go, predictable result I guess.
his brother Whoopie was better
Robert Stephens is my choice .
I loved the expressions on the faces of Waton and Holmes during the tea-making/sugar-spiking scene.
I'd say the ludicrous plot device and amazing coincidence is essential in detective fiction as the manner in which they find out who the culprit was is always out of left field and the better for it.
You are not to assume anything, until the book has finished - this was just a chapter.
Some people find it entertaining that they can speculate 'who done it' - or in this case, "huh?"
whoopie indeed....:o;)
Thought this one moved along at quite a zippy pace --didn't sag in the middle for me like last weeks.
Cumberbatch and Freeman were both really good and I personally wasn't put off by Tovey's performance at all-- must be a Marmite thing.
Now I get that this a modern re-interpretaion of the old Holmes stories but my big gripe is that most of the other stories have been a lot closer to the source material and this may have raised my expectations for last night , when in effect, except for the name of Baskerville and a demonic hound they ditched most of what made the original so good.
The original was a great little ghost story, so it surprises me with Gatiss love of horror that he wasn't able to quite capture that eeriness --- think Basil Rathbone striding around in the fog-- this just didn't have the same ambience.
The original was also one the fairest of Conan Doyles works in that it was a mystery with appropriate clues and a sensible answer that didn't leave you feeling cheated -- one of the few Sherlock Holmes stories to play fair with the reader. Unfortunately again they ditched this and came up with Hound being an acronym that Holmes remembered near the end. You know thats not out of keeping with a lot of Holmes original stories but it feels a bit of a cheat to do it with the one original that was fair.
In fact my feel on this is that its a bit like Kubricks The Shining for me, it veers away from the original so much and in some places takes the mick, that they shouldn't have called it the Hounds of Baskerville at all -- they could have just told a different story -- maybe it could have been a giant C.A.T ( Chemical Assisted Terror) which may have been less convoluted than H.O.U.N.D. ( On a side note, why the heck Franklin should kill Knights father to prevent him exposing his work when Franklin was walking around with a T-Shirt advertising his work just boggles the mind !!)
Unfortunately also the mystery that was presented in this show suffered from something no other Sherlock Holmes story that I can think of does, the audience is miles ahead of Holmes in terms of what is going on --- It isn't Sherlock Holmes when you are shouting at him to catch up!!
Still a lot to enjoy but this joins the massive list of film and TV shows that have failed to do The Hound justice.
Loved it!
Not seen Radcliffe in the theatre production of Equus so can not judge his live acting.
They'll be OK in parts that suit them but not great. I thought Tovey was doing a bit better than usual last night...still in the 'I don;t know what's going on' part though.
I loved Being Human but I have to admit, out of all the characters in that show - Nina, MItchell, Annie and George - my least favourite in it is George (played by Russell Tovey).
It didnt start that way and I used to really like the character but in the last series, Tovey just seemed to be wooden and false. He seems to come from the "Acting, acting, ACTING..!!!" School of Drama.
Either he overacts or phones it in...theres no middleground and in Sherlock HOTB he just turned it up to 11 and was spectacularly irritating.
Thank God for limited screentime and for the rest of the cast for putting in great performances!
As for Tovey, I found him fabulous as I always do. He's a wonderful actor.
And poor Sherlock, desperate for a ciggie (Mycroft shouldn't have started him off at Christmas!) when Harvard researches have now found nicotine patches are not effective in helping smokers quit long term.
It was called The Hounds of Baskerville for a reason...there were two hounds. Not just the acronym, but an actual dog too (indeed possibly three if you include the dogging business
I wished that there had been more fog. They couldn't, maybe because the fog had to be in one place.
Liked the scene in which Sherlock loses it. Does Watson assume that Sherlock is just suffering from nicotine withdrawal ? He'd surely recognise the symptoms of shock.