Personally I thought it was another triumph of writing and adaptation that contained some very nice little references to other parts of the Holmes canon without being overly self indulgent or "clever-clever." Admittedly, Tovey was a little too hammy for my liking, but it was all pretty much excellent TV again for me. I am liking the se-tup for next week- I don't care about the supposedly missing detail as to why where how and when Moriarty has ended up in a cell, as I have absolute faith all will be pretty much revealed next week.
Sherlock - New BBC Drama
101 of 151
The Baskerville one didn't quite work for me. It wasn't so much a 're-imagining' of the Sherlock Holmes tale as a new story about chemical weapons with the character and place names lifted from the old book.
Always going to be tricky to bring this one to life as everyone knows it, but the plot itself was a bit so-so. Last week's was much better as the original plotline was relevant enough for the modern day setting.
Also they keep using Moriarty or flashing his face up - he very rarely appeared or was mentioned in the original books. Its getting like the Daleks in Dr Who - familiarity breeds contempt I think.
Always going to be tricky to bring this one to life as everyone knows it, but the plot itself was a bit so-so. Last week's was much better as the original plotline was relevant enough for the modern day setting.
Also they keep using Moriarty or flashing his face up - he very rarely appeared or was mentioned in the original books. Its getting like the Daleks in Dr Who - familiarity breeds contempt I think.
Originally Posted by Lowri:
“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.”
“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.
Quote:
“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.”
“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.
Originally Posted by mouthalmighty:
“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.”
“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.
Originally Posted by mancunianway:
“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.
Originally Posted by elfcurry:
“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.”
“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?
The Telegraph has a feature on the 20 greatest Sherlock Holmes. Hmm.
Sherlock: the 20 greatest Sherlock Holmes
Sherlock: the 20 greatest Sherlock Holmes
Originally Posted by gerry d:
“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".”
“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".”
Though he said "prison"
[quote=alfster;55789926]Why do people assume that everything has to be 'got' straight away.
It was a teaser nothing more for next week presumably.
**************************
Ok, keep your hair on, I was only asking. I didn't realise it was a teaser for next week - sorry
It was a teaser nothing more for next week presumably.
**************************
Ok, keep your hair on, I was only asking. I didn't realise it was a teaser for next week - sorry
Originally Posted by Chiaroscuro:
“Ah well, you would say that, just so we don't suspect you in your Evil Plans for World Domination.”
“Ah well, you would say that, just so we don't suspect you in your Evil Plans for World Domination.
”
No idea what you're talking about
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.
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.
Originally Posted by cylon6:
“The Telegraph has a feature on the 20 greatest Sherlock Holmes. Hmm.
Sherlock: the 20 greatest Sherlock Holmes”
“The Telegraph has a feature on the 20 greatest Sherlock Holmes. Hmm.
Sherlock: the 20 greatest Sherlock Holmes”
Your link doesn't work, so reposting:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/t...ck-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.
Originally Posted by Muttley76:
“Your link doesn't work, so reposting:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/t...ck-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.”
“Your link doesn't work, so reposting:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/t...ck-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 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.
I loved the expressions on the faces of Waton and Holmes during the tea-making/sugar-spiking scene.
Originally Posted by Rorschach:
“Oh I wasn't claiming any superior sleuthing prowess, merely pointing out that the "ludicrous" plot device is actually quite common in detective fiction”
“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.
Originally Posted by Superbeast:
“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? ”
“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.
Originally Posted by Superbeast:
“I am here to watch a TV show and be entertained. ”
“I am here to watch a TV show and be entertained. ”
Some people find it entertaining that they can speculate 'who done it' - or in this case, "huh?"
On Reflection :-
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.
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.
If anyone is interested, Sherlock Holmes and The Voice Of Terror is on TCM now. Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce star.
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.
Loved it!
Loved it!
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.
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.
Originally Posted by alfster:
“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.
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.
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.
101 of 151
