Nicotine Patches

It was engaging. I didn't like it at the first part. I thought Benedict Cumberbatch talked too much and didn't look like a Holmes. For some reason. Also, he had a long name. But there was good acting there. He portrayed the Sherlock crazy very well. He would have episodes of tunnel vision and episodes of random coordinated movement flurry (did not make sense). And his Sherlock is an ass. Is that a bad thing?

I will come out and say that had a bit of a problem with Cumberbatch's Sherlock. He didn't grow on me. And I figure this to be a character story. I suspect that we're here to bask in his brilliance and not really be expected to figure out the case along with him. So there's a problem there. The other characters are hardly played up. Martin Freeman is a serviceable Watson. But he's hardly seen. Allwe get in one episode (the second) of him getting a love interest, but that is promptly dropped at the second. We don't really have anyone to latch on to but the title character. That may have been the point. But I don't feel the title character. I will say that the biggest problem with these very able characters is that they are simply, well, too good. You're already expecting them to dominate the competition.

There's only three episodes for us to work with. So okay. I liked the first episode pretty well. It gave us a nice introduction to the whole thing. It's nice that it dropped bits about Watson's condition. There was the waking-up-from-a-nightmare opening scene, there was the bit about conversing with the therapist. Then I liked that at one point I was ahead of Sherlock. I was all he's-the-killer-come-on-catch-him. This was also nice that it started the Sherlock-Watson dynamic. I think they developed that very well.

The second episode was a bit bland for me. I had to look it up again in Wikipedia to check what was in it. So okay. It was generally a straight story. There was the bit of suspense at the end. But I thin it could have gone further (that scene) since there was no actual physical contact with the hostage. There was a traditional James Bon-ish moment of running against time. This didn't help because I was subconsciously programmed to see this as an easy problem. There was nothing scary suspenseful with that. The torture scene in Casino Royale was so good exactly because of that. It was very raw, and we genuinely thought—even for a second—that this might be it for our hero. Oh, and what is it with the opening fight scene with the Mongol warrior?

The third picked up the pace considerably. There were all the mini-cases. The running clock again did not inflect as much suspense as I think the creators hoped for. It was purely the way things were handled, I guess. Then what a season-ending cliffhanger. That is how you do one, Rubicon. And in contrast to my words above, it's very refreshing for Sherlock to be lacking, to be on the losing side. It's a bit about why we like underdogs. It's not much fun cheering for clear-cut winners. People who do are weird.

It's okay to cheer on a good power, but there has be some good chance that they lose. Look at House. How can I watch that when I know the title character will always be right. The basic plot of every episode is that there is a problem and the title character solves it in record time. Sometimes the creators will put in a reluctant/arrogant supporting cast (like in House, not here). Well, arrogant or not, the title will prove them wrong and wipe it all over their face for the rest of the story. That is terribly boring.

So. All in all very engaging. It was not best-show-ever. I also have a question of why they had a different supervising Detective Inspector for the second episode? I didn't see any use of it besides giving Sherlock the chance to show off more. It needs more oomph. It has the potential to be that sort of material. Second season please?

(Sherlock - David Arnold & Steven Moffat)