qatsi (qatsi) wrote,


Well, I have to admit I didn't have an awful lot of enthusiasm for this ahead of time, but on the whole I did enjoy the series. The first episode was full of references to its origins, and quick-witted tricks - spelling out Sherlock's thought processes for the audience as we went along was a clever idea. I couldn't immediately decide whether Mark Gatiss was Mycroft or Moriarty, and I rather liked strange_complex's idea that they might turn out to be one and the same. The second episode was definitely the best of the three, I thought: a plot with definite links back to the underworld of Conan Doyle. Last night's episode was, like the first, a collage of clever touches, but overall, a bit patchy, and a bit drawn out.

The trouble is, it's all a bit gritty and macabre for my tastes. I suppose that's what you'd expect if you mixed The League of Gentlemen with the cryptic crossword plots of Steve Moffat - like Torchwood, only well-written (so, ahem, not like Torchwood at all then). It's not Morse or Lewis, with their dreaming spires. Jonathan Creek elucidates the "science" of deduction in a contemporary way, I think, that has no ambition to be anything more than light entertainment. The period element of Holmes, or Poirot, puts the criminal classes a sufficient distance away. (The preponderance of 60s/70s wallpaper does not score it on this point.) Victoria Wood had something when she said of Dad's Army: If you don't want something to date, then set it in the past, because it's already dated.

But I'd probably watch if they do another series.
Tags: tv
  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.