mon 22/12/2014

Sherlock, Series 2, BBC One | TV reviews, news & interviews

Sherlock, Series 2, BBC One

The rebooted net 'tec returns in a stylish and sexy game of wits

The game is afoot: Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman as Holmes and Watson

My, but it’s been a bumper few months for the Baker Street Boy. There’s been Anthony Horowitz’s superior new Holmes novel, The House of Silk, Guy Ritchie’s second instalment of his steampunk take on Sherlock as karate-kicking action hero, and now the return of the BBC’s stylish reboot of Holmes as a new millennium net 'tec. And what a lot of fun it was. There may be helicopters, webcams and Wi-Fi, and Dr Watson may be blogging rather than scratching away at the old pen and ink, but still the essence of what makes Holmes such an enduringly compelling fictional figure was evident in spades.

The first of three new 90-minute films began where the last series left off, reviewing the stand-off between Holmes (Benedict Cumberbatch) and Watson (Martin Freeman) and the psychopathic “consulting criminal” Jim Moriarty (Andrew Scott, whose resemblance to Dec from Ant & Dec only slightly dulled his see-sawing menace).

It proved to be the last we saw of Holmes’s arch-rival until very near the end of this episode, though he cast a long shadow. Entitled A Scandal in Belgravia, the plot stuck surprisely close to the broad outline of A Scandal in Bohemia, one of Conan Doyle’s raciest tales. The Bohemian Grand Duke of Cassel-Felstein in the original story had become a (female) member of the British royal family, snapped in a series of compromising positions with Irene Adler (Lara Pulver, pictured left), recast as a high-end dominatrix who, in Mycroft’s peerless phrase, provided “recreational scolding” to the rich and powerful. Considerably cooler and smarter than Holmes's estimation of the average female of the species, Adler had made the royals aware of the existence of the slap-happy snaps and Holmes was duly employed to get them back. And so the game was afoot. A game of equals. Almost.

The plot – taking the original spirit of the Holmes stories and going hell-for-leather – was confused, convoluted nonsense, like one of those head-spinning Ted Rogers riddles that would eventually lead to Dusty Bin. It encompassed the mysterious murder (by boomerang, it transpired) of a man in a remote hillside, several set-tos with US spooks, a faked death, bluffs and double-bluffs, after all of which it became clear that the spanking of the royal rear (which put quite another spin on the phrase blue blood) was a red herring, diverting attention from a more sinister terrorist plot to blow up a jumbo jet. While whipping some high-ranking civil servant into a frenzy Adler had captured on her camera phone vital information pertaining to the plot, and, using her womanly wiles, later snared Holmes into deciphering the clue. She then fed the info straight to Moriarty, who informed the terrorist cells – and well, yes, it all eventually got more than a little silly.

The key to the success of Sherlock lies not in the tale itself but in the stylish and massively entertaining manner in which it is told

Share this article

Comments

first of all u didn't know

first of all u didn't know Nina Simone song and u watch Sherlock,really..oh i can't go on.... WATSON fetch me some tea...

Does anyone know what the

Does anyone know what the music ?reggae artist is in the final episode of series 2? or how I can find out what it is? I appreciate your help very much. thank you. janetecooper@hotmail.com

It took me ages to find but I

It took me ages to find but I finally found it. The song is called Sinnerman by Nina Simone.

If you don't rate it stop

If you don't rate it stop watching it! For me, it's by far the best entertainment on TV since the the first series. Love it!

In my humble opinion this is

In my humble opinion this is a programme worthy of air time. I usually listen to shows whilst doing other things as though the TV was a radio). Very rarely do I find anything worth stopping to actually watch. My thanks to the writers directors and though it should go with out saying; the actors too, for giving me a wonderful 90 mins of relaxation and laughter. A word to those who did not enjoy the first series... instead of continuing to bitch about the programme, as though you had to endure.... just simply stop watching it.

Nice write up! I found a

Nice write up! I found a ton to love in this episode....a Moffat script (yay!), some dabbling with Moriarity, intelligent foe's, creative digging into Sherlock's sexuality, awesome direction (the early rapid-fire shots of Sherlock sizing up someone and text-overlay indicators of his observations was inspired genius), and a great ending. Cant wait for the next 2 episodes! 3ToF

Harsh words. I'm afraid i

Harsh words. I'm afraid i have to agree with Mark here. I thought last years Sherlock trilogy was great TV, but found the new episode entirely underwhelming. Yes, tedious and boring, extremely convoluted, and a little tacky...

Well, color me quite

Well, color me quite satisfied. Loved the dynamic and of course, like most of us, I find myself again wishing the show had more than three episodes a season. I admit that it was perhaps a tad too confusing at moments, but I think those are the type of things we'll later look back on and appreciate. As for the argument of art house vs entertainment, clearly one cannot compare apples to oranges. If you like apples, have apples. If you prefer oranges, grab some oranges. I, however, will continue to enjoy both.

Your review hit the nail on

Your review hit the nail on the head. This is probably the best show on television and this episode, full of style and and invention, but with a remarkably clever story too, was the best so far. Of course it's just an entertainment when it comes down to it, but substance isn't everything. The direction was far above anything seen on telly recently. I'd love to see more of the director's work.

A very stylish and

A very stylish and entertaining review, Graeme, but, to my mind, style is not all. I found Sherlock both tedious and confused, a perfect example of the worst of contemporary TV drama, with a made-to-dazzle style so overworked that there was no space for the audience to engage let alone experience anything emotionally. This is the cold world of the ad-men, in which "content", like "talent" is an add-on, rather than the source of form and style as it should be in the best entertainment or art. I take my cue from US series like "Breaking Bad" or the more recent new Gus Van Sant exec'ed "Boss", both of which are immensely inventive in terms of cinematography and editing, but never at the expense of story.

Mark you just made me yawn.

Mark you just made me yawn.
Oh, for fuck's sake... spare us from the inane masturbatory blitherings of people like you, Mark, who seem more intent upon informing us how blissfully high above the mundane world of common mortals in their world of ART they are than in having anything meaningful to say about the subject in hand. I've seen some of both the shows you mention, and they are the sort of thing a creature like you would like; self-important, narcissistic crap designed with awards ceremonies in mind rather than the general viewing public. If you like that kind of thing, great, but don't pretend they're anything more than what they are, TV for people who don't like TV. SHERLOCK was perfect TV, exactly the right blend of wit, intelligence, glorious storytelling and wonderful performances. But it's obvious, Mark, that these are qualities you have difficulty recognising. When you have extracted your head from your rectum, perhaps you may see things differently.

BeeJeezus - your email is

BeeJeezus - your email is like medicine. Couldnt agree with you more - why should every peice of tv need to fit into the same mold - If you are going to be a critic Mark then I think you should review work within its context rather than your context. Fabulous TV I didnt go to the loo for 90 mins I was that gripped - perfect

Add comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Use to create page breaks.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.

Subscribe to theartsdesk.com

Thank you for continuing to read our work on theartsdesk.com. For unlimited access to every article in its entirety, including our archive of more than 10,000 pieces, we're asking for £2.95 per month or £25 per year. We feel it's a very good deal, and hope you do too.

To take an annual subscription now simply click here.

And if you're looking for that extra gift for a friend or family member, why not treat them to a theartsdesk.com gift subscription?

newsletter

Get a weekly digest of our critical highlights in your inbox each Thursday!

Simply enter your email address in the box below

View previous newsletters