IMDb > "Sherlock" (2010) > Reviews & Ratings - IMDb
Top Links
trailers and videosfull cast and crewtriviaofficial sitesmemorable quotes
main detailscombined detailsfull cast and crewcompany creditsepisode listepisodes castepisode ratings... by rating... by votes
Awards & Reviews
user reviewsexternal reviewsawardsuser ratings
Plot & Quotes
plot summaryplot keywordsmemorable quotes
Did You Know?
triviagoofssoundtrack listingcrazy creditsalternate versionsmovie connectionsFAQ
Other Info
box office/businessrelease datesfilming locationstechnical specsliterature listingsNewsDesk
taglines trailers and videos posters photo gallery
External Links
showtimesofficial sitesmiscellaneousphotographssound clipsvideo clips

Reviews & Ratings for
"Sherlock" More at IMDbPro »

Write review
Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 2 of 45:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]
Index 447 reviews in total 

156 out of 201 people found the following review useful:

Perfect fit of writers to material

Author: the_don_vito from United Kingdom
26 July 2010

Once again this proves that the BBC Licence Fee is one of the finest ideas this country as ever had.

Moffat's sharp dialogue and subtle character development sit excellently alongside Gattis natural flair for the uncanny and his talent for mystery stories; so evident in his novels as well as his League of Gentlemen work.

The modernisation works artfully, showing that the challenges Holmes faced were not merely a question of his better scientific method keeping him ahead of the police. Watson benefit even more from the modern setting, the circular nature of history making his recent experiences in Afghanistan even more relevant than they can seem in the novels.

The cinematography and editing was excellent (a feature that was much improved in the recent series of Doctor Who), the display of text messages stylish and deceptively simple.

All in all this was a triumph for the BBC, and showed the benefit of their nurturing of talents such as Moffat and Gattis over the past decade.

Was the above review useful to you?

163 out of 300 people found the following review useful:

Good Sunday TV

Author: logans_place from Andorra
26 July 2010

I am surprised that this is currently 5/10. It was really quite good with a fast pace and a real sense of time and place. Nothing like the latest movie. The story was adequate with Cumberbatch doing a great job as Sherlock. This should develop into another BBC hit as it has the hallmarks of a good quality and effective entertainment without the violence or swearing of popular shows on TV today. In fact I am surprised it is not on earlier as kids are just as likely to appreciate the show as the adults to which it is aimed. I was impressed and that it not that easy, having seen Inception last week and been unimpressed it is nice to have a show where I don't need to pick it apart afterwards.

In short, fun show that should run and run.

Was the above review useful to you?

38 out of 56 people found the following review useful:

What went wrong?

Author: Mascha88 from Netherlands
17 January 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

I loved Sherlock seasons 1 and 2, and was eagerly looking forward to season 3. Alas... something seems to have gone horribly wrong. In seasons 1 and 2 the focus was on the crimes, the 'cases' and the brilliant and very original way in which Sherlock solved them. All the modern media (emails, iPhone texts, etc.) were used to great effect. And the 'tone' of the series was intelligent, rational and occasionally very witty. In series 3 the focus is no longer on the crimes and on how to solve them. Instead, endless time is devoted to the relationship between Sherlock and John, how they are really, really not gay (okay, we get it, enough already!), on John's new wife (what happened to the girl he was dating in series 2, she was much prettier and younger), and on the relationship between John and his wife, between Sherlock and John's wife, etc. etc. Also, there is constant reference to Sherlock being a 'high-functioning sociopath', followed by proof that he is really a warm, feeling human being. I can only deduce that some American producer stepped in... Worst of all, the plot, particularly in episodes 1 and 2, is dealt with haphazardly: okay, the bomb just had an off switch, and in episode 2: okay, if you keep your belt tightly fastened you won't bleed to death. I have to say that I found episode 3 slightly better, thanks mainly to the appearance of Lars Mikkelsen, whom I've seen in The Killing and who is a brilliant actor, in my opinion. And (possibly) bringing back Moriarty might be a good idea, I thought he was great in season 2. Although I hope they won't go for the twins angle.... Anyway, season 4 would have to be a big improvement in this for me to keep watching!

Was the above review useful to you?

24 out of 29 people found the following review useful:

Just Keeps Getting Worse

Author: Oliver from United Kingdom
16 January 2017

I used to worship this show. Season one? As someone who loves 19th century literature, Sherlock Holmes in particular, I'm finding it hard to comprehend the season four finale. Don't get me wrong; season one and two were good. I loved the cases, the way they humanised John and Sherlock in a way lots of adaptations seem to forget to do. Season three went a little off the rails but it was alright because there was character development and something that seemed to be leading into a decisive, interesting plot. But no. Season four was one of the worst things I've ever seen. There were continuity errors, plot holes and even instances where cameras were visible in shots. The final episode was almost too bad for me to watch, I couldn't believe what I was seeing. A grenade on a drone? It all seemed like a joke. In retrospect, the show was nothing more than a clever crime drama with some fancy camera-work. It's constant use of gay people as punchlines (ie; queerbaiting) only got worse as the series progressed, not to mention the fact that almost all of the villains were queercoded, something I thought we'd left in the 90s.

TL;DR: Don't waste your time. There are plenty of better adaptations out there.

Was the above review useful to you?

18 out of 21 people found the following review useful:

Terrible Finale, I cringe for the way Sherlock appears to be going

Author: Stu Mills
16 January 2017

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

First of all the acting was superb as usual, but the storyline for last night's finale was terrible.

Mycroft up until now has always been Sherlock's smarter older tougher brother, last night he turned into a myopic, quivering stupid neutered man and lost all credibility.

Here is a man who could not see that 5 minutes of his crazy sister and Moriarty alone together could not have disastrous consequences. Awful part of the finale, the scriptwriters should have been sacked for this piece of blatant nonsense.

Mycroft was afraid of Euros too, which just does not fit in with the character that Conan Doyle wrote about.

The premise that Euros was locked up since childhood because she was brilliant, had a very high IQ and set their family home alight stretches credibility beyond what is acceptable, I can imagine any family lawyer having a field day with this as evidence that she should be treated as the most vile criminal and have her future taken away from her.

We are left with lot's of questions, how did Euros brainwash all of the guards in the prison so that they all came under her command?

How did 5 minutes alone with Moriarty sniffing each other through glass like dogs turn into recordings of him making inane comments?

How did Euros take over the mind of the Prison Governor, we heard some of what she said 'I can help...'? It sounded like something a teenager would say to someone to gain influence, puerile and infantile and would never work.

Then we have 3 men tied up descending outside the window of the room Sherlock et al were in, apparently the ropes were tied to heaven because we were not shown how they were affixed.

Euros pushes a button and 2 fall. How? The answer given by Sherlock was multiple choice (choice of 1 of the 3 men being the killer), so how could a single red button cut the ropes of the other 2 men?

It was at this point I decided that somehow and unbeknownst to me that some dastardly person had put LSD in my cup of tea and I was now in the middle of an acid trip.

Then Sherlock places the lid on a coffin and proceeds to smash it up, why did he place the lid on the coffin before smashing it up? And could you, the directors and scenemakers not have made the coffin break up so obviously like balsa wood?

How did Euros transport herself, Sherlock, Mycroft and John to the Holmes family home? The prison was on a deserted rock in the middle of the sea, with no transport it appears.

Are we to see Sherlock himself neutered in an upcoming series? whereby he cannot function without the input of his crazed sister?

And finally the ending, I was sure it was a joke, but no, the ending was one of the worst in television history, whereby it turns out Euros was just lonely and just having a hissy fit and that's why she killed so many people.

I cringe for what awaits in the future for Sherlock after watching the nonsense that was last nights finale.

Was the above review useful to you?

26 out of 37 people found the following review useful:

So disappointed in Season 3

Author: BStirlingG
4 February 2014

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

5 Stars is indicative of Season 3 only. At this point I truly hope they are finished, as it just doesn't seem possible they can reclaim the great intrigue and character development of Seasons 1 and 2. Martin and Benedict are clearly Film stars now and perhaps don't have the time to commit to a BBC program, but at the very least the writers should have done their jobs! You had 2 friggin years!

As others have said it's morphed into an American Network's take on Sherlock Holmes (which already exists btw). The Series 3 Finale was just so spineless, Sherlock blows the evil Blackmailers head off, taking a tired page from the Dirty Harry Series. Later he gets on a plane to his certain death (the lack of real emotion in his farewell was downright criminal), only to be called back minutes later because Jim Moriarty is supposedly back from the Dead.

I am literally depressed that what "was" the best character and story development in modern entertainment is virtually dead at this point.

Was the above review useful to you?

20 out of 26 people found the following review useful:

Season 3 just Horrible!! Almost insufferable to watch.

Author: isacrame from United States
1 February 2014

This is what we awaited for so eagerly?? This is what the writers are now putting out?? Not what I expected at all. Seasons 1 and 2 were brilliant, well crafted, and so special. I expected the writers to continue their skill in future seasons, but I'm bitterly disappointed, almost to the point that I don't want to watch it anymore. I so wanted to see the kinds of episodes that we watched in the first seasons, vibrant stories and such an interesting relationship that Sherlock and John had. These stories we just saw in season 3 are just pointless and totally confusing. Further, the characters speak way too fast for anyone in the world, who may not have English as a first language, to be able to decipher. And do they think that people are going to like that? I still don't see what the main story of each episode was. What crime were they solving exactly?... Sherlock writers, please give us what we want!! And if you have a new writer, fire him!

Was the above review useful to you?

22 out of 30 people found the following review useful:

Doyle's detective or Moffat's super hero?

Author: (winner55) from United States
4 March 2014

Sherlock This series is difficult to write about, because it flew so high at the beginning, re imagining Holmes as a troubled but brilliant modern detective and Watson as a haunted but loyal man of action, in episodes promising to be re-interpretations of classic stories in an era of high technology. But it has fallen so low, riddled with the writers' own personal manias, and Steven Moffat's decision to twist his narratives (no longer 'stories' in the conventional sense), to redesign Holmes as a troubled and alienated super-hero wandering aimlessly through visual gimmickry and spectacular effects. The third episode of Season 3 is especially appalling. The moment towards the end when Sherlock shouts "I am not a hero, I am a functioning sociopath!" was so painful, I still can't get it out of my head. That moment surely has nothing to do with the character of Sherlock Holmes, the all-too-human hero (which he most certainly was) created by Conan Doyle, but it defines how Moffat and his team understand *their* character, 'Sherlock,' and perhaps how they understand their audience as well. Given the popularity of this show, apparently many young people do not want exceptional humans capable of resolving difficult problems, they want sick people with friends in high places who can thrash the arrogant and get away with it.

There will certainly be a Season 4, and we can easily predict that it will be on a grand scale visually, and utterly impoverished of any good ideas or decent story telling. Moffat is no longer interested in storytelling, he wants to build a post-modern mythology much we are seeing in the Marvel Comics films.

But Conan Doyle didn't write for comic books (or myth), he assumed an audience of literate, reasoning adults; and the best of the films based on his stories have always assumed the same audience, and delivered proper variants of some of the best stories written in the English language. It's too bad Moffat has chosen a different course.

Note: There are currently four series of films attempting to revise the canon of Conan Doyle's brilliant Victorian detective for the 21st Century. One from the UK (Sherlock, for TV), one from the US (Elementary, for TV), one from Russia (Sherlock Homes, for TV), and the internationally produced films of Guy Ritchie, starring Robert Downey. Notably, each involves a radical re-envisioning of the character and his place in the world. We may have reached a point in history when filmmakers simply cannot give us the Great Detective as he was imagined by Doyle and played (with variations) throughout the 20th Century. Rating the 4 series: Sherlock Holmes (Russia): 9 of 10, with strong stories and a believably proletarian nerd Holmes. Sherlock (UK): 6 of 10; excellent first season has been betrayed by Steven Moffat's flashy showmanship until the stories are incoherent now (Season 3), the characters no longer likable, the focus almost completely lost. Elementary (US): 4 of 10; the redefined Holmes, a nervous, unsympathetic recovering drug addict, is not without interest, and any show with Lucy Liu in it gets the benefit of her quiet but charismatic presence and talent. But basically, this is just a routine American police procedural with a gimmick. I doubt that Hollywood can do anything else. Sherlock Holmes (Ritchie/Downey): 1 of 10. This series lacks any coherence in its stories or continuity. It's just a series of set-pieces with running around, fist fights, explosions, and campy jokes.

Was the above review useful to you?

23 out of 33 people found the following review useful:

What happened?

Author: edbonl from Netherlands
15 January 2014

Sherlock is a brilliant take on the Sherlock Holmes stories. In season 1 and 2 that is. With season 3 something went horribly wrong. The episodes seemed to last forever and they were busy, confusing and pointless. What a disappointment. The many flashbacks, twist and turns were more of a hindrance that a help. Episode 3 was totally off the rails and even after watching the episode twice i still didn't understand the clue. Because Sherlock is written by the same person who writes Doctor Who, i believe he was mixing the two shows. Often i had the feeling i was watching a episode of Doctor Who.

Hopefully a fourth series of Sherlock can be more like seasons 1 and 2.

Was the above review useful to you?

14 out of 16 people found the following review useful:

A great beginning descending into tripe

Author: OutOfTheBox from London
16 January 2017

Season 1 and Season 2 are a wonderful, engaging and entertaining. Both actors did great in bringing a long loved character into the 21st century. It was fast, entertaining and captivating. Season1 and 2 deserve are highly recommended.

However, Seasons 3&4 are a descent into pseudo-intellectual tripe, without a straight story line, or who's done it plot. Somehow the writers have lost the path and continuously made fun of the Holmes character by dropping him into East Enders Hell and see how he handled that bunch of human baggage. I do hope, if there will be a season 5, the writers pull their heads out of their perspective "bottoms" and write something in honor of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, not something in honor of their own pseudo-intellectual prowess...

Very sad that the BBC has allowed it to go this far...

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 2 of 45:[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

Plot summary Ratings Awards
External reviews Official site Plot keywords
Main details Your user reviews Your vote history