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 ratingsmessage board
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 »

Filter: Hide Spoilers:
Page 3 of 33: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]
Index 323 reviews in total 

10 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

Season 3 downturn

Author: Trent Glover from Boise, ID
27 January 2014

The season 2 finale was as well done as any television episode I've ever seen. Perhaps it's partly my expectations, but I really think all the hype influenced the creators to "Americanize" the production. Subtle humor has been replaced with overt gags. The social awkwardness that seemed to be beyond Holmes capacity to maneuver, seems to be more of something he can turn on and off at will. The stories lack the depth and intricacies I've come to expect. Life used to be what happened between cases. Now life events are taking front stage and cases are snippets. Little mystery, few plot twists, no edge. Still entertaining, but nowhere near as impressive as the prior 6. If I wanted American television, I'd watch American television.

Was the above review useful to you?

8 out of 10 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?

8 out of 11 people found the following review useful:

An absolute treat!!!

Author: henriette-768-800927 from Denmark
28 January 2013

I have been a fan of Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes since I was a child and have read the original canon countless times.

I have watched many incarnations of Holmes on both the big and small screen, and had come to the conclusion that no Sherlock Holmes series could live up the the late and great Jeremy Brett.

Well ... and then there was Sherlock.

I was hooked by the first episode and have watched all the episodes several times. The writing and dialogue is sublime, the actors sensational and the direction flawless. Best of all: The series is truly loyal to the original canon, and it is packed full of wonderful insider references and jokes.

It is simply a joy to watch.

Was the above review useful to you?

9 out of 13 people found the following review useful:

When did Sherlock become a romantic comedy?

Author: Lilah Mae
25 January 2014

I absolutely loved season 1 and 2, but I have to admit season 3 was a big massive let down. It was still one of the best things on TV, but compared to the previous 2 seasons it was absolute corny, clichéd and cheesy tripe. Even the cinematography had gone downhill (although thankfully not the acting!).

The 'Sherlock Holmes' character that we met in season 1 episode 1 is completely gone, there is nothing recognisable left. In fact, you would think they were completely different characters and completely changing your character's personality and characterizations to the point that they come across as a completely new person isn't character development, it is just bad writing.

So I'm a bit confused about what I should rate it. Seasons 1 and 2 are definitely 10/10 and compared to other shows season 3 is probably about a 6-7/10. However season 3 compared to seasons 1 and 2 is probably a 2/10 and that is me being kind.

I really hope the show improves again in season 4 and the writers stop turning it into a romantic comedy.

Was the above review useful to you?

16 out of 27 people found the following review useful:

Sherlock Holmes brought to modern day works!

Author: Mari from Finland
4 June 2011

This is my first ever review on IMDb so let's see how it turns out.

I've now seen the first season of Sherlock and I really enjoyed watching it. Before I watched it I wasn't completely convinced of the idea of bringing Holmes, Watson and the other characters to the modern day. I mean, it is a risky thing to do especially when you're playing with a very classical old character who has many devoted fans. But the show completely exceeded my expectations. I fell in love with it the moment they showed the character of Sherlock Holmes. The script is very well-written so that you don't really even notice that the characters are originally over a hundred years old. They blend in with modern day nicely and the writers have not forced anything.

The characters are well-played and the humor is clever. Cumberbatch is a great actor and he really brings this smart craziness to the character of Holmes. But I especially liked Freeman's Watson because he kind of brings this calm balance to the more untamed Holmes. And there is definitely some character development happening during the first season! All the other actors were also really good and I didn't notice any poor acting at any point.

The writers have really done a great job. In my opinion Sherlock does not underestimate the viewer like some shows do. You really have to pay attention but luckily the plot is a nice variation of calm and more intense moments which keep the viewer watching. Of course the episodes are quite long but it didn't bother me.

I also really liked the music in the series. I don't know why but the main theme that plays whenever the main characters are up to something really suits the show. It brings this vibe of old times Sherlock Holmes but it sort of suits the modern day setting as well.

This is very different from the recent Sherlock Holmes movie where Robert Downey Jr. played the main character. I actually fell asleep while watching that movie (though, I was very tired then). This version of Sherlock is something else. More down to Earth maybe. Maybe more British? Definitely more realistic as the setting has been changed to modern day.

The only negative thing I can come up with is that the first season had only three episodes. And the cliffhanger between the seasons just makes me wanna see more! Unfortunately I have to wait some months for the next episodes...

Was the above review useful to you?

16 out of 27 people found the following review useful:

Review/Summary of Sherlock

Author: shawn_ashmore_addict from United States
12 March 2011

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

In this modern rendition of Sherlock Holmes, a stylish Sherlock Holmes, excellently played by Benedict Cumberbatch (Atonement, Amazing Grace), appears much like his description in the novels and stories written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. He's tall, dark, and lanky, a much better fit than the talented, yet not-quite-right Robert Downey, Jr. Cumberbatch definitely includes some of Downey Jr.'s smarminess, but his Holmes, along with the correct look, has an authentic British accent. His comic timing is impeccable, as is Dr. Watson's. Martin Freeman (Love Actually, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) portrays Dr. Watson as the books also describe him, a soldier trying to fit back into civilian life. Freeman captures the soldier perfectly, allowing him to tolerate Holmes in a way that no one else can and yet having him get as annoyed with Holmes, at times, as the rest of the characters.

The contemporary setting of Holmes and Watson's adventures does nothing to hinder the intrigue. In fact, the technology helps tremendously. More than one episode involves cell phones, specifically texting, and Watson keeps a blog rather than a journal. Holmes tracks killers down with lab tests and computers combined with his previous, seemingly endless, knowledge. The towering skyscrapers and rush of traffic places Holmes in a dazzling London, a contrast to the older feel his and Watson's flat gives off, the wallpaper especially exuding a distinctly Victorian feel. The modern-day setting also allows for more gay jokes at Holmes's and Watson's expense, their sexuality often a speculation among fans of Doyle's work.

However many changes there are, the fans of the original work will not be disappointed. The show constantly references the literature, often in small remarks that could be difficult to catch. Sherlock once tells Watson, "I'd be lost without my blogger," a smart reference to a very similar line in the stories in which Holmes refers to Watson as his "Boswell." Also in the stories, Watson has a brother, named H. Watson, who is an alcoholic. Sherlock smartly twists this so that John has an alcoholic sister named Harriet, but called Harry, for short. In the stories, Watson is wounded first in the shoulder, but Sir Arthur Conan Doyle later, mistakenly, changes this to the leg. The show refers to this by creatively giving Watson a psychosomatic limp in one of his legs. He later relays to Sherlock that he was actually shot in the shoulder. In the second episode, "The Blind Banker," Sherlock makes a small mention of a bullet being shot through an open window. In the story "The Adventure of the Empty House," Sherlock deduces that a man is shot through an open window. Professor Moriarty, originally named James, calls himself Jim in the series, a clever update from the text. Thus, the series satisfies new fans, as well as old ones with these inclusions.

All in all, Sherlock remains a successful vision of a modern-day Sherlock Holmes. It illustrates the strong bond between Holmes and Watson as they solve mysteries together while including humor, romance, and a fast-paced London. Holmes's quick deducing keeps the viewers guessing why so many people dislike such a brilliant man. His inhuman genius creates a perfect foil for John's undeniably human qualities. The duo, expertly played by their respective actors, brings Holmes into the 21st century with an elegance rarely seen in adaptations of classic literature.

Was the above review useful to you?

22 out of 39 people found the following review useful:

Camp,clever,tricky as a sack of weasels - meet the new Sherlock Holmes

Author: ianlouisiana from United Kingdom
26 July 2010

*** This review may contain spoilers ***

The sacred texts are dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century in a BBC production so brilliant that it almost makes me regret some of the terrible things I've said about the Corporation in the past. The hansom cab,the 7% solution,the gasogene have been consigned to history at last,the horses' hooves,the shouting newsboys,the London Omnibus no longer provide the soundtrack. The Marylebone Road now echoes with police sirens and "Bradshaw" has been replaced by the internet.Congratulations are due to the writers who had the courage to perform this long overdue procedure. The Ulster and the deerstalker were becoming just a little fusty,I fear. Much like "Bleak House" in 2005 "Sherlock" is slightly afflicted by differential focus and B.C.U.s perhaps best suited to selling expensive motor cars,but it's a small price to pay for 90 minutes top quality television. Mr Cumberbatch's Holmes is as tricky as a bag of weasels and showboats like a circus pony but he's just a little camp,damned clever and not at all prone to the English disease of self - deprecation. It's a bravura performance. As Watson,Mr M.Freeman presents a grand set of facial twitches,tics and moues - to the extent that in many instances he doesn't actually need any dialogue.He is well on the way to becoming one of the most idiosyncratic of the younger generation of British TV actors. A harder task faced Mr R.Graves who had to alter our perceptions of the bone - headed Inspector Lestrade and re - invent him as an intellligent and tolerant man who likes and respects Holmes instead of simply using him as a court of last resort. Writer Mr Mark Gattis plays Mycroft Holmes as a dandy,almost a shade of John Steed with his furled umbrella and apparently casual demeanour. Aptly enough,his Girl Friday bears a resemblance to Emma Peel.I look forward to seeing how their characters develop during the series. I hope the lovely Miss L.Brealey will be given a chance to put herself forward a bit as the lab assistant with a bit of a thing for Holmes but towards whom he is completely indifferent. Odffered as an alternative to the alphabet soup franchise of American cop shows that crowd out our schedules,"Sherlock" is wildly different,ambitious,funny and very entertaining.Surely it must now really be time for "Trebles all round" at the BBc bar?

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:

Sherlock is perfect!

Author: Celso Ferenczi from São Paulo, Brazil
4 January 2014

For me, the best TV series of all time! Conan Doyle's original stories, scripts, actors Benedict Cumberbatch, Martin Freeman and Andrew Scott etc. perfect! Benedict Cumberbatch brings a sideshow, with its excellent memorization, diction and performance. The 1st and 2nd seasons were great! Too bad they are few episodes (only three) per year. I wish there were many episodes per year! The Ep. 3 of Season 2 (The Reichenbach Fall) is the most dramatic charge of TV and film in the last decade! The Season 3 started very well and promises quality, intelligence and suspense, marks the series! Congratulations to the series creators Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat! Congratulations to the BBC for the excellent quality of this TV show!

Was the above review useful to you?

5 out of 6 people found the following review useful:


Author: Grjas from Canada
4 January 2014

If there is a better TV show out there, I have yet to find it.

It's very rare to find a movie that combines great plots, excellent dialogue, superior acting, great cinematography, good music while providing a range of emotions from hilarity to fear. It's even rarer to find it in a TV show that through the first three seasons has lost none of its originality.

To do this at the same time as keeping strong links to the original books is inspirational. Making a 100 year old book series sing in the modern era is quite a feat.

Oh yes and the frequent artistic shots of London have me longing for a return to the city. Season 3 in 3 weeks here. Can't wait.

Was the above review useful to you?

7 out of 10 people found the following review useful:

Season 3 is really boring - a let down.

Author: stbrads-932-485768 from Canada
8 February 2014

Let me begin by saying that I am a huge fan of the show. This reboot of Sherlock was fantastic and captured my attention immediately. However considering how season 2 ended I was a little concerned about the direction season 3 was going to take; unfortunately my concerns were warranted. Put simply Season 3 is really boring, there is way too much unnecessary filler, cinematography is way over done, Sherlock's deductions are way over the top (even for him) portraying him like he's a super computer, even the back story (for the last 2 years) seems silly and un-Sherlock for lack of a real word. The villain has no real presence, and somewhere along the line Sherlock's brother becomes the superior Holmes.

This season seemed forced. It reminds me of the show Lost which was really written for a few seasons max, became way more popular than expected so the writers stretched the story out and wrecked it when they should have let it end. This season of Sherlock begins with an over complicated and ridiculous explanation and its ending leaves season 4 episode 1 destined for the same fate.

Unlike Sherlock, Elementary is getting really good as it progresses. Season 2 is actually turning out to be fantastic (season 1 gets off to a slow start but stick with it). It has the Sherlock that I like i.e one who is amazingly brilliant but who also works hard at it. For example, he is constantly experimenting and practicing new crafts. He is a social outcast because of his quirkiness (not a celebrity).

Was the above review useful to you?

Page 3 of 33: [Prev][1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [Next]

Add another review

Related Links

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