I have no problems with a show based loosely upon Conan Doyle's great detective, but this show, from the outset, has chosen to show *the* Holmes, re-set to today's world, albeit with the obvious difference that the fictional detective was never created (one assumes ... or people in this world are strangely taciturn on the matter).
So, within this set-up, Sherlock needs to be the modern-day Sherlock Holmes, and for the most part the earlier series stuck to that remit. We had updated, yet still recognisable, Holmes stories, with a believable detective and comrade. This however, isn't what we've seen recently. We now have some inconsistent, dimwitted everyday man, with baffling legal connections, and confusing mind slips.
The 'plot' such as it was, took too long to be introduced, flitted around, then climaxed in disappointment. There was no wit, no flair, and no enjoyment. The issue here is that the BBC seem so pleased with the commercial success that they've lost control of Moffat's creation. Or they've forced out an extra series when the storylines weren't ready, just to fill the schedule and keep the pounds rolling in. It's no coincidence that many series start to suffer when writer/director start to take on producing roles - when there's no balancing voice stepping back and saying "hey, are you sure this is good enough?" I find it hard to believe that a producer would have let this rubbish be created had the commercial aspect not been already guaranteed by previous success.
Some of the more crass parts of the storyline (if we'll gloss over the excruciating early minutes that were clearly filler to hit the 90 minute mark)
The Murderer. Operating from some sense of righteous vengeance after the death of army personnel, seeks to kill the commanding officer who is held accountable. Yet, as part of his plan he "rehearses" the murder on an innocent guard? If he's out for revenge, how can his sense of justice let him murder an innocent, just to ensure his own safety? This makes no sense. Was the guard culpable as well? Did we find this out, and I snoozed through it (possibly)
The Guard's (attempted) Murder. On finding the soldier bleeding to death in the shower, the soldier heads for the commanding officer declaring the soldier dead? He doesn't seek medical attention from the army's own doctor? Call an ambulance? No - he acts in a completely unbelievable manner, and with remarkable timing runs in to Watson, who is present at the exact moment of the guard's death. And then Watson calls Sherlock 'nurse' - yes, at the moment you're trying to save someone's life, it's important to make a little side joke about your relative positions at this moment. Quite apart from Sherlock's now apparent lack of knowledge about the human body, even though it's been demonstrated on several occasions that Sherlock has detailed knowledge of human anatomy
Obvious Clues. Leaving aside the fact the Sherlock then drops this murder puzzle for no apparent reason ("too tough; can't solve it" ... which is odd given that he was recounting this tale at the wedding, from a blog post Watson had written - we saw the web page - but apparently none of the guests are big fans of Watson's blog as evidently none had heard of either of the cases Holmes related) so leaving that aside, then the two items (Watson's middle name; that Watson would be attending a wedding) which reveal the killer connection were very, very obvious. To me at the time of watching; yet not to Sherlock when they happened? Conan Doyle made Holmes a brilliant detective - beyond what any man could hope to achieve. Yet suddenly this detective is missing such obvious clues? When did he become a dunderhead? It's established in flashback that Sherlock has searched for weeks/months for Watson's middle-name, so he'd be especially attuned to hearing that very middle name from someone else, and yet he completely misses it. Huh?
Photographer. The whole section of un-masking the photographer as the killer was illogical. Why bother looking through the man's photographs? They had no bearing on anything, other than to add (undramatic) pause. Surely we'd all figured out it was the photographer by that time? And why did it need to be the photographer? Because "no-one notices them, and they can slip in a needle to the wedding in their photography case"? But, the intended victim had brought a handgun with him ... surely that's more of a weapon than the murderer had? And a sword maybe? This wasn't a high security event. Nobody was strip-searched at the door, or had their suitcases examined. The murderer could just have easily have walked in off the street; been already at the hotel; been a waiter; any number of less elaborate pretexts would have been sufficient. Sherlock's whole speech about the advantages leant by being a photographer were spurious. Anyone present had the means and opportunity. Just poison him next time you dolt, ring reception and ask for the room number, catch him on the way to or from the wedding, ... endless other options.
The Murder method. Well, it was kind of silly. Wouldn't such a small puncture wound heal in a few hours? Would blood gush out of such a small hole? Wouldn't you know you'd been stabbed?
Pass Key. Seriously, if someone is in a hotel room in mortal danger, ask reception to open the door. It saves having to kick it in, or negotiate with a potential suicide.
Stag night. Watson has no friends but Sherlock. And fortunately London bars are pretty lax on letting you walk into their bars with large glass beakers. Yes - you can do that in any bar in London. Walk in and walk out with glass. No problem.
And a few others (there are many more) ...
- pointless opening scenes to show that Lestrade trusts Sherlock too much. Sledge-hammer plot point. No nuance.
- Sherlock not understanding he was being asked to be best man. An obvious and unfunny joke, at odds with the actual character.
- Sherlock prepping wedding guests to be nice. Holmes wouldn't have an interest in such frippery; it was inconsistent with both previous Sherlock episodes, and with the Holmes character.
- Sherlock being sentimental to the point of nausea; no-one saying "hang on a sec pal, this is about the happy couple, not you" (the tedious wedding speech where Mary wasn't even mentioned, other than as an adjunct to Watson)
Almost the only moments of merit came from Freeman's Watson, who seemed to be acting in an altogether different, and better, television programme. Maybe in that other programme, Mary would exist for some reason other than as an excuse to set a story at a wedding. If you're going to introduce a new character, actually give her something to do. Seriously underused.
Someone needs to take Moffat et al aside and say, "come on chaps, we know you're very successful right now, but you have to try a little harder. Cumberbatch swishing a coat might thrill the same people who scream at One Direction, but you ought to be aiming a little higher than that." This is Holmes dammit ... if you want to make just any old programme, then choose a different central character.
