Sherlock - I gave it a good dollop of my time, and as a lifelong admirer of the Conan-Doyle originalsl I consider that I'm well placed to judge the latest interpretation. Firstly, I do so relish C-D's haunting and finely-penned evocations of Victorian England, class-ridden, foggy, gas-lit, horse-drawn and well-laced with a bit of the then-innocent drug-taking, foaming tankards, comfortable leather arm-chairs, reeking tobacco, scratchy violin, arrogance, horse whips, Mrs Hudson and large helpings of British superiority. Furthermore, the interesting yet vaguely- defined nature of the relationship between H and W added a special dimension to the already fascinating forensic and often violent nature of the crime-busting.
So how did I think the latest offering fared? Well, sadly, I think Sherlock was a confusing, pretentious load of cliche-ridden codswallop trading heavily on the laurels of its distinguished origins. The plots were far-fetched and unlikely, the use of gimmickry was rampant and overblown, Holmes appeared to have been cloned with a second-rate failed Dr Who, and Watson was a graduate of the 'startled-rabbit-in-in-the-headlights' school of medical mediocrity. Best chararacterisation was the villain Rasmussen, who licked 'em all, and the slimy, superior, almost equally loathsome Mycroft.
I think there were far too many similarities with Spooks, New Tricks, Morse and Silent Witness etc., together with some ludicrous Sergeant Bilko moments, including parodies of Pfc Doberman and Colonel Hall. But all credit to them for trying. It is very difficult to reproduce the work of a genius. But keep on trying, you can only get better!
