bewellandhappy Reviews

Sherlock: The Sign of Three (2014) Season 3, Episode 2

This episode broke my heart

[2/10 · 23 January 2014]

It is painful for me to review this episode. One distinguished review on IMDb said that Season 3 might be enjoyable for die-hard fans. I agree with everything the reviewer said in her contribution, apart from that. I am as die-hard a fan as you get. And this is exactly why I fell physically ill after watching "The Sign of Three" for a week, before "His Last Vow" revived me.

"The Sign of Three" is a loose collection of the most irrelevant and frankly horrifying sentimentality and revelling in past success imaginable. There is hardly any story, and what the story there is makes "die-hard fans" wonder: are we being mistaken for soap opera viewers? We did not commit to Sherlock and John because they were doing what everybody else was doing, quite the opposite. However, in "The Sign of Three" John and Sherlock engage in most depraved activities possible, such as planning a wedding. A conventional capitalist wedding.

Sentimentality is not character development. We know how Sherlock and John feel about each other - from what they have done for each other through Series 1 and 2. We know how Sherlock feels about Mrs Hudson, Molly, Lestrade, and everyone - again, from what he has done. Going on over and over about the same thing is not script writing, it is a waste of everyone's time. And it is definitely not "Sherlock".

Sherlock: His Last Vow (2014) Season 3, Episode 3

The real Sherlock is back

[8/10 · 23 January 2014]

I don't know what would have happened to me if it were not for this final episode of Sherlock Series 3. After the disastrous Episode 1 and 2 I thought 2014 was off to a pitiful start. However, "His Last Vow", still being weaker than any of the episodes from Series 1 and 2 (with the possible exception of "The Hounds of Baskerville"), brought back all the classic elements of Sherlock, chiefly, using plot lines from the original stories and artfully inserting them into modern life and of course introducing twists and turns.

Sentimentality was reduced to almost minimum (although, again, we do know how Mycroft feels about Sherlock - from how he protects him in "Scandal in Belgravia"), so no real need for "touching" childhood reminiscences.

Otherwise, Sherlock was Sherlock: as Irene Adler said "believing in higher power, which in this case is himself", and also deeply devoted to his friends. John was John: untamed and loving. And all is well with the world. And the great Andrew Scott was still a great actor. I did miss him.

The best part of "His Last Vow" though was connecting with Sherlock fans, who have been incredible through all these years: with their pretend reviews of the then not yet released DVD box sets of Series 3 on amazon, and their overall intelligence and creativity.

Sherlock: The Empty Hearse (2014) Season 3, Episode 1

Too much nodding, too little story

[6/10 · 23 January 2014]

I only gave "The Empty Hearse" 6 stars for the effort and out of respect for the actors, who did the best they could with a very poor script. The episode seemed like endless nodding to Sherlock's fans. The writers spent so much time nodding that they forgot to actually look at the characters and notice what they were doing. And they were not doing much. Sharp concise dialogue of Sherlock Series 1 becomes in "The Empty Hearse" either syrupy squirts of sentimentality or a parody of itself. Since the camera-work was gone out of the series by Season 2, there is no need to mention it here. However, the creators thought it wise to eliminate the iconic music from Sherlock this time as well. In short, whereas in Season 1 and partially 2 Gatiss and Moffat treated the characters as real, complex, multi-faceted people, here they decided to turn them into caricatures of themselves.

Star Trek Into Darkness (2013)

Film of Perfect Hair, or Fake and Lame

[2/10 · 12 September 2013]

Start Trek Into Darkness is fake and lame. What is not lame in the film (such as Uhura's concern for Kirk and Kirk's relationship with his Mentor) is fake, and what is not fake (Khan's character and Spock's love) is lame.

All the energy, youth and joyfulness of the first film are gone. Scotty got the best lines and single-handedly tries to carry the rags of the spirit of the first film over into this one. Chemistry between Spock and Uhura is gone.

What remains? The worst casting decision since Agent Smith played Elrond: Kirk. Creators of the film should have just carried on with the line of the first film, where it was all about Kirk. My five-year daughter said: "What is he doing" as Kirk sat in captain's chair at the end of Star Trek. "He is not the captain!". And, as Spock entered the bridge, she said: "He is". You are not fooling anyone, even toddlers. Kirk is a waste of space. No one is interested in him. Throughout "Into Darkness" the only thought that was on my mind was: "When will the blondie clear from the screen, and where is Khan?" One would think that something is wrong with the script, when people want to see more of the bad guy and less of the "hero".

I watched the extras on the disk. Creators boasted about how they pulled Kirk and Khan by string as they entered Admiral Marcus' ship. Star Trek is not about pulling people by the string. You can pull your children and grandchildren in your garage to amuse yourselves. Shall I remind scriptwriters, producers and director of the film what Star Trek is about - since they've clearly let it slip their minds? It is about boldly going where no one has gone before. Where did you go where no one has gone before?

CGI ship crashing into a CGI San Francisco? Red forests? Is this what you're trying to amaze us with. It's 2013. Two guys jumping off a cliff into the sea? "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" just as one example. Natives chasing explorers through woods? "Raiders of the Lost Arc". And your sequence of capture and imprisonment of Khan is a shot-by-shot replica of the same story with Loki from Avengers Assemble. Not to mention that a see-through cube for a prison seems to be one the most favourite staple of lazy Hollywood screen writers lately.

In extras you said you were worried that we would not accept the new version of Khan. Wake up. We are the generation that was assaulted by Lukas' betrayal. We are the generation that loves Battlestar Galactica. We do not judge films on their being "true" to the source on the shallow level. We can tell a good product from a bad product.

As Scotty got all the best lines, I am going to use one of his and say that it is a film of Perfect hair. Everyone's hair was perfect but that is just about the only thing that worked in this film. And obviously the acting by Zachary Quinto and Benedict Cumberbatch. I just hope that in their future illustrious careers they will never have to be pulled into such a travesty. And I sincerely hope that this was the first and the last monologuing in Cumberbatch's film career. Monologuing! Have you not watched "The Incredibles?"

Iron Man Three (2013)

Jon Favreau, why has thou forsaken us?

[2/10 · 12 September 2013]

R2DJ, as he is called in Honest Trailers, should beware following the path that Johnny Depp had disappeared on not long ago. That path does not end well. It does not even start well. Robert Downey Jr will lose his gift just as Johnny Depp did if he does a couple more of such films (which he already signed contracts for).

Tony Stark says in the film that he will take revenge for Happy. I wholeheartedly second that and demand that Iron Man goes after those who removed Jon Favreau from directing Iron Man. With Jon Favreau all humour, wit, lightness of touch, and operatic dialogues have gone from Iron Man. You can say all you want about Iron Man 2, but it had great acting from RDJr and Sam Rockwell, it was funny and it was full of character and characters.

What we have in Iron Man 3 is a walking corpse of an 80s film with loads of CGI. No, actually... Damsel in Distress? Chained by handcuffs to a metal frame? I take the 80s statement back. This is clearly a confused mummy suffering from a hangover from the 60s.

Elementary (2012–2019)

Sacrilegious to Sherlock Holmes

[1/10 · 27 November 2012]

This series is Okeish as a crime drama, and dreadful as a Holmes adaptation. The actual crime puzzles and the way they are solved in each episode are on the level of Monk or Columbo. Now, don't get me wrong. I love Monk and I take my hat off to the longevity and popularity of Columbo.

However - and that's the key point: Sherlock Holmes is NOT Columbo. Sherlock Holmes is a god, or at the very least a cultural hero, and should be treated as such. Even the abysmal Guy Ritchie's version takes into account the fact that Sherlock Holmes is above mere mortals.

If you want to make a mediocre crime series, just come up with a new forgettable name for your detective. But then of course, no one wants to just make a crime series. Everyone is after money, and there has never been a better time to make some off the name of Holmes.

Sherlock: A Scandal in Belgravia (2012) Season 2, Episode 1

A contemporary classic; one major flaw: cinematography

[10/10 · 3 January 2012]

I loved Sherlock Season One. In fact, I wrote a collection of poems inspired by it. What attracted me was the approach of Steven Moffat and Mark Gattis: human, serious approach. They were interested in the humans. In the first episode of the Second series they still are. There is enough character development going on there (with a possible exception of John Watson, who is presented as Sherlock's guardian angel. But then again - you cannot pack everything in 90 minutes, and there was a new major character - Irene Adler, to introduce).

Acting by everyone is great. Benedict Cumberbatch has improved and is now perfectly understated (A little hint to our Transatlantic cousins)

"A Scandal in Belgravia" is funnier than the first three episodes in its first half, and darker than usual in the second. Much darker. In fact, it felt sometimes that the writers intentionally seek out the most painful points to press on your soul - which is good when it fosters the story, but could also be considered sentimentality and foul play.

Sherlock is still a great series. It deals with the human situation in the 21st century, when the earth is about to end, the economy is crashed, greedy capitalists are busy grabbing the last pots of money, and terrorists are destroying the last of illusions of some sort of good and order. In this situation, what can you rely on? The answer of Sherlock is humane and clear: it is your own moral sense and your friends. Life is fleeting, it can end in any second. All you can do is help others and possibly get help from them.

There is one big BUT: cinematography. For some reason, Steve Lawes is not doing cinematography for this season. And it hurts me to say, this has destroyed the magic. My Mom described the effect very aptly. She is a rower, and she said that in the first three episodes each shot flowed from the other, carrying the story further, as it happens when a boat flies over waters, and each strike of the oars helps it in its flight. However, when cinematography becomes soggy, as it has done in "A Scandal", it feel as if the boat stops after each stroke, and one has to drag it on every time.

Sherlock (2010–2017)

Perfection

[10/10 · 27 February 2011]

In my opinion, there was nothing this good on British television since 'Blackadder' and 'A bit of Fry and Laurie'. 'Sherlock' demonstrates that the spirit of the UK is not completely destroyed by global capitalism. 'Sherlock' is above all about humanity, individuality and taste - the things that 'Wolf' pronounced dead in the distant early 1990s. 'Sherlock' raises spirits and gives hope. And the fact that it is beautifully written, directed, acted, photographed, edited and designed is a nice bonus. Something to watch over and over again. Beautiful work by Mark Gatiss, Steven Moffat, Benedict Cumberbatch, Martin Freeman and the whole team!