I’m in love. Love love love. I have no articulate review of the show except that I think the concept is brilliant (a 2010 version with a Sherlock Holmes addicted to text messaging? Dr. Watson keeping a blog instead of a diary? I mean how perfect can you get?).
As you would expect with Holmes, some of his deductions are absolutely absurd, but HE’S absurd so why should an updated telling of his story be any different? I’m also enjoying the angle that Holmes might be gay. I’ve been made aware that this was cause for some controversy this summer when it originally aired on the BBC but I’m all for it. Why not a brilliant, quirky, leading character that everyone has come to love? I can get behind it.
Sadly, there probably aren’t enough episodes to flesh this out. Oh well.
Out of all the outlandish deductions, the only real fact in the show that bothered me is the killer. He has an aneurysm and is killing people because he has nothing to lose. Aneurysms are operable. My mother had an aneurysm blow over 30 years ago and she’s alive and well. I have a cousin who was diagnosed with an aneurysm and she had it operated on before it burst. So while I found the identity of the killer to be a wonderful plot point (especially as someone who blindly jumps into cabs quite often) I was disappointed in the reveal of why he did it. (I suppose he could have it in a place they couldn’t reach but that was left unspoken. Holmes is too smart to just accept if someone has an aneurysm they automatically have to be dying.)
It is such a small nit to pick but because the particular subject is so close to me it stuck out like a sore thumb.
But, really, I couldn’t care less. I’m totally in love with Martin Freeman as Watson and Benedict Cumberbatch as Holmes. Their chemistry is fabulous and I just wanted the show to go on and on and on. I honestly can’t wait to see the next installment next week on PBS.