![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackAs always, the character interactions are done extremely well, and are the best thing about the show.
Sherlock's detective vision is done well, though didn't have any moment to especially shine.
My biggest problems are, why would NK benefit from bombing British parliament[1]? I understand there has to be some kind of antagonist, but I think the story works better if there's SOME sort of motivation.
And also that some of the mysteries are done very well: the disappearing tube carriage has a simple obvious explanation that rings true, even if it has weaknesses in[2]. But some mysteries are played as mythology, which Sherlock enacts by magic.
What I find infuriating is not that the shows concentrates on characters, not mysteries. I think that's mostly good. It that it switches randomly between mysteries that have a "correct" answer, even if you only find it out afterwards, and mysteries that are solvable only by magic. That means you can't enjoy EITHER sort.
[1] They picked a bad year to get much sympathy for parliament.
[2] If the driver is in on it, couldn't someone just have got out of the train?
Sherlock's detective vision is done well, though didn't have any moment to especially shine.
My biggest problems are, why would NK benefit from bombing British parliament[1]? I understand there has to be some kind of antagonist, but I think the story works better if there's SOME sort of motivation.
And also that some of the mysteries are done very well: the disappearing tube carriage has a simple obvious explanation that rings true, even if it has weaknesses in[2]. But some mysteries are played as mythology, which Sherlock enacts by magic.
What I find infuriating is not that the shows concentrates on characters, not mysteries. I think that's mostly good. It that it switches randomly between mysteries that have a "correct" answer, even if you only find it out afterwards, and mysteries that are solvable only by magic. That means you can't enjoy EITHER sort.
[1] They picked a bad year to get much sympathy for parliament.
[2] If the driver is in on it, couldn't someone just have got out of the train?
no subject
Date: 2014-01-05 08:26 pm (UTC)For #1, that makes sense. I think I didn't really remember that bit because it seemed contrived in the first place, the show was hell-bent on getting Moriarty and Sherlock into that position SOMEHOW, so I gave up expecting any consistency in the exact contrivance. The whole thing seems like it could have been avoided a lot simpler somehow if they actually wanted to.
#2 Yes, that was perfect.
The thing I like least about it is the scene with them actually in the tube carriage with the bomb
Yeah, ugh. It could have been marvellous if there had been a reason for Sherlock to hide all that from John, but as it was, it just seemed completely gratuitous. I know Sherlock always does this, but (a) it keeps happening that they get into trouble because Sherlock hasn't told John what's going on and (b) he was just nearly human sacrificed earlier in the day, and Sherlock tricks him to make him think he's going to die *again* and (c) it lies to the viewer, by switching back and forth between "movie bomb" and "real bomb".|
I liked the Giant Rat of Sumatra reference :)
Yeah, I didn't notice until I saw a review, but I really did like things like that.