Sherlock: The Abominable Bride

Malgré les louanges qui lui sont adressées, le Sherlock Holmes de Cumberbatch, que je découvre, suscite en moi des sentiments négatifs prononcés. Je n’ai peut-être pas choisi un bon cru, mais même dans ce cas, je suis censé être époustouflé par les créations du grand Benedict, non ? Eh bien, il n’en est rien. C’est que, quelle que soit la qualité de son jeu, sa prestation est systématiquement détruite par le scénario qui est totalement stupide et embrouillé. Et bien que le sujet appelle un film policier d’horreur atmosphérique, le résultat est un radotage ennuyeux, indigeste et pathétique. Après cette douche froide, il me faudra probablement longtemps avant que je ne tente à nouveau un Sherlock Holmes à la sauce Cumberbatch. (17/04/2017)

Moffat and Gattis grind the hyperbole and the viewing world goes corkscrew. It's pure cocaine entertainment, a prelude between series that neither resolves nor advances anything. A separate plaything and a beta version of the cult of self that gets berated so much only because big things were expected. After the self-parodying third season, I find the level of viewer incomprehension laughable. Anyway, I'm not opposed to version 4.0 at all. Even if Moriarty should eventually be his own twin, a clone, or a resurrected ghost from a dream. (03/01/2016)

A proof that the modern Sherlock works so well not because it is incorporated into the form of the modern setting, but thanks to the cast, chemistry between them, style, atmosphere, clever work with the original and exaggeration. Unfortunately, it also proves that Moffat and Gatiss, despite all their (often superfluous, but also not always) recombination and repetitiveness (for both Sherlock and Doctor Who) are transparent much sooner (really; too early, this time it can be seen on both levels in minutes) than it would be appropriate and I bet it was not intentional. As a result, they often ripple water rather than move the plot or characters forward. As a result, it is a special movie whose weak point is that it needs to work on its own (it succeeds in the first half of the comedy in this respect, unfortunately only in the first part), and at the same time it should at least partially follow the previous three seasons (if you close your eyes it does the job) and at the same time it shall not to move the plot forward, in case someone did not watch it and after finishing the third season wanted directly to watch the fourth season. (02/01/2016)

A promising Victorian plaything that degenerates halfway through into a festival of self-referential self-propagation, the point and substance of which escapes me. This series went from a refreshingly dynamic detective story to annoying fan service full of heavy-handed attempts at meta meta meta meta jokes somewhere around season three. I did not enjoy it and it’s quite annoying. (03/01/2016)

First of all, I would like to thank the Czech TV that it allowed me to see this episode of Sherlock in such a short interval since its premiere. Hats off. Watching it one day after the premiere on BBC is a luxury that is usually offered only by a bunch of servers on an oil platform somewhere in the Arctic Ocean. As for the episode itself? Even though it was mostly happening in the 19th century, I really liked it. It is apparent that Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman as Sherlock and Watson are good in any weather and any time, because even though the story was at times overly complicated, it was still nice to watch. Even better as I realized its complicatedness only towards the ending. At that moment, the absurdity was passable. Until then I didn’t realize I was watching something absurd, combining the past and the present. I rather perceived it as a proper historical detective story. I think this bonus for the audience fulfilled its mission. (03/01/2016)