My reviews are in for Scandal in Belgravia

It took me two times watching it to end up liking it, but not without a lot of reservations.
I have to put part of my dislike down, and this is the case in many newer shows, to the audio.
The sound is not good on many of these productions and one, at least I do, has to listen too closely or rewind and listen again. You can seldom sit and watch and listen through the whole program.
Especially with fast paced dialog like in Sherlock, where missing just a couple of key words can throw of a story line. Add to that my bad ears and, . . . . well it can be a mess.

I wish I were a better word-smith, but I hope I get my point across.

First my dislikes;

I am not enjoying the antagonistic relationship between the brothers Holmes. Especially with such good actors in the parts. We know from the Canon that that was not the case. The amount of humor that Sherlock is showing goes against the rest of the image they are trying to present.

I am not enjoying the fact that you can not savor the little mention of clues or other cases in the program. We are spastically taken too quickly through those things. I suspect this is to imply the why Sherlock is thinking.

I think the maniacal nature of Moriarty is going a little to overboard.

I saw no need for the no pants part of the script, especially at the palace, because, again in the Canon, Holmes respects the queen.

Irene Adler just wasn't right. Another shock value thing I believe. It falls into the category of, 'lets see if we can tarnish in some way things others really like.'
Ok, I'm going add this quote here because it says it better than I can; Jane Clare Jones, a doctoral student of feminist ethics writing in her blog on The Guardian's website, criticised episode writer Steven Moffat's representation of Irene Adler, arguing that her sexualisation was a regressive step. She writes, "While Conan Doyle's original is hardly an exemplar of gender evolution, you've got to worry when a woman comes off worse in 2012 than in 1891."^[26] Jones argues that while Conan Doyle's Adler was a "proto-feminist", Moffat undermined "her acumen and agency ... Not-so-subtly channelling the spirit of the predatory femme fatal [sic], Adler's power became, in Moffat's hands, less a matter of brains, and more a matter of knowing 'what men like' and how to give it to them ... Her masterminding of a cunning criminal plan was, it was revealed late in the day, not her own doing, but dependent on the advice of Holmes's arch nemesis, James Moriarty."^[26]


Guy Ritchie is doing it big time, the shock thing.
And it may actually work better for Guy Ritchie because he has completely changed the face of Holmes, where we all look past Downey as being Holmes and just look at him more as a Victorian action hero.
In Sherlock we are expected to see Sherlock Holmes, just in a more modern light.
We are suppose to believe it is being faithful to the Canon, and in many ways it does. But then, for shock, they jump to far away.
Irene, Mycroft and Moriarty are perfect examples.

Continually throwing the gay thing out there falls into that category also. You've said what you want us to think, be done with it. It doesn't matter which way you believe him, them, to be. Stated once then move on.

Again for shock value, the reference to a young princess in the photos.

I was really enjoying the ending, where Holmes out does Irene. The explanations during that last scene with Holmes, Holmes, Adler and Watson was great, the tit-for-tat.
And I didn't mind, to much, Mycroft delivering the news about Irene (which I don't really see the need of having in the first place) to Watson.
But way over the top the scene with Holmes and the sword. Just wasn't needed.
No explanation was needed of what happened to Irene.
If the storytellers wanted to bring her back later, fine, but they didn't need a rescue by Holmes. To much action/super hero stuff.

And, lets see; Didn't Guy Ritchie have Irene working for Moriarty?

In the Canon you can find something good in Irene, but that can not be said here.

I think I will add more later of what I didn't like, but for now, lets move on.

Likes;

The friendship between Holmes and Watson, of course.

Lestrade.

Mrs. Hudson.

I ended up liking the actress Lara Pulver. I think she did a great job, I just didn't like the Irene she had to play.

I did enjoy the last exchange of solutions.

I did find the human emotions Holmes shows toward the doctor at the Christmas party, and to Mrs. Hudson and Watson throughout the tale very refreshing.

I did end up enjoying the episode, but it did leave me with reservation about the rest of the series. But I will watch them. After all, it is Sherlock Holmes.

credit where credit is due.

And a little more on Josh Adams