Jonny Lee Millers 'Holmes' goes back to London, by a request from Insp. Hopkins, for the first time since rehab, to help one time colleague Scotland Yard Inspector Lestrade (played by Sean Pertwee).
Lucy Liu's 'Watson' accompanies him.
Lestrade is obsessed with, what's to him, an unsolved murder. He believes he knows who did it, but his career is in jeopardy because of pressure from the suspects father and he is no longer in position to get support from Scotland Yard.
Holmes feels partially responsible for Lestrade's predicament and tries to make amends.
I thought the story was a good one, and the observations and deductions worked well. There were lots of great Sherlockian references and some good characters.
I liked Rhys Ifans as Mycroft better than I thought I would. He pulled off being suave very well, but was under used. And I found his addition to the story unnecessary to the plot, especially in a Canonical sense. I know this episode was about making amends, but I think he could have been used in a better way and I hope he returns in another episode more the way we expect. And the relationship was just a little to strained.
I did find the sexual references unnecessary and uncalled for. I also didn't like the immature relationship between the Holmes brothers, but they at least tried to clear that up towards the end, . . . a little.
Sean Pertwee played Lestrade well, and if you really think about it, not to far from the canonical Lestrade.
I think the way the relationship was between Holmes and Lestrade in this episode brought up some good points for further discussion about the relationship Canonically. I know I don't tend to think about that relationship canonically other than how Watson states it.
I don't really understand the need for the show to go to London. They didn't seem to really take much advantage of that great city. It was however fun to sit and watch and go, 'Hey! Remember going by there?"
I kept pen and paper next to me as I watched and wrote down the Canonical references I caught. And I look forward to reading some other blogs and seeing if I missed any.
Here are the ones I caught.
1. Well, they use Lestrade.
3. Langdale Pike, what better way for a modern gossipmonger to get gossip than by CVC cameras. (Well, maybe hack computers).
4. "Best of a bad bunch" referring to Scotland Yard and Lestrade.
5.Stating the limitations of Lestrade and Scotland yard
6. Making sure Lestrade got the credit in most cases
7. Lestrade often excepting anything as evidence to close a case.
8. Mycroft lacking exercise and ambition
9. Well, 221b of course
10.a reference to seven times being incommoded
11. 5 hidden 'cache's' around the city
12. His bed being undisturbed from staying out on a case all night.
13. Although knowing who did the crime, but not having the evidence to bring them in yet (happened in Hound by the way.)
14. reference to Norwood Builder
15. and of course, Art in the Blood
16. use of single stick, although by Watson this time
17. references to all the things Holmes usually had in 221b, especially chemical experiments.
18. was the plastic gun a reference to unusual weapons like Moran's air gun.
Nineteen. I don't think that's too bad.
I hope I missed a few and others will point them out for me.
I liked the episode but did not think it one of the best.
So, because it's back, and I liked it I am giving it
PS. Since first writing this review I have gone and read the review 'point counter point' on Sherlock Peoria.
And since I am no longer allowed to post comments there, I am adding them here.
Bill Mason's points are excellent and are fairly within 'Playing the Game'. You can tell he is taking the show for all it is worth and having fun with it. He doesn't believe the show is perfect, or necessarily the way he would like to see it. He is taking into account how others may feel about it, and not insulting anyone else.
He is presenting his points in a respectful way, encouraging a debate.
On the other hand, Snarky Tour guide Brad K., is his usual offending self, who must try to debase others to make his point.
I find it kind of interesting that for the last couple of weeks he has taken just about everything written in the Canon and dragged it into the gutter giving the Hound an R or X rating. He finds the BSB's podcast about their Sherlockian sexual fantasies informative, interesting, fresh and new, while finding it offensive for 'Elementary's' Sherlock to have oral sex with Mycroft's girlfriend. And since he brought, once again, 'Sherlock' into an 'Elementary' discussion, he doesn't find 'Sherlock's' rude ways or his showing up to see the Queen in a sheet immature or offensive?
And, to give Brad some credit, he does often have interesting and good points to make, and he is very Canonically knowledgeable, but it is like getting ones hand cut off to get into the cookie jar.
Every time I want to give Brad the benefit of the doubt about him possibly just playing the devils advocate or doing something tongue-in-cheek or to get a rise out of people, he usually goes to far.
But, it is his blog after all, and if I don't like it, I can stop reading it.
You want to read a review worth commenting on, read Bill Mason's ,whether you agree with him or not.
He will at least treat you respectfully.
On the other hand.
Don't waste your time on two faced Snarky Tour guide.