Sherlock

:

Season 1
Season #: 4, 3, 2, 1
User Score
9.1

Universal acclaim- based on 1333 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 1,270 out of 1333
  2. Mixed: 27 out of 1333
  3. Negative: 36 out of 1333
Watch Now

Where To Watch

Buy on

Review this tv show

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling

User Reviews

view
per page
  1. EludiumQ36
    Nov 30, 2017
    4
    Intriguing concept, poorly executed. Holmes himself would be bored. If you're going to do a 90-minute series then you'd better have a good plan for its pacing, and no, they did not. The first ep was decent enough I suppose, didn't seem like too much of a slog, but eps 2 and 3, ugh. This is the stuff sedatives are made of. I'm even going to pick at the casting a bit, Cumber' as Holmes isIntriguing concept, poorly executed. Holmes himself would be bored. If you're going to do a 90-minute series then you'd better have a good plan for its pacing, and no, they did not. The first ep was decent enough I suppose, didn't seem like too much of a slog, but eps 2 and 3, ugh. This is the stuff sedatives are made of. I'm even going to pick at the casting a bit, Cumber' as Holmes is almost brilliant casting. Freeman as Holmes, not so much, actually kind of poor. The Holmes character as a "Dr House"-like self-described sociopath and smartest-man-in-the-room is only mildly interesting, because well "House" has been done already. They do show a few times where Holmes' arrives at the wrong conclusion but they're trivial mistakes. It'd be much more humbling were he to make larger mistakes that questioned his confidence. That would make things much more interesting as he struggled with some real internal conflict in trying to restore his confidence to solve a case, but that's just me apparently.… Expand
  2. Steve7
    Dec 9, 2012
    5
    Great cast and an imaginative concept. Poor character development and annoyingly muddled plots. The result entertaining but annoying because it could have been so much better with a more well written script.
  3. Rhey
    Mar 6, 2012
    6
    Sherlock, it's enough pertinent to the Doyle's novels, BUT the character is very boring because is something already seen.
    This show is terribly old, because Sherlock Holmes was already in every "detective show".

    Monk? Psych? Even Poirot or Doctor House, they were already a Sherlock Holmes before this "Sherlock" came. I'm sorry but - mediocre.
  4. martinex
    Aug 24, 2010
    6
    I found it a bit pretentious. We all know Sherlock Holmes is a brilliant man. When did he become such an overbearing egomaniac? Give me Basil Rathbone any day.
  5. lightningbarer
    Dec 11, 2012
    6
    This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. Sherlock is perhaps one of the better conceived BBC shows that have come out in the last decade, unfortunately for the show, it doesn't live up to the idea.
    I've got no problems with Steven Moffat, he's a great writer and producer, but I just can't get into the feel of the show, it's got nothing to do with the shorter series time-in fact, I prefer series that are shorter, IMO it makes the story better-but there's something about the show that I couldn't initially put my finger on.
    With the 'Holmesian' explosion in the media of late, there's been a lot of takes on Holmes and while some would prefer the more traditional appeal of Sherlock from the books, the edgy feel of characters being 'darker' has been an easy one to lean on lately-and at first I thought that was the problem with Sherlock, but having a somewhat cold and unemotional Sherlock would fit if you transplanted the character to the 21st century.
    For me, the feel of the show went really wrong when in the first episode of season 1- Phil Davis' character screamed the name of the 'Big Bad' in the series so far, Moriarty. I really dislike entering the most well known bad guy in the Holmes story so very early, for me it's sloppy and easy writing, I would prefer using characters and bad guys from the Holmes universe that are perhaps less well known than Moriarty, it could have given the show more scope. i.e.: The Red Headed League, Milverton or 'Holy' Peter would work just as well.
    And on the topic of Professor James, I really disliked the character of James 'Jim' Moriarty, it's no slant against Andrew Scott-he's wonderful. It's just, I prefer the more subtle feel of Moriarty-the best performance of that in recent years in Jared Harris in the film A Game of Shadows, for me it's more interesting that a man of genius level intellect can sit facing someone else and merely smile, have a cup of tea and talk pleasantly while they both play a game of mental chess to figure a way of defeating the other. The Modern take on Moriarty seems to lean too much on a John Simm 'The Master' of Dr Who for a genius 'Napoleon of Crime'.
    With Season 3 looming on the horizon, I'm hoping for a more powerful, possibly more interesting story than what's been shown so far.    … Expand
  6. MeritCoba
    Apr 27, 2016
    5
    Being nasty is the new cool and we have progressed from the quirky to the downright abusive because being successful gives you a free pass at insulting people, especially when you are backed up by authority in the person of inspector Lestrade. Cumberbatch is the attraction but his Sherlock isn't the Sherlock from Rathbone: it has been rebooted to the here and now and updated socially fromBeing nasty is the new cool and we have progressed from the quirky to the downright abusive because being successful gives you a free pass at insulting people, especially when you are backed up by authority in the person of inspector Lestrade. Cumberbatch is the attraction but his Sherlock isn't the Sherlock from Rathbone: it has been rebooted to the here and now and updated socially from such restrictive times when men wore top hats to lift them as to greet ladies because the latter were. Instead the lady is a tramp calling Sherlock freak whenever she adresses him and Sherlock is sure to show his derision for her and the other 99.9 percent of world because they have a lower IQ than him.
    Martin Freeman plays a somewhat unbelievable sidekick Watson who must be a war veteran with mental issues and is mostly memorable for looking out of his depth whenever Sherlock whirls off the screen. The biggest issue with the show is that turning Holmes into a social unfit is at odds with his ability to make peope cooperate with him. It wasn't just being brilliant deductive that made him a great dectective, but his ability to have his deductions supported by knowledge that people supplied him with. I recall this from real life. Once a man was described to me as a somone who might be right, but even rubbed people who agreed with him the wrong way with the result that a man who had it right got it wrong anyway.    … Expand
  7. All_ButTrU4
    Jan 3, 2022
    6
    Minimally intresting but dampened by how it's shot or it's pacing. Despite the casts acting chop the script is weak and barely enjoyable.

Awards & Rankings

10
#10 Best TV Season of 2010
2
#2 Most Discussed TV Season of 2010
3
#3 Most Shared TV Season of 2010

Critic Reviews

All reviews »
Metascore
85

Universal acclaim - based on 17 Critic Reviews

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 17 out of 17
  2. Mixed: 0 out of 17
  3. Negative: 0 out of 17
  1. Variety
    Reviewed by: Brian Lowry
    Dec 8, 2010
    80
    Clearly, there are few more durable figures in fiction, but capturing the fundamental appeal of Holmes is quite another matter. And on that level, Sherlock cannily cracks the case.
    Read full review
  2. Hitfix
    Reviewed by: Alan Sepinwall
    Oct 24, 2010
    80
    Thanks to committed performances from Cumberbatch and Freeman, and clever writing from Moffat and Gatiss, most of it works splendidly.
    Read full review
  3. Los Angeles Times
    Reviewed by: Robert Lloyd
    Oct 24, 2010
    80
    It is cinematic in the sense that nothing in it looks quite real. But it works: This is not the London known as jolly and old, but the new chilly city of glass, a place of missed connections, of aliens and alienation. And the smart dialogue and warm performances--even Holmes has a discernible beating heart, or perhaps two--keep ice from forming on the production.
    Read full review
See all critic reviews »