Sherlock - Die Braut des Grauens

Meine erste Begegnung mit dem in den Himmel gelobten Cumberbatch-Holmes, und ich werde von deutlich negativen Gefühlen überrollt. Ich weiß nicht, ob ich ein gutes Beispiel gewählt habe, aber auch so nehme ich an, dass ich von den schauspielerischen Kreationen des großen Benedict hätte begeistert sein müssen. Das war ich nicht, denn jegliche seiner wundervollen Leistungen wurde von einem stupiden und verwirrenden Drehbuch zunichte gemacht, und obwohl das Sujet einen atmosphärischen Horror-Detektivfilm andeutete, handelt es sich schließlich um langweiliges, wenig ergiebiges und peinliches Gewäsch. Ich bin geheilt, und es wird wohl sehr lange dauern, ehe ich mir diesen Cumberbatch in der Rolle des Holmes wieder antue. (17.04.2017)

Ein vielversprechendes viktorianisches Spielchen, das auf halber Strecke in ein Festival der Selbstbefriedigung ausartet, dessen Sinn und Inhalt mir entgeht. Diese Serie hat sich etwa in der dritten Staffel von einem erfrischend dynamischen Krimi zu einem nervigen Fanservice voller plumper Versuche von Meta-Meta-Meta-Meta-Witzen entwickelt. Das macht mir keinen Spaß. Das ist ärgerlich. (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)

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)

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)