No big deal, but certain parallels are apparent with the (also excellent) Guy Ritchie films, notably the Third Man-ish music and the hyper-aware, predictive strategies of how to deal with an adversary.

And Gatiss is wonderful as *here be spoilers*:

*tforcym*

Bailed about 50 minutes in. For me the flashy delivery didn't make up for the lack of story. My loss.

Loved it. Entertaining nonsense and very well acted and made. Perfect stuff for a Sunday night.

[Plot spoilers coming up]

The dead hiker was pure Jonathan Creek; I could have done without such a clear-cut ending, but I suppose you can't kill off what may become popular repeating characters; I kicked myself for not getting the mobile phone combination before Sherlock did; there were a few too many plotlines intertwined; and overall I absolutely loved it. Bobbins to Downton Abbey, this is all that great Sunday evening television should be.

of these most recent incarnations.

Slick. Moved much too fast in places. But I was quite captivated for the duration and thrilled by the twists right up to the credits.

A fine piece of television entertainment. *Spoiler* The 'plane of the dead' I thought an astonishingly macabre and brilliant idea.

Enjoyed it, although I found myself admiring it rather than loving it, if that makes any sense. Beautifully done. Absolutely love the way they integrate the text & graphics throughout the show; usually that sort of trickery irritates the hell out of me.

There aren't many downsides to living in Australia, but the television is utterly abysmal.

So, through fair means and foul, I'd like to catch up on as much of the special Christmas UK TV as possible. Downton, Gruffalo and Sherlock are all in the bag - anything else anyone would recommend?

Episode one was terrific but two was awful. Obvious villain, clunky 'pesky kids' plot, a monster that turns out not to be scary after all and the obligatory unmasking at the end. It even had Scoobalike Russell Tovey gurning his way through it.

One of the clues couldn't have been more ineptly planted if the whole cast had turned to the camera and winked. And we were asked to believe that the greatest detective mind couldn't work out what everyone at home knew after half an hour. It also completely missed the point of the cryptic HOUND teaser, which is that the audience should have at least an outside chance of working it out for themselves (see last week's phone password).

Steven Moffatt gives his mate Gattis too much leeway. Not content with writing the desperate 'Spitfires in Space' Dr Who episode, and camping-up the Daleks so disastrously that they've been in hiding ever since, he's now committed this act of Hanna-Barbarism on the best-known Holmes tale. Yikes.

is Sherlock's temperament.

I don't like the way they've made the new one so utterly rude and abrasive; someone in a StraightDope thread said it makes him somewhat like House - but SFWIC quite likes it (I'm more the purist than she is - then again, when we went to see Lord Of The Rings:The Two Towers, she hollered long and loud about the Ring going to Gondor, which bothered me not).

Jeremy Brett had the mood down pat - and any Down Under viewers are alerted to the ABC showing the Brett version on Thursday at 12.30pm (hopefully as a series of repeats and not a one-off)

It's got far too cartoonish, and Sherlock is verging on the irritating now. Whereas it was all so refreshing last time it's now got purely silly.

And what was going on with Russell Tovey's voice?

it ain't Holmes.

I agree that they've made him into a House-style detective, rather than embracing the warm friendship that Holmes and Watson have in, for example, the Brett adaptation. Holmes is too rude and unlikeable.

That said, I've enjoyed the new take a lot as entertainment, but last night's wasn't too good.

I like the Brett version best, I think that series was a slice of television perfection. But I quite like this.

I'm waiting for Sheldon from Big Bang Theory to be Holmes though. Not the actor, Sheldon himself!

was weaker. Still enjoyable but it felt a little bit like a Dr Who spin off (all the science and lab stuff) crossed with a Scooby Doo.

A badly telegraphed plot, too much histrionics and a ham-fisted handling of the usually nuanced wit and cerebral flourishes. Holmes' deductive musings felt forced and overly mannered. I accept he is a larger than life character but last night it was too much like caricature. The relentless and impatient pacing of the editing was poorly judged as well. The thrill of roller-coasters is generated as much in the anticipation as in the hurtling around the track.

Last night's ridiculous Baskerville was a basket case. A Holmes you'd like to headbutt, a Watson who ought to bloody well do it for you, but doesn't, plot holes through which you could drive a coach and four, and a manic pace that leaves no room for puzzlement or contemplation of the plot's unfolding. Which it doesn't anyway, it just screams at you. By a long chalk the worst desecration of Doyle's legacy upon which I've ever wasted eyeball time.

I caught the opening episode of the first series and thought it worth a revisit at some point; I've recorded it to disk ever since. Last night I watched it as it was broadcast for the first time since the initial episode. I then cancelled the series record, and freed up a whole chunk of disc space by deleting everythig I'd saved to date. I shan't be watching or recording anymore.

Last week's episode was everything I had hoped the first series would; this week's was poorly convieved.

1. I like it.

2. Ep 2 not a patch on Ep 1 but still good family viewing here, with a few jumpy moments.

3. Fell foul of a major problem for all big-money TV detective progs. When the chap from Casualty/Vicar of Dibley appeared, we just knew he had to have something to do with it.

I agree last nights episode wasnt nearly so good and felt much more like a boring dr who episode - sherlock just became tom baker. last weeks one was great though.

Stating the obvious here but they need to keep in mind what the key elements are and try and make sure they dont leave them out in their enthusiasm for new ways of reinventng an old plot.

This episode was trying to be too clever for me and didnt really work: theres a suspension of disbelief from the audience that sherlock is technically in modern day london, but he's really out of time. some plots can work in parallel in both realities, one about a research institute was drearily and prosaically modern and for me broke that magic balancing act theyd so far maintained.

There was a good pun on the canine subject matter where Watson spots a light on the moors only to find its a group of drivers partaking in a bit of dogging.

I wonder if some of the people I've read / spoken to about this second series are more twitchy than before because it's explicitly tackling the more familiar stories. So, people feel more protective and get more pissed off with all the mucking about.

I felt the tone set by series 1 established that the Moffatt/Gatiss version was basically going to do whatever the hell it liked with any story or combination of stories. I don't mind that at all. I don't even mind plot holes or speed-of-light deduction show-offery that much; unlike Golden Age whodunnit crime, where we can try to solve the puzzle, Holmes (uniquely?) works because he astounds the reader with some arcane piece of knowledge they can't possibly share.

I think the Brett version frees any subsequent dramatisation of trying to be 'definitive' - JB inhabited the role like Suchet does Poirot, a complete 'realisation' of an impossible character.

Instead, these are modern thrillers with the added bonus of 're-vamping' great characters in an inventive style and setting.

[SPOILER ALERT] Many of the nods to Conan Doyle are icing on the cake, simply there for those who notice them - for example, the survival intact of the line 'footsteps of a gigantic hound', only for the new Holmes to think it an archaic choice of word; or the fact that the villain was identified using an old picture, as in the original.]

I freely admit I'm not 'Mr Critical Faculties' - clearly, I sit down intending to enjoy a show like Sherlock, and subsequently, I do. But I reckon there's lots of life in this yet - it's creative, well-acted and exciting. Can't wait for next week!

by it's own high standards but was still well worth watching and streets ahead of most of what's on TV at the moment.

I love the new and fresh characterisation of Holmes and liked the way they tempered it: Watson is his one and only friend, did he or didn't he make a mistake he'll admit to?

For me, the weak point remains the Watson character. It seems a bit under-written and ill-defined, and Martin Freeman doesn't suit it.

Even though I was thoroughly entertained by the whole thing.

One of the guys from 'Absolutely' was in it. Stonybridge!

*SPOILER* Why O why did the bad guy see fit to wear a t-shirt with a logo advertising a secret covert operation while perpetrating a crime?

What's that you say? It was in the script? Oh, as you were then.

of an unimproveable original.

I mean, where are the Nazis?!

Actually, I really like the new stuff.

I am no expert on acting or on film/TV, but I do think that Martin Freeman is a pretty poor actor. His non-verbal communication, especially his facial expressions, is so pronounced and obvious that it seems very amateur to me.

as they are not trying to faithfully recreate the Conan Doyle books. It should be judged on its own merits. The old series are there for everyone to see when they want, this doesn't replace them or even attempt to

The weak link in an otherwise superb episode was Tovey. How does the big eared boy keep getting work? He does the same wide eyed, breathless, astonished acting in everything. next to decent actors like Cumberbatch he was shown up as the non trick pony he is.

The fast pace is part of modern US\UK TV drama. its been like that for a good 15 years, get used to it. Still has great moments of stillness and tension but TV audiences are able to receive and digest information a lot faster and more skilfully than they used to. Euro drama like The Killing still does the slow burn however.

Liked the fog explanation, liked the nods to the original, the humour, the slight ridiculousness of it all. Watson feels about as military as Captain Caveman but Edward Hardwicke was as stern as Paddington Bear too.

Just enjoy it for what it is or dig out your box sets. the complete Brett is ridiculously cheap on DVD.

this is the only program that the FPO and I watch together.
I am not a fan of British dramas but I love inventiveness and this has it in spades.
Still can't work anything out before the end and I never have been able to with these sorts of things.
However, I did pick up on his use of 'cellphone' but I thought it was a cheap way to interest the American market.
And no-one has mentioned Sherlock being called Spock, which is rather precient..

but he's essentially just 'being Martin Freeman' in this, isn't he? Wonder who he may have learned that from ;-)

Have to say I thought Jude Law is a vastly better Watson. Cumberbatch and Downey Jr. are equally good as Holmes imho, though their characterisations are about as different as it's possible to imagine.

This is an interesting article which explains that the Jude Law characterisation is actually a return to the original source rather than the bold departure some have seen it as.

Jim Moriarty (as listed) will have an associate called Grytpype-Thynne?

*spoilers* Watson says "He's fallen in the water!"

You rotten swines, you

"Mark Gatiss, an elegant, kind and charming man " - no idea of his personal qualities (no reason to disagree of course) but I think he's a wonderful character actor and genuinely carries some weight - and understands why you need to as well. Very impressed indeed with him.

featuring the Edwardian private detective Lucifer Box - the Vesuvius Club \Devil In amber etc are very good to.

Plus I saw him dining in London's finest curry house, Zafrani's on Cross Street in Islington so he is a man of exquisite taste.

Superb!

Cumberpatch and Gatiss as Ralf und Florian repectively.

Whaddaya think?

The Sound of the Baskervilles?

That's more like it. I thoroughly enjoyed that episode. Can't wait to see what happens next. However, i don't think we'll get to know for a very, very long time.

than the "Sherlock" movie that Mrs. F and I saw on Saturday night. I (largely) take back my previous comments about Martin Freeman, who was excellent, and look forward to how they'll explain this one.

Mind you, whose to say Moriarty is dead? Did anyone check his body? Who even knew it was up on the roof or took it away?

Andrew Scott as Moriarty. I thought this was a brilliant piece of casting and acting. His general mischievousness just made his occasional outbursts of rage all the more terrifying. Jared Harris is also excellent in the latest filmed version but his performance is much more what you would expect. Scott brought something truly fresh to the role.

... do you think it's meant to remind you of the HBO logo?